First, let's keep in mind that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested a marginal tax rate on income over $10M/year. That's a pretty mild proposal. It affects a tiny fraction of people, and it still leaves them with more wealth in one year than they'd need to live comfortably for multiple lifetimes.

> It's easy to make the argument that a person with a lot of wealth should help those less fortunate than them selves but it's not so easy when you are forcing them to help the less fortunate.

I think you may misunderstand the mainstream arguments for tax rates this high. There are several, and this won't be an exhaustive list.

1) Extreme wealth indicates disproportionate benefit from social programs. Every business (and therefore business owner) is an upstream beneficiary of monthly welfare payments, for example. Roads are another: Tim Cook makes a lot more money off of road infrastructure than someone who works at a grocery store.

2) A rising tide raises all ships. A highly-taxed, rich person in a secure, well-funded society may actually end up netting more money in the end.

3) Your actual wealth goes down if your country doesn't have the foundations of a good quality of life. For example, my uncle lives in Brazil and spends $200k/year on a full-time security team. Someone at his level of wealth in the US would never do that. It just isn't worth it because the risk of being kidnapped is almost zero.

4) A lot of ultra-wealthy people aren't value creators. For example, some very highly-paid people every year are actually failed CEOs who are riding their golden parachutes out of their company.

There have been literally thousands of books written about this concept, so I suggest digging into it through someone more authoritative than me. Piketty might be a good start.