On Tuesday, the World Economic Forum kicked off its annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. There, over the course of three days, the upper echelons of the business, political, and academic worlds will grapple with the most urgent problems facing the globe as they consume $55 Caesar salads and shark canapés, rub shoulders with Matt Damon, and attend parties that involve “endless streams of the finest champagne, vodka, and Russian caviar, dancing Cossacks, and beautiful Russian models,” thanks to organizers’ decision to reverse a ban on Kremlin-linked oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s attendance. This year, attendees at the “Money Oscars” are particularly concerned about slowing economic growth, spiking sovereign debt, central banks’ limited ability to fight recessions “or worse,” and uncertainty over geopolitical events such as Brexit, and the U.S.’s trade war with China. Also scaring the bejesus out of them? The prospect of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez forcing people in what’s known as the “fuck-ton of money tax bracket” to “contribute more.”

“It’s scary,” said adult man and Guggenheim Partners global chief investment officer Scott Minerd, of the new lawmaker’s comment on 60 Minutes that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for earnings above $10 million to be taxed at 60 or 70 percent. “By the time we get to the presidential election, this is going to gain more momentum,” Minerd added, noting he would likely be personally affected by the change, meaning he barely scrapes by on only $10 million a year. “And I think the likelihood that a 70 percent tax rate, or something like that, becomes policy is actually very real.” (As a reminder, at this point, the new representative has merely expressed a point of view, not unveiled an actual proposal or anything approaching legislation.) In an interview with Bloomberg TV, investment banker Ken Moelis, whose net worth hit $1 billion last April, claimed A.O.C.’s idea “would be disastrous for the economy,” suggesting that people in the U.S. would no longer have a reason to work. “You have to incentivize people,” Moelis said. “Even in the U.S., what’s going to happen to the two-workforce family? You forget where 70 percent starts to kick in,” he warned, despite the fact that in a marginal tax system, the more money you make, the more you will take home, regardless of your tax rate. (Even a Bloomberg editorial against a 70 percent rate acknowledged Tuesday that “evidence suggests a top rate of 70 percent on the highest incomes would be fiscally productive—meaning not so high that the disincentive to effort and enterprise would cause the government to raise less money than with a lower rate.”)

Unsurprisingly, perennial Davos attendee Stephen Schwarzman (net worth: $13.1 billion) was also unenthused by the freshman Congresswoman’s idea:

Schwarzman, the billionaire C.E.O. of private equity giant Blackstone and Republican megadonor, said sarcastically that he is “wildly enthusiastic” about the lawmaker’s proposed tax hike.

To be fair, this comment actually demonstrates immense restraint on Schwarzman’s part: in 2010, he likened the possibility of President Barack Obama closing a tax loophole that allows private equity firms to pay 15 percent on carried interest to actions taken by one Adolf Hitler during World War II. “It’s a war,” Schwarzman told a room full of nonprofit board members. “It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.” (In the end, Obama never actually closed the loophole, a turn of events that would have hurt Schwarzman’s ability to throw himself elaborate birthday bashes featuring performances by Pattie LaBelle and Gwen Stefani, trapeze artists, live camels, and acrobats. We’re kidding, of course: Schwarzman has amassed the sort of dynastic wealth that will ensure his grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren will be able to throw over-the-top parties on the eve of their generations’ defining financial crisis, regardless of any future tax rates.)

Anyway, in related news out this week: