You could also structure the taxes to be:
75k-100k @25%
100-200k @30%
200-500k @33%
500k-1m @ 35%
1m+ @ 40%
and close the deficit and it would also be more progressive than my first numbers (which would actually be a moderate tax increase on persons earning 75k-300k or so.)
However there is much to be learned from California’s budget woes. The problem with overly relying on the wealthiest people for your government revenue is that their income is vastly more volatile than the working class. A California government economist basically showed how the dot-com boom and its many dot-com millionaires caused California to spend too much based on tax receipts from these new millionaires, when many of them saw 60-80% reductions in income California was basically bankrupted and has never fully recovered.
It’s undeniable that “flattening the tax burden” is the same as raising taxes on the middle class. Unfortunately though, for government stability, I think you do have to try and structure the tax rate so you aren’t overly dependent on the wealthy.
The real problem of course is during booms the wealthy benefit the most and governments get infusions of cash that was unexpected. This results in smaller than expected budget deficits or even budget surpluses, and then a large increase in spending follows. I wish there was some structural way we could stop Congress from crazily expanding the Federal government’s spending profile just because it is collecting more money than expected.