Should the wealthy pay a higher tax rate than they currently do?

Short answer: It depends on your goals. A well‑designed increase on very high incomes and large fortunes can raise revenue and modestly reduce inequality with limited growth costs; a blunt hike in top brackets can backfire through avoidance and timing games.

How economists think about it

•Equity: Because marginal utility of income falls as income rises, many argue higher top rates improve fairness and fund priorities (defense, aging, climate, R&D) without harming most households.

•Efficiency: The key risk isn’t people “working less” so much as shifting/deferring income. Top earners’ taxable income is moderately responsive; design choices determine how much real economic activity is affected versus pure tax planning.

•Revenue: Estimates often imply room to raise more from the very top, but returns diminish if loopholes remain or if state/federal rates together get too high.

If you want to raise more from the wealthy, focus on design over headline rates

•Target capital income at the top:

•Narrow the gap between taxes on wages and capital gains/dividends for very high incomes.

•Curb “step‑up in basis” at death to reduce lock‑in; tighten carried‑interest treatment.

•Broaden the base and improve enforcement:

•Limit high‑income loss shelters and pass‑through loopholes; sustain well‑funded, data‑driven IRS enforcement.

•Guardrails to limit side effects:

•Phase changes in to reduce timing games.

•Coordinate with states to avoid extreme combined top rates that spur avoidance or relocation among a small set of ultra‑mobile taxpayers.

•Alternatives or complements:

•Strengthen estate/inheritance taxation with better valuation rules.

•Minimum‑tax backstops for very high‑income households to ensure a floor regardless of preferences/loopholes.

Arguments for not raising top rates (or raising them only marginally)

•Investment concerns: Some forms of capital formation and risk‑taking could decline if after‑tax returns drop, especially in high‑tax states.

•Complexity: Higher rates with the same loopholes can increase gaming rather than net revenue.

•Other levers first: Broaden the base, add a well‑designed consumption or carbon tax with rebates, or rein in spending before raising top rates.

My take

•If your aims are to reduce deficits and inequality with minimal growth drag, prioritize base‑broadening, enforcement, and tighter taxation of high‑end capital income and large estates before large hikes to headline top brackets. Done this way, “yes”—the wealthy should likely pay more than they currently do, but via smarter rules more than just higher statutory rates.

If you’d like, tell me:

•Which goals matter most to you (deficit reduction, inequality, growth)?

•How you define “wealthy” (e.g., income over $400k, $1M+, or net worth thresholds)?

•Whether you prefer changes to rates, the base, or enforcement.

Should the wealthy pay a higher tax rate than they currently do?

Citations (0)