That's one of the reasons we have progressive taxation, after all, and I'm told it's far less progressive than in Canada, just as an example. To elaborate, and this is second hand, I'm told that up there the rate of taxation varies not only with overall income, but on which part of it is being taxed, meaning that the highest rates are only assessed against that part of income that's above the particular threshold. It's more complicated, but I think it may also be more fair, because, rather than paying (just hypothetically) 50% of your $250k in taxes, you'd pay a lower rate on most of it and only pay 50% on, say, the $50k you earn above a $200k threshhold for 50%.

Honestly, given inflation over the past 30 years I think $250k is too low a threshold for the highest earners. I'd assess the highest taxes on those who are independently wealthy, which you certainly aren't. Turn it around: Why should you pay the same (or, in many cases, far less) tax as someone whose most onerous duty is opening interest statements on money inherited from their great-grandfather? And the same principle applies to the middle class in general: Every loophole, every tax shelter, every write off for the independently and opulently wealthy is another dollar out of middle and lower class pockets, either in the form of reduced services or higher taxes.

But, for the record, I despise class warfare, too, and the thing I despise most about it is that, as Warren Buffet famously said, his class is winning. It's only when that status quo is threatened that we hear about the horrors of class warfare, but it's being waged every day.