The answer is to punish the doctor? 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. Why shouldn't people be able to get somewhat ahead? Why is the mentality that we all have to be exactly equal so long as we can lump your income with this mythical middle class?
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?