I get what you're saying, but I would want to see numbers. Because one number sticks in my head: about 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth. So where is the biggest bang for the legislating buck? That 1%. Chasing the other 99% seems kinda pointless. I'm not sure off-hand if 1% goes down to the level you quoted ($400K), but it might. Our household never pulled in that much, ever, and we retired early last year. So, yeah...$400K is wealthy. Not Bill-Gates-wealthy, but at least modestly rich.

We need to find a mechanism to account for legacy wealth and unearned income, not just paychecks. A lot of the uber-wealthy don't earn paychecks. If, after we get a fair share of that (i.e. they benefited from our system, so they should contribute), if we're still lacking, then we can tweak lower brackets. But now you're talking about going after only 10% of the wealth, which doesn't seem like the best use of IRS (and legislative) resources.

I know someone will jump on the theft part of this, but I think it was Dillinger who, when asked why he robbed banks, said "that's where the money is". Well, the 1% is where the money is.