Rank and Percentile:
1681
| Name | Tax | Petition | Rank | Percent |
| Putnam, Luet: Thomas | 206.25 | NoS | 1 | 100.00% |
| putnam, Natha'l | 190 | Pro-P | 2 | 98.90% |
| Fuller, Tho senr | 166 | Anti-P | 3 | 97.80% |
| putnam, Lt John | 160 | Pro-P | 4 | 96.70% |
| Rea, Joshua | 147 | Anti-P | 5 | 95.60% |
| Hutchinson, Joseph | 132.25 | Anti-P | 6 | 94.60% |
| porter, Joseph | 123 | Anti-P | 7 | 93.50% |
| Andrew, Daniel | 119.25 | Anti-P | 8 | 92.40% |
| Flint, Thomas | 102 | Pro-P | 9 | 91.30% |
| Sibley, William | 96 | NoS | 10 | 90.30% |
Sorting and ranking taxpayers on the 1681 tax list in the same manner as was previously done for the 1690 list identifies members of the pro- and anti-Parris factions at the top and bottom economic ranges. The rank and percentile table for 1681 shows that, even more than in 1690, anti-Parris members were conspicuous among the wealthiest villagers, particularly among the top quartile of taxpayers where they outnumbered their opponents by better than a two-to-one margin.
As for the poorest Salem Villagers in 1681, there was no association of poorer taxpayers with either pro- or anti-Parris petitioners. Only two petition signers (both pro-Parris) appeared among the bottom quartile of taxpayers in 1681. As was true in 1690, the most conspicuous group of villagers at the low end of the economic ladder were those who would not sign either petition.
Using descriptive data, changes in relationship between Salem Village's factions during the 1680s can be established more precisely by means of ratios. Click Next.