bcrescimanno, I'm not sure what you are referring to. There was recently an effort made in the USA to allow Bush-era tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 a year (gross adjusted). Had that gone forward, the doctor making $250,000 and the carpenter making $40,000 would both continue forward without facing an increase in their income tax. Only those people with gross adjusted income in excess of $250,000 who would see an increase in the tax paid on their income in excess of $250,000, although these affluent people would continue to enjoy the Bush era tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income they earn.
As it was, pretty much all of the Bush era tax cuts were extended.
As to this:
"This is precisely my problem with the general tact of liberalism: the answer is always to bring the upper-middle class down to the level of the lower-middle class while predominantly leaving the true wealthy untouched."
According to Wikipedia, only the wealthiest 1.5% make in excess of $250,000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...
The poorest 98.5% of the USA makes less than $250,000 a year. Are you trying to define a portion of that wealthiest 1.5% as part of the upper middle class? If so, which part? Would you go into the top 1% and define that, too, as part of the upper middle class? Definitions matter, and it would be good if you could be precise.
I would add, my politically active friends are pushing for much higher taxes on the rich. Their focus is not on the poorest 99% of Americans, but the wealthiest 1%. And so, they focus on those making in excess of $350,000. I am curious if you regard that as within the range of the middle class?