This is a genuinely contested political and economic question, not a factual matter with a single correct answer. Let me lay out the key considerations on different sides rather than argue for one conclusion.
Arguments for raising taxes on the wealthy:
•Inequality: Wealth and income inequality in many countries (especially the U.S.) have grown substantially since the 1980s, and progressive taxation is one tool to address this.
•Revenue needs: Higher taxes on top earners could fund public services, infrastructure, or deficit reduction without raising taxes on lower/middle-income people.
•Effective tax rates: Due to capital gains treatment, carried interest, and other provisions, some very wealthy individuals pay a lower effective rate than many middle-class workers (famously highlighted by Warren Buffett's comparison of his rate to his secretary's).
•Diminishing marginal utility: A dollar matters less to a billionaire than to someone struggling to pay rent, which is the philosophical basis for progressive taxation.
•Historical precedent: U.S. top marginal rates were much higher in the mid-20th century (over 90% in the 1950s) without preventing strong economic growth, though the comparison is complicated by far more deductions and loopholes back then.
Arguments against raising taxes on the wealthy:
•Investment and growth: Critics argue high taxes on capital and high earners reduce incentives to invest, start businesses, and take risks, potentially slowing economic growth.
•Capital flight/avoidance: Wealthy individuals and corporations can relocate, restructure, or use legal avoidance strategies, so higher statutory rates don't always translate to proportionally higher revenue.
•Already progressive: In the U.S., the top 1% already pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes relative to their share of income, which some argue makes the system sufficiently progressive.
•Definitional complexity: "The wealthy" is ambiguous—should this target income, wealth (assets), or specific types of income like capital gains? Each has different economic effects and administrative challenges (e.g., wealth taxes are hard to value and enforce, as seen in several European countries that abandoned them).
•Behavioral and macro effects: Economists disagree on how much tax rate changes actually affect labor supply, investment, and growth—this is an empirically contested area (e.g., debates over the Laffer curve and optimal top tax rates).
Where reasonable people disagree:
Even among economists, there's no consensus on the "optimal" top tax rate—estimates for revenue-maximizing top rates vary widely depending on assumptions about behavioral responses. The debate also intertwines with value judgments about fairness, the proper role of government, and what "deserving" one's wealth means—these aren't questions economics alone can settle.
If you want, I can dig into specific current proposals (like wealth taxes, capital gains reform, or particular countries' tax rates) or recent data on effective tax rates by income group to give you more concrete figures to weigh.