This is a genuinely contested policy question where reasonable people disagree based on differing values and empirical judgments. Rather than search for a "definitive answer" (there isn't one—this is a normative/political question, not a factual one), let me lay out the actual substance of the debate so you can weigh it yourself.
The core disagreement isn't really about facts—it's about values and predictions:
Arguments for raising rates on the wealthy:
•Fairness/ability to pay: A dollar taxed from a billionaire causes less sacrifice than a dollar taxed from a median earner, so progressive taxation may better reflect "equal sacrifice."
•Inequality trends: Wealth and income concentration at the top has grown substantially in recent decades in the US, which some argue justifies more redistribution.
•Revenue needs: Higher rates on top earners could fund deficits, infrastructure, or social programs without touching lower/middle-income households.
•Diminishing marginal utility: Extra income matters less to someone already wealthy than to someone struggling, an argument rooted in utilitarian ethics.
Arguments against raising rates:
•Incentives: Higher marginal rates could discourage investment, entrepreneurship, or work effort among high earners, potentially shrinking the overall economic pie.
•Capital mobility/avoidance: Wealthy individuals and capital can relocate, restructure, or exploit loopholes, meaning higher statutory rates don't always translate into proportionally higher revenue (the "Laffer curve" argument, though economists dispute where the peak actually is).
•Double taxation concerns: Capital gains and dividends are often taxed after corporate income is already taxed, so some argue current effective burdens on capital are already high when layered together.
•Already progressive: In the US, the top earners already pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes relative to their share of income—though critics counter that overall tax burden (including payroll, state, sales taxes) is less progressive than income tax alone suggests, and that wealth (as opposed to income) is taxed lightly.
Where the empirical disputes lie:
•Economists disagree on how sensitive high earners' behavior is to tax rates (the "elasticity of taxable income")—estimates vary widely depending on the study, income bracket, and country.
•There's no consensus on the exact revenue-maximizing top rate; historical top US marginal rates have ranged from over 90% in the 1950s to 37% today, without a clean before/after natural experiment settling the debate.
•Wealth taxes (as opposed to income tax hikes) raise additional practical questions about valuation, liquidity, and enforcement that even proponents debate.
My take: I don't think I should tell you what the "right" answer is, since it hinges on value judgments (how much you prioritize equality vs. growth vs. individual desert) that aren't mine to impose. If you want, I can dig into specific proposals (e.g., a particular wealth tax bill, changes to capital gains rates, or comparisons across countries) with current data to help you evaluate a concrete policy rather than the abstract question.