Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is enjoying something of a honeymoon at the moment, wants to introduce a new 70 percent tax bracket that would catch only “the rich” in its clutches. Her proposal is somewhat vague, but in some interviews she has mentioned “ten million dollars” as the starting point. Were she to get her way, this would mean that anyone earning up to ten million dollars per year would see his tax liability remain the same, but anyone earning ten-million-and-X dollars would see the $X portion taxed at 70 percent.

It is easy to see why this idea might be popular in a democracy. Almost nobody earns ten million dollars per year, which makes this a perfect “do this to them, not me!” policy that incurs no obvious costs on the majority and might ostensibly bring them some benefits. It’s much less easy, however, to see why the proposal is being entertained seriously, or why its defenders are rushing to insist that it’s not in any sense “extreme.” There is a reason that other nations in the Anglosphere do not have anything close to such a tax — even as they spend in a way that would appeal to Ocasio-Cortez — and that is that it doesn’t really do much good. Most people who make tens of millions of dollars rarely derive the lion’s share of their money from traditional income — and, should such a bracket be added to the books, the few who do would quickly restructure. Indeed, the top tax rates in comparable Anglosphere countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are 45 percent, 33 percent (federal), 45 percent, and 33 percent respectively. There is no 70 percent rate in any of those countries –on millionaires, on billionaires or otherwise. Hell, there is no 50 percent rate, either.