I'd also really like to see some numbers, because I don't believe that 60% of a $100k/yr. income is lost to "services, utilities, fees, and taxes that you pay w

I'd also really like to see some numbers, because I don't believe that 60% of a $100k/yr. income is lost to "services, utilities, fees, and taxes that you pay when earning $100k, that you get for free or don't have to pay if you earn $0". Is your list "Medicaid and health insurance credits, SSI, food stamps, EITC, FICA..." things that you have to pay, or benefits you get if your income is $0/yr.? For example, you wouldn't get EITC if you had no income, but you wouldn't get food stamps if you had $100k/yr. I would argue that it's poor framing to compare a hypothetical family with $0/yr. income to one with $100k/yr. income. You bring up childcare as an example, but when you look at a family making, say, $35k/yr., they're largely unqualified for assistance but childcare is almost certainly out of reach for them. $100k/yr. families are paying for childcare, paying tons of taxes, and buying amazing Christmas gifts. Because only 20% of Americans even make >= $100k/yr., I don't think you can rightly call them middle class. I'm not sure we should really be concerned for those at that income level, I think it's more imperative to start looking at people working full time but still making < $35k/yr. Is there an upper-middle class treadmill? Yeah sure, I'm not even sure what your argument is, that you're not getting rich? Regardless, a treadmill is much better than the alternatives. You imply that until you make $150k/yr., you may as well make $0/yr. This is really just untrue; probably (depending on number of children) it's untrue until you get down around $20k/yr., which is where you start getting into living wage argument territory. Finally, I'm with you on progressive taxation. Tax tiers make no sense; we need a (simple) tax function. Problem solved.