His kid was in my high school class. His mom dropped him off at school in a Grand Caravan covered with question marks. And that picture isn't even really of Matthew Lesko.

As for me I still care about the same issues I always did. I haven't switched sides or changed my beliefs just because Uncle Sam now thinks I'm a big enough fish to take a larger chunk of my earnings.

I have however developed the opinion that most everyone involved in most every level of government wants to direct spending towards whatever their pet causes are. The sum total of all this being a high level of waste. So no, I'm not complaining about the classic "my tax dollars should not go to support ghetto welfare queens popping out more babies to collect more money," or whatever the typical republican carping about social programs is.

I'm doing fine. I live comfortably without having to borrow money. But I'm an unmarried 20-something who does not live in a major city. To give a counter example, my direct supervisor who is a married 20-something who does not live in a major city, has a stay-at-home wife, a couple kids, a reasonable ~2000 sq ft house, a minivan, and his car. He grosses $150k+ a year. After taxes, the mortgage, all the utilities, food & clothing for 4 people, and transportation, he only puts a couple grand a month into savings.

That's not the sort of "high earner" that high tax brackets were originally designed to catch. But because all the politicians of all stripes like nothing more than to keep spending money, it has to come from somewhere, and the simple fact is that tax brackets do not follow inflation for this very reason.
I don't see why not.

I guess if you have the people who are the "professional/managerial/upper-middle" class that'd be different from regular middle class.

But $100k/year does not a rich person make.