rate, or so sayeth a number of credible economists (I don't consider Heritage and AEI guys the least bit credible and they tend to be the only ones who even try to argue that tax cuts in the current environment lead to increased revenue). I don't necessarily think revenue-optimal means best public policy but it's at least a starting point to conversation. And setting the top bracket that high would mean you're taking a lot more from a handful of people who are rich AF regardless. I'd rather do that than cut programs that help poor, working, and middle class kids.

That's just the public policy side. Simply sticking to to people who make over $10 mill a year would not likely lead to much more revenue, but I assume you would have some higher brackets between 500K and 10 million too that are not as high as 70% but significantly higher than they are now and that certainly would.

Anyways, it's certainly an efficient way to achieve higher revenues without damaging the economy and the Trumpleton income tax cuts were an abomination that should not stand. I say that as one who benefits from them.

But I also think folks like AOC who are more extreme left than I am by far don't like income and wealth inequality and see it as a major source of social injustice and inequality, and do favor some "redistributive" measures that puts us more in line with the rest of the developed world in that regard. I think there is a "fuck those rich guys" mentality in much of the far left and a desire to prevent America from having an elite ruling wealth class. That's not necessarily a terrible idea, although there is a ton of nuance that is left out of your average political soundbyte discussions.