(1)Note that a satiation point in the relationship between income and well-being refers to a critical level of income beyond which income no longer impacts well-being. Stevenson and Wolfers (2013) find no evidence of the existence of such a satiation point.

What you wrote, “Some studies strongly rebut that individuals with higher earnings are happier than others, and that income does not dictate the happiness of individuals (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2013),” is a bit confusing and seems to claim the opposite.

(2) I think you should explain what the Easterlin paradox is (include a reference of his original paper), then discuss the evidence in favor of satiation, e.g., Proto and Rustichini (2013) and the evidence against satiation, e.g., Stevenson and Wolfers (2013).

(3) In the conclusion you may add a couple of sentences on the relevance of happiness/life satisfaction in policy.

(4). Try to improve your style. For example, rephrase:

“Happy people and the unhappy ones, the outcomes of their accomplishments are always different.”

“When asked about how income affects a person’s happiness, though it might seem easy to answer that highly paid individuals are happier than those with low income.”

“Some studies suggest that in inferior countries, the link between life contentment and income I significant in deprived nations compared to more wealthy countries.”

“undesirable correlation”