It's Just Math

It’s normal for commentators to note that any new tax plan “gives” more to the wealthy than to working people. So it is with the latest tax plan. 

Such claims normally rely on absolute dollar amounts of benefit, rather than the impact of rates, which normally are progressive, with higher rates for wealthier payers, and lower rates for lower-income earners. 

Most such differences are the result of mathematics. A small percent of a big number is a big number; a small percent of a small number is still a small number. 

In the United States, for example, the top 10 percent of filers pay roughly three-quarters of all federal income taxes. 

The bottom half of filers produce 10 percent to 15 percent of all federal income tax receipts, and some effectively pay zero rates when one adds in the effect of income transfers and credits. 

Income Group (AGI Percentile)	Approx. Share of Total Income	Approx. Share of Federal Income Taxes Paid	Avg. Effective Tax Rate
Top 1%	~20–22%	~40–45%	~25–27%
Top 5%	~35–38%	~60–65%	~22–25%
Top 10%	~45–48%	~70–75%	~20–23%
Top 25%	~65–70%	~85–90%	~17–20%
Top 50%	~85–90%	~95–97%	~15–18%
Bottom 50%	~10–15%	~2–5%	~3–5% (often near zero or negative)

If you broaden from income taxes to total federal taxes, including payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare), the overall system remains progressive, if less so than looking strictly at income taxes. 

But the point is that any tax plan that reduces rates will “give much more to the rich” than to lower-income taxpayers, simply because “the rich” pay most of the taxes. Even a progressive rate reduction is not going to change that. 

So it might come as no surprise that most people are relatively indifferent to any tax savings they received. It’s just math.