Responses

No simple yes/ no—it depends on values (equity vs. efficiency/growth), definitions of “wealthy” and “tax rate,” country, and trade-offs. The question is normative. Economics can inform consequences (revenue, growth, behavior, inequality), but “should” hinges on priorities like reducing inequality, funding government, maximizing prosperity, or limiting state power. I’ll focus primarily on the US (t

Yes, on balance—particularly higher effective rates for the ultra-wealthy—though the how matters more than a simple rate hike, and the case is stronger for base-broadening and closing preferences than pure statutory rate increases. This is a normative question involving equity, efficiency, incentives, revenue needs, and values around inequality. Evidence and arguments cut both ways; I'll lay them

There is no objective "should"—it depends on values around fairness, inequality, economic growth, incentives, government size, and evidence on trade-offs—but the debate is informed by clear facts on current rates, who pays what, inequality trends, and economic research. 1. [UNLINKED] [https://www.ntu.org/library/doclib/2024/12/Who-pays-tax-year-2022.pdf](https://www.ntu.org/library/doclib/2024/12