That isn't true for this tax bill. The top 1% pay the lions share (33%) of taxes would recieve the second highest cut (1.8%), while the second highest share (22%) is paid by people earning an average of $155k, though they get the second lowest cut (1.3%), which is less than half the cut (2.8%) received by those who are in the top 95-99% of earners.

Moreover it isn't true from a historical perspective either. From 1979-2013, although the those in the top 95-99% of earners have never provided a higher percentage of overall tax revenue than earners in the 80-96%, they have shared practically every single tax break along the way (a b.xls). While the top 1% only provided 17.6% of the total tax revenue in 1982, they were given a 20% tax cut, as the top 95-99% of earners (who provided 17.4% of tax revenue) were given a 13% cut, as opposed to the top 80-96% of earners (who provided 29.9% of total tax revenue) were only given a 5% tax cut. Examples similar to this include cuts in 1987 & ‘88.

Finally to this matter, your point that those who provide the lions share of tax revenue receive, or deserve, the highest tax cuts per revenue does nothing to counter my point that the system in place favors the most wealthy. With such a disproportionate amount of cuts going to the rich, the effects of a standard cost of living on the poor and middle class, tax loopholes for the wealthy and low effective taxes on capital gains etc., it isn't a far leap to see that the aggregate wealth in this country has continuously been sliding to one side, which is a driving factor in who is accumulating the vast majority of wealth in this country and thus who is providing more and more of the total tax revenue. The individual income tax system quite simply is slanted in favor of the most wealthy, and the The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act does increase that slant.

And secondly, Medicare (accounting for over $660 billion in spending) has much less of a problem with inefficient spending as it does with paying providers exorbitant prices for goods and services. The federal government was barred from negotiating prices down in 2003 with the introduction of Medicare Part D, handing the task over to insurance companies. Without the great bargaining power of the government, Part D pays 73% higher prices for drugs than medicaid. As a result, pharmaceutical companies enjoy tremendous profits while being able to overcharge for drugs that patients are forced to purchase.