> return to a much higher upper marginal tax rate (there's no evidence that the reductions which started with Reagan have benefitted most Americans in any way).
> reduce military spending (American's socialism) by at least 50%.

This is not even a remotely serious proposal. There is no scenario where both parties agree to cut the military budget in HALF! Have you looked at the actual budget numbers? We're going to have a 2023 budget deficit of $1.5T. Even if we could, in the midst of the the Ukrainian invasion and rising tension over Taiwain, cut military spending by 50%, that's only a ~$400B reduction of our annual deficit. Do you seriously expect to extract an additional >$1T from income tax in the top bracket? Basic napkin math should tell you this isn't possible.

Also lol at "America's socialism". How do you explain the fact that SS,medicare,medicaid absolutely dwarf military spending?

> take the money from these two actions and use it on infrastructure and social support.

Complete non-statement. What specifically are we going to do with you imaginary tax revenue?

> ...Wealth redistribution schemes consist of taking money in taxes from people with more money and (in some way) giving it to or spending it on people with less.

I don't know how to help you understand this. I suggest reading this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_France. Here's some quotes:

"This minimum pension (Allocation de Solidarité aux Personnes Agées in French) is the first level of the first pillar of the French pension system. The ASPA is a monthly benefit paid to low-income seniors, whether or not they are former employees. It is not a retirement pension: it is financed by the State, not by social contributions."

"The mandatory state pension is an unfunded contributory pension based on the redistribution of contributions from those working to those in retirement."

"The mandatory occupational pension is a defined contribution scheme that is mainly based on redistribution"

The French pension system is a direct transfer of wealth from workers/citizens to beneficiaries. The US equivalent is social security.

> In terms of income (even adjusted for PPP), sure. But as I tried to explain, that's a silly way to measure wealth, at least if it is the only way you use. As an American, I am forced to spend more of that increased wealth on things that would be free-at-point-of-service or just cheaper in Europe.

Your understanding is incorrect and the cost of living (including government subsidies to healthcare) is included in the OECD statistics:

"This indicator [Household Disposable Income] also takes account of social transfers in kind 'such as health or education provided for free or at reduced prices by governments and not-for-profit organisations.'"

---

I do not believe you are arguing in good faith. Your argument basically boils down to "Ignore all the economic data because it doesn't tell the whole story". If you reject the OECD data, corporate financial reports, and national statistics, the least you can do is offer some other data to compare.

Go play with this neat little tool - https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm

The US beats the EU on almost every indicator including household income, net worth, debt, and savings.