When most people say "ranked choice" they seem to refer to IRV, which is broken in multiple ways, but most notably that it has the property that ranking someone higher can make them lose and ranking someone lower can make them win. That happens because IRV ignores all of someone's preferences except their top choice, until their top choice is thrown out, at which point IRV looks at their next preference.

There are much better systems: approval (for simplicity, at the expense of more accurate preference information) and Condorcet (for accuracy, at the expense of making it more difficult to explain tie-breaker corner cases to the average person).

Ranked Choice Voting (aka Instant Runoff Voting) is the single worst of the very many seriously proposed ranked ballots method; it retains most of what is bad about FPTP. It is somewhat easier to tally than the best (in terms of the logic of who wins) ranked ballots methods (methods satisfying the Condorcet criterion), but not particularly good even on that among all ranked ballots methods, e.g., it can be improved in that dimension by just adding all preferences of the next rank until a candidate crosses the maiority threshold without elimination, which also reduces the degree to which the system is prone to paradoxical effects (promoting a candidate causing them to lose by changing the order others are eliminated.)

These days, any sort of tax on the wealthy at all is seen as full blown communism.