Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

The relevant figure isn't the total population, but the total number of people who actually pay tax. And, you'll find that the total number of actual taxpayers is right around 100 million, so the top 1% being a million or so is right in line with what we would expect.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/10/06/new-estimates-of-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax/#1863020161cb

Cycloptichorn

https://taxfoundation.org/how-many-taxpayers-fall-each-income-tax-bracket/

27 million American households fall into the 10% tax bracket, and 24 million fall into the 25% tax bracket. All in all, the majority of American households (77%) fall into the 15% tax bracket or below.

Only 892,420 households fall into the top income tax bracket. These households face a rate of 39.6% on their ordinary income, although they face lower rates on income from long-term capital gains and dividends. Overall, these households face an average effective tax rate of 28.5%, higher than households in any other bracket.

Looking at these tax brackets could you answer a question for me.

25% tax bracket maxes out at $151,900
28% tax bracket begins at $151,901

What is better for you monetarily?
a) making $151,899
b) making $151,902

The real question is this, what percentage of the total tax bill do does that 1% actually pay?

The problem for the last several years has been lack of growth, below 2% on average for most of Obama's administration, not including 2008 and 2009. The slowest recovery in the history of the US economy

The 1%f isn't some shady group of people meeting in a dark room. If they are, they are all DNC supporters. Have you seen the top 10 richest people list? It's filled with DNC supporters,

There is no way in any economy that has freedom where this will not happen.

There is no way the owner and founder of Amazon should own about as much of the economy as the person working in an Amazon warehouse, or even a person who works as a computer programmer for their website. If you think they should, then there really isn't anything to debate.

Unless they take away the ability to vote in elections, then I don't see this happening [the 99% losing political power when the 1% own 99% of the country's wealth].

Support a strong 3rd party to keep the power defused down to the people instead of the hands of the 3 big parties who are the ones being bought off.

I see what your saying but unless the rich somehow come up with a way of stopping people from starting a business, then all you are auguring with is fear mongering against the wealthy.

You uterlly and completly fail to take into effect how our way of life has changed since the 1980's. The people who have become wealthy in the last 40 years have do by taking advantage of advancements in technology which has moved us forward.

I swim in terminology and each time I count something I come up with a different result.

Under Trump's tax bill, Medicare will no longer cover treatments for cancer.

In an exclusive interview with International Business Times, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn, denied knowing about a controversial last-minute provision slipped into the Republican tax bill that could personally enrich him. Corker, the lone Republican to vote against the original Senate bill, which didn't include the provision, also admitted he has not read the final tax bill he announced he will support.

A trio of Democratic Senators, meanwhile, slammed the provision, which was first reported on by IBT.

Corker’s vote is considered pivotal in the closely divided Senate and he could be in a position to make or break the landmark legislation. He declared his support for the final reconciled version of the bill on Friday after GOP lawmakers added a provision that could benefit his vast real estate holdings -- a provision that Corker denied having any knowledge of.

In a series of rapid-fire telephone interviews, Corker asked IBT for a description of the provision, and then criticized it. But minutes later, he called back to walk back that criticism, saying he wanted to further study the issue, and that it was more complex than he initially understood it to be. Despite potentially holding the fate of the entire tax bill in his hands, Corker told IBT that he has only read a short summary of the $1.4 trillion legislation.

“I had like a two-page summary I went through with leadership,” said Corker. “I never saw the actual text.” Despite not reading the bill -- and having time to read it before the final vote scheduled for this week -- he reiterated his support for the bill to IBT, support he announced hours before bill’s full text was publicly released on Friday.

Corker called IBT to respond to a series of IBT investigative reports showing that he switched his vote to “yes” on the tax legislation, only after Republican leaders added in a provision reducing taxes on income from real-estate LLCs. Federal records reviewed by IBT show Corker, a commercial real estate mogul, made up to $7 million last year from such income. President Donald Trump's financial disclosures listed between $41 million and $68 million of the same income.

After the report, Corker called IBT and asked for a detailed description of the provision, insisting he did not know about. After the provision was described, he said: “If I understand what [the provision] does, it sounds totally unnecessary and borderline ridiculous.”

A few minutes later, however, Corker called back, and tried to back off that criticism.

“I don’t really know what the provision does to be honest. I would need an accountant to explain it,” Corker said. “I had no knowledge of this and would have no knowledge of it except for you guys are calling me about it. I have no idea whatsoever whether it impacts me or doesn’t impact me.”

The provision was not included in the bills that originally passed the House and Senate. Corker previously said he opposed the legislation because he was concerned about it increasing the deficit, but on Friday he announced he would support it -- even though Congress’s own Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the legislation will increase the deficit by $1.4 trillion.

Responding to IBT's revelations, Democrats denounced the provision as a giveaway to the wealthy. Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen called the tax break "unconscionable." Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown denounced it as an example of a deal cut "for millionaires behind closed doors." Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, blasted the provision in a statment to IBT.

“This new real estate carve out was airdropped in at K Street’s bidding, widens the proposed passthrough loophole and gives away an even bigger tax cut to Trump and his wealthy friends," Wyden said. "Combined with tax cuts for the one percent, these breaks create a bonanza for the politically powerful and well-connected at the expense of the middle class.”

No, that's not the real question at all. That's the question you want to talk about, but the REAL question, the question you are dodging, is how much longer can we allow the wealthy 1% to obtain more and more of the national wealth at the expense of the 99%? Well, Baldimo, how long?

Since Reagan got elected in 1980, the top 1% has gone from owning 24% of the country's wealth to owning 43%-that's almost a fifth of the country's wealth transferred from the 99% to the 1%. That's happened in 37 years. At this rate, in forty years the top 1% will own 99% of the USA's wealth with the rest of us owning 1%. Will you admit that something is wrong with the economy then Baldimo, or will you will continue to dodge by saying that the top 1% got all that wealth by taking advantage of the new economy, which doesn't answer the question about what do we do in forty years when the top 1% own 99% of the wealth in the country.

How about it Baldimo-what do we do when the present trends continue and the 1% own 99% of the country's wealth in forty years?

Your estimate is off. The very article you linked points to 171 million taxpayers/tax units, which from the link I posted said the top 1% tax bracket account for 892420 people.