This is a genuinely contested political and economic question where reasonable people disagree based on differing values and interpretations of evidence. Rather than telling you what to think, let me lay out the actual substance of the debate so you can weigh it yourself.
Arguments for raising taxes on the wealthy
Equity/fairness considerations:
•Wealth and income inequality have grown substantially in many developed countries over recent decades
•In the U.S., when you account for all taxes (payroll, state, local, not just federal income tax), effective tax rates on the very top earners are often similar to or even lower than middle-class rates, partly because investment income (capital gains) is taxed lower than wages
•Some billionaires pay a lower effective rate relative to their wealth growth than ordinary workers do relative to income, since unrealized capital gains aren't taxed at all until sold
Revenue/fiscal needs:
•Governments facing large deficits or wanting to fund programs (healthcare, infrastructure, climate) need revenue from somewhere, and the wealthy have more capacity to pay
•Historically, top marginal rates in the U.S. were much higher (70-90%+) in the mid-20th century without preventing strong growth, though the tax base and loopholes were very different then
Diminishing marginal utility:
•A dollar matters less to a billionaire than to someone struggling to pay rent, so progressive taxation can be seen as maximizing overall welfare
Arguments against raising taxes on the wealthy
Economic efficiency concerns:
•Higher rates can reduce incentives to work, invest, start businesses, or keep capital in-country (capital flight/tax migration to lower-tax jurisdictions is a real phenomenon)
•Capital gains and corporate taxes affect investment decisions; some economists argue this can slow growth and job creation
Behavioral/avoidance effects:
•The wealthy have more ability to restructure income, delay realizing gains, or relocate assets/residency in response to tax changes, so revenue gains from rate hikes are sometimes smaller than static projections suggest
•Complexity and loopholes often mean headline rate increases don't translate directly into proportional revenue increases
Already progressive systems:
•In many countries, the top income percentiles already pay a disproportionate share of total income tax revenue relative to their share of income, which some argue is already "fair" or even excessive
Alternative approaches:
•Some argue better enforcement (closing loopholes, taxing unrealized gains differently, better IRS funding) is more effective than raising headline rates
•Others favor consumption taxes or wealth taxes instead of income tax changes, each with different trade-offs
The deeper disagreement
This question ultimately hinges on:
1.Empirical disputes — how much do higher rates actually dampen growth/investment vs. how much revenue do they raise? Economists disagree on magnitudes.
2.Value judgments — how much should fairness/equality be weighted against growth/efficiency? What counts as a "fair share"?
3.Definitions — "the wealthy" could mean top 1%, top 0.1%, or billionaires specifically; "tax rate" could mean marginal income rate, effective rate, capital gains rate, or a wealth tax — each has different implications.
If you want, I can dig into specific current proposals (e.g., particular wealth tax bills, recent effective tax rate data for top earners, or comparisons across countries) to help you form a view on a more concrete version of this question.