There are a number of schools of thought on this one.  Steve Jobs, Neil Young, and George Massenburg all have said at some point in their careers that they envision a future where all audio is delivered as 24-bit, 96khz audio.  And yet some big digital audio guys say this is ridiculous and a waste of time and storage.  The primary argument for using it is that when doing signal processing “in the box” on a computer, the noise and distortion caused by digital signal processing will be at a frequency far above the range of human ears, resulting in a cleaner audible signal.  This may be true, but it’s slightly debatable – a lot of ITB software either already does what’s known as “oversampling” to handle this problem at lower sampling rates, and some software doesn’t behave entirely predictably at high sample rates (while a lot of it does, you’d be best knowing what will and won’t work correctly).  Additionally, some hardware may or may not function as well at these high sample rates.  And finally, if you deliver this stuff to someone who doesn’t use these higher rates, you’ll be forced to downsample, and not every sample rate converter is created equal.

So it’s kind of a provisional “maybe” – if you’ve got the disk space, and you’ve got gear that you know works well at these sampling rates, and you can convert without problem, and you’re convinced you can hear the difference and it works for you, then…well, go for it.