You can find high-level summaries from various websites, but they might have a bias eg: taxfoundation

According to the tables in that source, the top 0.001% pay about 25% income tax, which of course is income after they've had their accountants smooth over everything. The highest income tax percentage seems to be at the top 1% level. I assume this is due to higher income earners having better/more aggressive tax accountants.

If the people with 90% of the income pay less than 90% of the total income taxes, something is wrong. Every lower income should be paying less, as a percentage of their income.

▲

pclowes 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think we can debate on how progressive (in terms of as you earn more you pay more) the US tax brackets should be. They are already fairly progressive relative to peer nations.

However, I am skeptical that higher taxes or just taxing the rich or high earners more will solve the deficit or government efficiency issues.

Also I disagree with 90% of income should pay 90% of taxes. People who are better capital allocators than the government should be incentivized to allocate over paying taxes.

	▲	atmavatar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Also I disagree with 90% of income should pay 90% of taxes. People who are better capital allocators than the government should be incentivized to allocate over paying taxes. We've spent the past 50 years lowering the taxes on those who have the most income/wealth with only negative outcomes to show for it. I think the mistake you're making is assuming that those best at accumulating capital are also the best at allocating it. If they were, I expect we'd see a lot more investment into new technologies and markets rather than the large increase in rent-seeking we have seen instead.