First, what is "punishment"?
google.com entry "punishment" - the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense
merriam-webster.com
Definition of punishment
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
While it's partially true that "dictionaries are opinions listed in alphabetical order", the fact is that words do mean things. So these entries are as good a starting point as any to begin my discussion.
The OP use "Punishment" is just
equivocating -using the same word used to mean two different things. Punishing, in the formal sense, means an authority (governmental or not) inflicting pain for violating formal laws, regulations, bylaws, rules (again, governmental organ or not). The other sense, more metaphorical, is anything that causes excruciating pain. For example, "Defensive tackles often take great
punishings from their opposites when trying to sack the other team's quarterback". The last sense is closer to what the OP means by punishing - although this use of "punishment" is merely less incorrect than the first one.
First, ANY giving up of money can be a pain / self-sacrifice - even a voluntary donating to charity when there is clearly no tax advantage or other loss mitigation (financially) from doing so. Everybody gets "punished" when they pay taxes - even Gates and Buffet. So punishment (in this broad sense) is almost a non-issue.
To make a long story short, the issues are a) are taxes paid so great that the person cannot plausibly have a realistically humane lifestyle due to their tax burden, and b) does the tax burden destroy incentive to produce goods, ideas, and services.
a) is almost too easy. There IS a need to avoid raising your children in substandard housing as defined by the building code. There is NO actual need for your children to be able to live a Beverly Hills lifestyle (in the strict material, not tabloid, sense). Even a 5000 sq ft 3 story $750K home the neurosurgeon or law firm partner is not an actual necessity. So (a) definitely does not apply to the wealthy.
b) ultimately I don't see it applying to the wealthy. In 1953, the marginal tax rate for people making $300K/yr (about $3M in today's terms)source:
Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2017 | US Inflation Calculator . Yet our economy was moving along at a humming clip back in that golden age.
Even worse, at some point, the fewer taxes you pay, the worse off society becomes (including even you yourself). Low quality police protection and military. Lower quality schools and highways and infrastructure. Lower quality (if at all) consumer protection. Sure, the rich can afford to
pay for this protection, but it's still paying. So why should the poor get lower levels of protection simply because they can't afford it. More specifically, if the poor don't have the right to have the essential basics of a minimally humane quality of life, then why not the middle class as well, or even further up the scale.
Also, lots of these very rags to riches stories came about BECAUSE society paid tax dollars to sufficiently educated them to a level where they could have a fighting chance at success -- from David Sarnoff (major figure in RCA, the Google or Microsoft of the time) to Neil DeGrasse Tyson to Alicia Keyes to Matthew McConaughey.
Besides, this "rich getting richer" tends to lead to serious power imbalances in society - absolutely toxic for democracy. In that case, the rich will find a way to influence the elected representatives, presidents, etc. while not giving a damn for the well-being of even the middle class, let alone the poor. And all because they want to be able to afford another yacht (taken from the 1987 film, Wall Street).