In a recent question I asked, a commenter just told me:
You should remove the "which largely cut taxes for the rich" because it is A) Not True. [...]
I try to always consider that I could be wrong when told so, and research to correct myself, but in the case of legislation it's often hard to figure out what's correct if you aren't particularly politically adept, which I'm certainly not. So while I thought from what I've read in the news that the recent tax bill passed by the senate is largely a tax cut for the rich, perhaps I'm wrong.
To clarify: I would define "largely cut taxes for the rich" as meaning the taxes of the top 1% were in some way shape or form lowered a lot more than the taxes of the middle class or their wealth was significantly increased via corporate tax code changes
So my question is:
Were the taxes of the top 1% in some way shape or form lowered a lot more than the taxes of the middle class in the recent tax bill?
Clarifications on how to define the difference:
- based on percentages of income, not dollar for dollar.
- based on individuals, not households, (if easier to calculate this way).
- taking into account stock holders and how the corporate tax deductions will benefit individuals who own large amounts of stock (if applicable).
I realize, especially on that last point, that the answer required is non-trivial, but studies done by credible sources can be referenced to keep the answer at a doable size. While a big topic to consider, if we average citizens are expected to understand its outcomes / effects and vote accordingly, I would hope that it should be possible to summarize the answer to this question in the Stack Exchange format.