Not convinced by the bit at the end arguing that profiling mainly rich families is right because that's where the money is. If you want to look at where the mon

Not convinced by the bit at the end arguing that profiling mainly rich families is right because that's where the money is. If you want to look at where the money is, charts breaking down the overall changes in revenue--literally breaking down where the money is--are the right tool, and plenty of news outlets and think-tanks have been making those. (Like, I don't know, this: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DxNLXVIK9jjf6JdZlijXboCAnIA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9910265/CHIP_VS_TAX_CUTS.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DxNLXVIK9jjf6JdZlijXboCAnIA=... -- also, interesting URL with the rescaling operations there.) The point of looking at particular individuals and families is to translate it into impact on people's lives, and 1) a lot more lives are lived in those lower income ranges, so there's a greater multiplier to the impact there, and 2) the impact of a given dollar change in take-home pay is larger for someone less rich. For an example of the second factor, like a lot of people in the US tech business, my life probably doesn't change that much if my take-home pay goes up or down $1K. If someone only has a couple K of discretionary income every year it's a bigger deal; if someone can barely make rent anywhere in their city or can't afford to fix the car they take to work when it has mechanical issues, it's crucial.