Dont get it twisted.

A person making 300k can still be working class. Unless you own capital that makes enough money for you to live off, you are working class

Exactly. It's how you make your money, not how much you make.
That’s not the commonly accepted definition of working or middle class. Middle class has never meant “don’t have to work to live”.
In the U.S. the differences have always been defined by income level. Depending on the context, working class has also been used to mean someone working a blue collar non-salary job without a college degree.
I don’t think anyone has ever seriously defined a college educated person making over a quarter million a year “working class”.
- Working and middle class by the American cultural standard (as in, defined solely by income bracket and working conditions) are ultimately useless designations meant to drive a wedge between the working class or proletariat as defined by marx; "individuals who sell their labour power for wages and who do not own the means of production"; those responsible for creating the wealth of a society.
  The american concept of class is harmful because it groups together the working class members most vulnerable to exploitation; those earning the least and doing the hardest work for the longest hours; and pits them against the better off members of this very same class; those with more time, formal education, and expendable income; who might have more power and means to do legwork in organizing and uplifting the class as a whole through solidarity and collective action.
  You are somewhat correct though, in that it would be difficult to make over 250k/yr without engaging in some sort of profit from capital ownership and/or labor exploitation. That person would become middle class and cease to be working class not because they made over an arbitrary dollar amount per year, however, or because they went to school in order to do so, but because they are earning profits from capital ownership and labor exploitation rather than solely those generated by their own work. Yet, by working for most of their living, they are still subject to many of the same conditions as the working class and would likely still benefit from solidarity with the working class.
  via https://uregina.ca/~gingrich/o402.htm
  The lower middle class or the petty (petite) bourgeoisie, "are smallowners who still work their own means of production, or owner-workers" (Adams and Sydie, p. 134). The characteristic of this class is that it does own some property, but not sufficient to have all work done by employees or workers. Members of this class must also work in order to survive, so they have a dual existence – as (small scale) property owners and as workers.
  Capitalists are the owners of capital, purchasing and exploiting labour power, using the surplus value from employment of this labour power to accumulate or expand their capital. It is the ownership of capital and its use to exploit labour and expand capital that are key here. Being wealthy is, in itself, not sufficient to make one a capitalist. To be a capitalist or member of the bourgeoisie, the owner of a sum of money must be actively involved in capital accumulation, using this money to organize production, employ and exploit labour, and make the money self-expansive by using the surplus value to continue this cycle of capital accumulation.
  
  Software and finance tech are both fields where one can make 300k/y without owning anything. Company stock I guess is technically owning a piece of the means of production, but not to a degree that they can really make change to the company. I would argue additionally that owning some index funds does not kick one out of the working class.
Okay but they can easily invest 2/3rds of that for a decade and then live off the dividends. That's not middle class or working class.
- For that amount of money, they'd be lucky to get a couple hundred in dividends each month. I used to work for a company that gave dividends, and their reasoning for laying people off instead of touching the dividend was that a lot of people relied on the dividend to make ends meet.
  A coworker of mine did the math, and you'd need to have millions invested in the stock to get a dividend you could actually live on. The fact of the matter is that working class goes up to over 1 million. You have to be born rich or be an immoral businessman like Gates or Bezos to live off just investments.
  Even a lot of celebrities don't qualify! You had John Boyega protesting with people because even most actors aren't that rich. It's why Hollywood tends liberal instead of conservative.
  
  Then your coworker fucked up the math. Once you get about 1.8M in stocks you can get around 80k in dividends. 200,000 a year (2/3rds a 300,000 take home) would reach 1.8M in about 9 years.
  This is how people retire in their late 30's (or earlier if they got handed that kind of pay via nepotism/networking)
  Getting a million dollars a year and calling yourself working class is fucking ridiculous. At that point you have so much access to assets that if you don't create a self sustaining income it's nobody's fault but your own.
  
