system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: taxes should be higher on the rich and low on the poor

I hold a left position on taxes and economics in general because I think that the rich, those with millions in income a year should pay more for social programs and infrastructure. Poor people on the other hand sometimes because of circumstance or misfortune are unable to afford basic necessities and therefore should be taxed at a significantly lower rate. Universal basic income sounds appealing to me but that would probably require massive tax hikes. 

I've been told that raising taxes on the rich is a greedy thing to do but greed is too subjective a term for me and assumes that poor people prefer handouts and can live lavish lifestyles which is untrue eg unemployment benefits in UK. No one has personally brought up trickle down economics although I constantly hear left wing commentators in the US attack this position. 

I am Malaysian so our taxes are progressive and the highest tax bracket at the moment is 26% for RM 600,001 to RM 1 million annually (~150,000-250,000USD) while the low income earners less than RM 20,000 (~5,000USD) pay no income tax at all. Cost of living here is much lower than the US a family of 4 costs around RM 85,000 (~21,000 USD) the income inequality in Malaysia is almost the same as the USA (according to the gini index) 

Edit: title unclear taxes should increase for the rich example (60% income taxed after a million and a 100% tax on a billion or more)
gpt
You have to consider the unintended consequences of raising taxes on top earners to that high of a level.

One of the first things you might not expect to go is innovation.  There's a conception of scientists as mad and driven solely by their work but that's not actually how it plays out in the numbers.  When you raise taxes on top earners like that you tend to suppress innovation.  It's rarely the individual innovating in 2019 it's the result of large enterprises with deep pockets and when you reduce those incomes people become less productive.

A 100% tax on earnings over a billion is an even worse Idea because you're simply never going to see most of that money.  People who earn that much are going to move their money offshore and keep it there.  There is an idea in economics called Laffer curves.  When you raise taxes exceptionally high, you actually get even less tax revenue than you would with lower rates because people will begin hiding and off shoring their money. They often use legal and illegal means to accomplish this.

People will often claim that taxes were over 90% on people in the 50's and it didn't ruin society.  That's true, but this is an example of the Laffer curve in action.  The taxes then were so high that the effective tax rate ended up actually being 40% because people were taking advantage of numerous tax dodges to reduce their tax burden.

France recently attempted, notoriously, a 75% tax on income.  This famously resulted in actor Gerard Depardieu becoming a Russian citizen.   That year the tax revenue ended up being barely over half of what the government had expected.  €16bn instead of €30bn.  Similar policies contributed to the French economy's stagnation and increased deficits.  The government was forced to end it's experiment early after it failed.

You can argue about the shape of Laffer curves.  It's perfectly possible that you will raise taxes somewhat and still increase tax revenues, but it's hard to argue that they don't exist when we have numerous examples of them in action.

I think there are fair arguments for raising taxes on the rich.  Some of them are built around social considerations and others are built around economics arguments.  However, your proposed numbers are far too high and would undoubtedly be counterproductive.

E: some grammar bits.