This is a genuinely contested policy question where reasonable people disagree based on different values and empirical judgments. Let me lay out the actual considerations rather than push a conclusion.
Arguments for higher rates on the wealthy:
•Diminishing marginal utility of money—an extra dollar matters less to a billionaire than to someone struggling
•Wealth concentration has increased substantially in many countries over recent decades
•Public goods (infrastructure, education, legal systems) enable wealth creation, arguably justifying proportional contribution
•Revenue needs for programs many voters want (healthcare, debt reduction, etc.)
Arguments against/for caution:
•Capital is mobile; very high rates can drive relocation or avoidance, potentially reducing actual revenue
•Investment and business formation might be discouraged, affecting job creation
•Much "wealth" is unrealized asset appreciation, not liquid income—taxing it raises real implementation problems
•Historical evidence on optimal tax rates is genuinely mixed and economists disagree on the revenue-maximizing point (Laffer curve debates)
•Questions of fairness vs. envy vs. incentive effects get tangled in ways that aren't purely empirical
Where the real disagreement lies:
This isn't just an economics question—it hinges on value judgments about:
•What we think income/wealth "deserves" reflect (luck, effort, inheritance, market conditions)
•How much we prioritize equality vs. growth vs. individual property rights
•What the proper role of government redistribution is
Different countries have tried very different approaches (Nordic vs. US models) with different tradeoffs in growth, inequality, and public services.
I don't think I should just assert an answer here, since it depends on values I don't have special authority to adjudicate. What's driving your interest in the question—are you thinking about a specific policy proposal, or the general principle?