burn this into your brain: "correlation does not imply causation". those wages were higher because unions were stronger at that time, because they were expressly given more power by FDR and congress during WW2. and because the US was in a time of unprecedented economic success.

what you're seeing there is the effect of the progressive movement in america - both higher taxes and higher wages are direct results of that movement, and the circumstances of the time. if you just decided to raise taxes now however, with a piss-poor labor movement, a corrupt-as-shit government, and very, very lax regulation around corporations, you would immediately see that money take other forms and still be given to executives - not sure if stock options count as income for instance. even if they do i'm sure there's a way around that.

and if executives absolutely couldn't take the money, they would absolutely either give it back to shareholders through a dividend or invest in capital, because both of those things are good for them in the long term. paying labor more for the same job doesn't get them anything at all from their perspective. labor doesn't get more unless they bargain for more, and the way labor does that is via unions. private sector union membership in the US went from +30% in the 60s to something like 3% today. that's not enough to bargain for better wages in most industries.

so no, higher taxes != higher wages