Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?

It all starts from the source (mastering process) regardless of format.  I have recordings in DSD that easily trumps their low resolution counterparts. Some of the 24bit XRCD’s I own are simply outstanding, in contrast the 16bit/44.1kHz file of same track sound lifeless. 

Why bother debating, just find the best recording of your favorite artist and enjoy! 

Yes, it’s simply a scam (or ongoing business model if you prefer). I have decades of experience to prove it.
If the recording industry cared, really cared about sound quality, they’d make sure it was recorded and mastered properly right off the bat.

As it is, no one in the industry gives a toss save the odd artist like Mark Knofler, Steely Dan and of course Pink Floyd. Most don’t give a stuff and simply trust the producer to futz it up any way they want, ie anyway they think it will sell. Often it’s just a question of following the current, often moronic knob twiddling fashion of the day.

Neil Young is one of the very few to ever speak about sound quality (but that’s another story). Before you go shelling out for any remasters just consider that last detail.

depend how young the listener's ears are.

Depends on where the high sample rates occur in my experience. I run all my audio through computers and find that upsampling to very high rates for the processing phase (equalizer, crossover, expander etc.) produces much cleaner results, even though the output is downsampled somewhat for the soundcard. But as far as actual source material goes I've compared 88.2k or 96k recordings with 44.1k or 48k and I don't hear much difference at all. 16 vs. 24 bit depth isn't all that obvious either. The quality of the recording process seems to be the dominant factor.

so true.  If you want a valid opinion on true sonic quality, ask someone who is 20 years old who hates the music rather than someone who is 40+ and knows every version, release and master.  hearing acuity is usually inversely proportional to the investment in the best that your own money can buy system becomes.  When it mattered, 24/96 sounded great...home recordings, LP rips and digital sources, especially higher pitched things like triangles or cymbals, and sound reflections.  Higher rates didn't seem to matter and lower rates and lower bits were noticeably and increasingly 'Fisher-Price'.  Everyone agrees that 4K OLED TVs look better than most CRT or even plain HDTV because we all have equal access to corrective vision instruments to get to a baseline.  yet, there is no sonic equivalent...just more money in a speaker that a dealer the same age or older tells you is better.  what is shrill or 'not audibly different' to some can be the opposite to others.  it is true we see 'color' differently, in terms of clarity that's a pretty objective measurement.  Most sound engineers are 50 or older...and all claim perfect hearing...