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 a "current answer" (since this is a matter of ongoing debate, not a factual question with a settled answer), let me lay out the substantive considerations on each side so you can weigh them yourself.
Arguments for raising taxes on the wealthy:
•Diminishing marginal utility: A dollar matters much less to a billionaire than to someone living paycheck to paycheck, so progressive taxation can increase overall societal welfare.
•Inequality trends: Wealth and income inequality in the U.S. have grown substantially since the 1980s, and higher top rates (closer to mid-20th century levels) could help address this.
•Revenue needs: Higher taxes on top earners could fund public goods (infrastructure, healthcare, education) without burdening lower earners as much.
•Effective vs. statutory rates: Due to capital gains treatment, carried interest loopholes, and estate planning, many wealthy individuals pay lower effective tax rates than their statutory bracket suggests—some argue this is unfair regardless of one's view on overall rates.
•Fairness/ability-to-pay principle: Many argue taxation should scale with capacity to contribute.
Arguments against raising taxes on the wealthy:
•Incentives and growth: Higher marginal rates may discourage investment, entrepreneurship, and risk-taking, potentially slowing economic growth.
•Capital mobility: Wealthy individuals and corporations can relocate income, assets, or residency to lower-tax jurisdictions, potentially reducing net revenue (capital flight).
•Double taxation concerns: Capital gains and dividends are often taxed after corporate profits were already taxed once.
•Behavioral responses: Historically, large rate increases sometimes yield smaller-than-expected revenue gains because of avoidance strategies, timing of asset sales, etc.
•Already progressive system: In the U.S., the top earners already pay a disproportionate share of total federal income taxes relative to their share of income.
Key empirical uncertainties:
•How much behavioral response (avoidance, reduced investment) would offset new revenue from higher rates is debated among economists.
•The optimal top tax rate that maximizes revenue without excessive economic distortion is not settled—estimates vary widely depending on assumptions.
•Whether to focus on income tax rates, capital gains rates, wealth taxes, or closing loopholes (vs. raising headline rates) changes the analysis considerably.
Bottom line: This isn't something with a factual "right answer"—it hinges on value judgments (how much you weight equality vs. growth vs. individual liberty to keep earnings) and contested empirical questions (behavioral responses to taxation, growth effects, optimal rate design). If you want, I can go deeper into any specific piece—like U.S. historical tax rate trends, the evidence on Laffer curve effects, or wealth tax proposals—and I'm happy to present that with more nuance.