Sorry, I must have completely blanked and missed that statement. Regardless, it is compared to AGI, which is possibly one of the worst possible metrics to use.

Firstly, AGI is post-deductions, so people who play games with their taxes show up as paying more.

Secondarily, and more importantly, income is a trash metric anyways. Poor does not mean low income, it means low wealth. In your data somebody who inherits a ton of money but has 0 income counts as "bottom 50%". Rich people have a disproportionally lower income vs wealth.

I am not sure these percentages include indirect taxes or are just direct. Regardless, the top 1% wealthiest accumulate wealth which is not declared as income and therefore that percentage is on their declared income and not on wealth. For poor people their income is their wealth. Finally, for the 1% even basic things that would require income for the majority of the population, such as travel, food, accommodation are routinely not funded by income, making the comparison even worse as they have extremely more flexibility in optimising their income vs investments and their exposure to indirect taxes even if they are immaterial to them.

Also something I thought based on the statement above. Poor people have at best a converging to 100% tax on their wealth, assuming that taxes collected would be savings. If they were to be consumed it’s even worse as taxes eat into their survival. Edited to make it converging with the assumption they might still be saving a little.