Short answer: It depends on your goals and which taxes you mean. “The wealthy” can be taxed through income, capital gains/dividends, estates, property/wealth, and corporate taxes. Whether rates should be higher hinges on trade‑offs among revenue, fairness, growth, and administrability.
What the evidence generally shows
•Ability to pay vs. incentives: Higher top rates raise revenue and can reduce inequality, but very high rates can increase avoidance and slightly dampen work/entrepreneurship. Labor income is moderately responsive; capital gains are highly responsive to rate hikes unless timing games are limited.
•Base matters more than the sticker rate: Closing avoidance channels (shelters, preferential capital gains, step‑up in basis) and enforcing existing law often raises revenue with fewer distortions than big rate jumps.
•Mobility is real but bounded: Some high earners move or shift income across borders or states, but most responses are tax planning rather than physical relocation. Design and coordination (e.g., aligning federal/state or international rules) can blunt this.
Arguments for higher rates on the wealthy
•Fairness/ability to pay and high concentration of income/wealth at the top.
•Significant revenue potential when paired with strong enforcement and broader bases.
•Diminishing marginal utility of income means the welfare cost of taxing top earners can be relatively low compared with cutting core public services.
Arguments against
•Risk of discouraging investment/entrepreneurship and encouraging avoidance.
•High elasticities for capital gains make simple hikes less effective without reform.
•Administrative challenges for wealth or complex minimum‑tax regimes.
A pragmatic U.S.-focused path (if your goals are more revenue and progressivity with limited growth drag)
•Modestly raise the top marginal income rate and add a small high‑income surtax, paired with:
•Taxing capital gains/dividends closer to ordinary rates at very high incomes, with anti‑timing tools (e.g., realization-at-death reform or deferral charges) rather than simple hikes alone.
•Ending step‑up in basis at death above a high exemption.
•Strengthening IRS enforcement and information reporting.
•Tightening pass‑through and carried‑interest preferences.
•Modestly lowering estate‑tax exemptions and improving valuation/enforcement.
•Keep corporate rates internationally competitive but broaden the base and maintain/minimize profit shifting through minimum-tax/transfer‑pricing rules.
If your top priority is growth/competitiveness
•Keep top rates roughly where they are, focus on base‑broadening and enforcement, shift toward efficient taxes (e.g., land/property, carbon with rebates), and expand wage subsidies (EITC) to aid lower/middle incomes without higher top rates.
Bottom line
•If you prioritize reducing inequality and funding public goods, and accept small efficiency costs, then yes—the wealthy should likely pay somewhat higher effective rates, best achieved by base‑broadening plus targeted rate or surtax increases.
•If your priority is minimizing potential investment disincentives and you worry about avoidance/mobility, keep headline rates similar but raise revenue and progressivity through base and enforcement reforms.
If you share your goals (e.g., maximize revenue, reduce inequality, protect growth) and which taxes you’re thinking about (income, capital gains, estate, wealth), I can sketch a specific package with rough revenue ranges and who would pay.