This is a genuinely contested policy question where reasonable people disagree based on differing values and economic assumptions, so I don't think I should tell you what conclusion to reach. But I can lay out the core arguments on each side so you can weigh them yourself.
Arguments for raising taxes on the wealthy:
•Ability to pay: Marginal utility of money declines, so taxing high incomes/wealth causes less sacrifice than taxing the poor or middle class.
•Inequality: Wealth and income inequality have grown substantially in many countries (especially the US) over recent decades, and higher taxes on top earners could fund redistribution or public investment.
•Revenue needs: Governments face deficits and needs (infrastructure, healthcare, climate) that could be funded this way.
•Effective vs. statutory rates: Some argue current effective tax rates on the wealthy (especially via capital gains treatment, carried interest, or unrealized gains) are lower than commonly assumed, so "higher stated rates" isn't even the full picture—closing loopholes might matter more than raising rates.
Arguments against raising taxes on the wealthy (or for caution):
•Incentives: Higher marginal rates could reduce incentives for investment, entrepreneurship, or work effort among high earners.
•Capital mobility: Wealthy individuals and capital can relocate to lower-tax jurisdictions, potentially reducing the tax base (behavioral/avoidance responses).
•Economic growth tradeoffs: Some economists argue high top rates can reduce savings/investment, which could affect long-run growth (though empirical evidence on the magnitude is debated).
•Already progressive: In many countries, top earners already pay a large share of total income tax revenue, and some argue the system is sufficiently progressive as is.
•Implementation issues: Wealth taxes in particular face valuation and enforcement challenges (e.g., several European countries that tried wealth taxes repealed them due to capital flight or administrative difficulty).
Empirical uncertainty:
Economists disagree on parameters like the "optimal top tax rate" — estimates vary widely depending on assumptions about elasticity of taxable income, avoidance behavior, and social welfare weighting. There isn't a clean empirical answer that settles the normative question.
If you want, I can look into specific proposals (e.g., current U.S. tax brackets vs. historical rates, wealth tax proposals, or comparisons across countries) to give you more concrete data to reason from. Would that be helpful?