This is a genuinely contested question of political and economic philosophy, not a factual matter I can search my way to a definitive answer on. What I can do is lay out the strongest arguments on different sides so you can weigh them yourself.
Arguments for raising taxes on the wealthy:
•Ability to pay: Marginal utility of income declines, so taking a dollar from someone with millions costs them less well-being than taking a dollar from someone near the poverty line.
•Rising inequality: Wealth and income concentration at the top has grown significantly in the U.S. since the 1980s, and some economists argue tax policy has contributed to this by taxing capital gains, carried interest, and inheritance more lightly than wages.
•Revenue needs: Higher rates on top earners could fund public investment (infrastructure, education, healthcare) without raising taxes on middle- or lower-income households.
•Effective vs. statutory rates: Some ultra-wealthy individuals pay a lower effective tax rate than middle-class workers because of how capital gains, loopholes, and deferral strategies work — critics argue this is an equity problem regardless of one's view on overall tax levels.
Arguments against raising taxes on the wealthy (or for keeping rates as-is):
•Incentives and growth: Higher marginal rates on income, capital gains, or corporate profits could reduce investment, entrepreneurship, or labor supply among high earners.
•Capital mobility: Wealthy individuals and capital can relocate to lower-tax jurisdictions, potentially reducing the tax base rather than increasing revenue (this is debated empirically).
•Already progressive: In the U.S., the top 1% pay a large share of total federal income taxes relative to their share of income, which some argue shows the system is already quite progressive.
•Efficiency concerns: Some economists prefer broader-based taxes (consumption taxes, land value taxes) over high marginal income/wealth taxes, arguing they distort behavior less.
Where the disagreement really lies:
This isn't just an empirical dispute — it hinges on value judgments about fairness (equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity), the proper size and role of government, and empirical uncertainty about how much behavioral response (tax avoidance, migration, reduced investment) would offset revenue gains from higher rates.
If you want, I can dig into specific proposals (e.g., wealth taxes, higher capital gains rates, closing carried-interest loopholes) or look at what research says about their likely economic effects — happy to go deeper on any angle.