"Ultra-Rich" and "Could" are going to have to be refined as ideas; bearing in mind that a) the proportion of GDP which goes to taxes has not changed in any grea

"Ultra-Rich" and "Could" are going to have to be refined as ideas; bearing in mind that a) the proportion of GDP which goes to taxes has not changed in any great measure for a very long time, including since the top marginal tax rates were already that high (though the bracket was... pretty high, and other factors reduced its purpose), and b) the U.S. already has the most progressive income taxes in the developed world as far as I can tell. I know it's fashionable these days to play on people's resentment for "the rich" (however that is conveniently defined at the time), but this is budgetary advice from somebody who didn't think far enough ahead to budget her first month of rent in DC (or find a roommate), and who once said that the reason unemployment is low is that "everyone is working two jobs". If you want a progressive policy, this person is not likely to be able to hold that policy's basic premise in her head, let alone any important details. I'm not a progressive, but surely it's easy to see how a Tulsi Gabbard, for example, is actually likely to produce some form of meaningful policy on at least some issues, whereas AOC mostly relies on desperately clawing to relevance through cheap popularity stunts and gaffes.