  Our company has a 3.88% dividend rate, and when things were okay and stock price was like $60. That's $2.328 annually from one stock when things are mediocre, and at the time, it was worse than mediocre. For that annual dividend, you'd need to own roughly 34.4k stock, or $2M worth, to make $80k a year.
  Your math on take home pay doesn't check out. Someone making $300k is looking at like $60k in income tax, plus $60k in housing if they follow the 20%ish rule there. If they're making $300k they're probably in a high cost of living area, so food and gas and electricity are going to add up too, not to mention insurance. If they're lucky, they'll put away $100k, tops, but only after their savings cover 3 months of expenses. Long story short, they might have enough for $80k a year after 20 years of intense saving from a $300k a year job. They'll probably need closer to $150k, frankly
  My coworkers and I were upper middle class at $100k or so a year, and I lived significantly below my means. I was able to put away roughly 40k a year at best. It would've taken me 50 years to buy enough stock.
  If you're making $300k a year single, you're almost definitely not able to put $200k away into investments each year unless you have significant expenses covered through other means.
  
  I don't have to invest in your company dude. And assuming we're not talking about take home pay in general finance stuff is just ridiculous.
  If you want to talk about 300k before taxes though then let's do that. Your take home will be around 182k in California, (more in other states). You can easily live off 70k, leaving 110k for early retirement savings. So it takes about 18 years instead of about 10 years with a 300k take home.
  The biggest mistake people make is living larger instead of saving larger.
  
  I agree on your last point. I still think though 70k is way too low an estimate, especially for California.
  
  Rent for a two bedroom close to the coast is 36k. It just gets cheaper from there as you move away from downtown/coastal areas. That leaves you with 34k for food, utilities, healthcare, and car payment. There's about 5,000 left over for incidentals at that point. It's tight but it's certainly doable.

I think 150k (ish) in my city would be solidly middle class. You could buy a house/car/retire on that.

I'm in a super weird spot, because I make good enough money that I have savings to support me after job loss, and I make enough money that I don't really have to worry about my grocery bill (within reason). Heck, there's even a chance that I'll be able to have a decent retirement.

But a house? Not happening. New car? No chance. Even eating out every week isn't viable. And even what I have is only because I have a pretty sweet rent situation.

That's ridiculous. Middle class is absolutely part of the working class. It starts around 70k for a single income in a rural area. And 120k for double income in a high cost area.

Who in those income brackets can afford their house, car, and vacations?
600k for a rural house, 5% mortgage is 30k
1.5m in urban, 5% mortgage is 75k
Car is 20-40k
Food is 16k/year
30+20+16= 66 out of 70 but you aren’t buying a new car every year
So let’s say you’re spending 1.8/L on it and going 20 000km per year. CX-5 is 8.2L per 100
I believe that’s 1640L so an expense of 2952
Our number then is 30+2.952+16 for simplicity we will just say 49
So we have 21k left, for heating I found it cost 3840, again round up to 4 so we have 17k
I know what you’re thinking what about tax?
Property tax we will go cheap with 1% because we rounded the other things up. 6k
Now we have 11k
Income tax?
Thats 12 333 but we will round down to 12k
We are now -1k
Yearly vacation that you take if you’re middle class? Let’s say 5k
We are now -6k
there are more expenses of course but you get the idea
- Your cost for a rural house is way off. It's more like 200k in the current market. Mine was less.
  I'm the one you're asking about - "who in those income brackets can afford their house, car, and vacation?" because I'm in that income bracket and and able to afford it all. I could buy a car with the money in my checking account, own my house, and take vacations on occasion.
  
  house is way off. It’s more like 200k in the current market. Mine was less.
  I am currently looking, it’s not
  Your price would be vacant land or American
- Are you a teacher?
  I only ask because this sounds exactly like the response a fed up teacher would give
  
  I studied for it but not currently
  
  I hope you didn't take that question as an insult. I didn't mean it to be. It just seemed so similar to the rants my teachers would go on when someone pissed them off.
  
  I laughed at it