There seems to be an amazing amount of whining among the very wealthy lately, about the prospect of a 3.6% marginal increase in top-end tax rate.
First there was the University of Chicago law professor (linked to a response, because the original has been taken down) who, on income of upward of $300k (six times the national median income), said, "After all, we can afford it, and the world we are now living in has that familiar Marxian tone of those who need take and those who can afford it pay. The problem is, we can’t afford it."
Ignoring that "those who need" are not the ones in any position to "take", the fact that he is investing some of his income is undeniable proof that, in fact, he can afford it.
Next, there's the incorrigible Ben Stein acting put upon because of those tax increases. Ignoring Paul Krugman's takedown of the inheritance claim in there, the simple answer to Ben Stein's question is that the economic policies he supported (Stein's ties to the Republican party go back to at least the Nixon administration, for whom he was a speechwriter) put too much stress on the government's cash flow in the form of debt, and that stress needs to be relieved.
If he wants to consult history on how onerous that tiny tax increase is, he might want to refer to the Eisenhower era, where the top marginal tax rate was 90%.