This is a genuinely contested political and economic question where reasonable people disagree based on differing values and interpretations of evidence. Rather than search for an answer (since this isn't a factual question with a definitive answer), let me lay out the substantive considerations on each side so you can weigh them yourself.
Arguments for raising taxes on the wealthy:
•Inequality concerns: Wealth and income inequality have grown substantially in recent decades. Higher taxes on top earners could fund public services, reduce deficits, or redistribute resources toward lower-income groups.
•Declining effective rates: Some research suggests that due to preferential treatment of capital gains, carried interest, and other loopholes, effective tax rates on very high earners (especially those whose income comes from investments rather than wages) can be lower than rates paid by upper-middle-class wage earners.
•Revenue needs: Rising government debt and spending demands (healthcare, infrastructure, climate) create pressure to raise revenue, and taxing those with the greatest ability to pay is one mechanism.
•Diminishing marginal utility: An extra dollar matters less to a billionaire than to a median earner, which some argue justifies progressive taxation on fairness grounds.
Arguments against raising taxes on the wealthy:
•Economic growth/investment: Critics argue higher taxes on capital and high incomes reduce incentives to invest, start businesses, and take risks, potentially slowing growth and job creation.
•Capital mobility: Wealthy individuals and corporations can relocate income, assets, or residency to lower-tax jurisdictions, potentially reducing actual revenue collected (behavioral response).
•Already progressive system: In the U.S. and many countries, the top income earners already pay a disproportionate share of total income taxes relative to their share of income, which some see as sufficiently progressive already.
•Double taxation concerns: Capital gains and dividends are often taxed after corporate profits were already taxed, raising fairness questions about effective total tax burden.
•Alternative tools: Some economists prefer addressing inequality through other means (education, antitrust, minimum wage, wealth-building programs) rather than through tax rate changes alone.
Where the disagreement really lies:
This isn't just an empirical dispute—it hinges on value judgments about fairness, the proper role of government, and how much weight to give to growth versus redistribution. Economists also genuinely disagree on empirical questions like how much tax rates affect investment/growth (the "Laffer curve" debate) and how mobile capital truly is in response to tax changes.
If you want, I can dig into specific data—like current effective tax rates by income bracket in a particular country, how proposed policies (e.g., wealth taxes, capital gains reform) might affect revenue, or what economists across the political spectrum argue. Just let me know what angle interests you most.