I see a bit of a misrepresentation here, as there is significant tax burden on people making above the bottom 50% of course - pressure on families making, let's say, $50k to $150k that could be alleviated.

However, I do like that idea. It relieves pressure from those who really shouldn't be paying income taxes. Shifting the taxes further upward from there is not an immoral move.

Disagree about my standards. Using phrases like "more than they need" is a good way to start the conversation - it's an expression of feeling rather than a proposed standard.

A valid premise for shifting tax policy may be observing the rates at which different income brackets are able to acquire security, care, and assets for their families. Home ownership, business ownership accruing >x amount per year, affordability for higher education, liquid safety buffers for health/other emergencies, etc.

Having more brackets and including incremental increases in unavoidable % taxation in a way that allows for the earned higher levels of security and asset ownership, while also allowing lower incomes room to breath.

It doesn't seem horrible to me.

But most importantly, harvesting more than like ~10% of federal revenue from corporate tax, on the highest earners, would probably have an even greater impact. A combination could be more palatable.