Good. Given a fair tax system would be proportional / flat, perhaps a little imbalance in the other direction evens it all out towards flat / proportional tax (everyone at the same percentage)
That...doesn't sound fair at all. It's equality but not equity.
FWIW we’ve already got regressive taxes in the form of payroll tax, which kick in from $0 and cap out once you earn enough. So unless you’re unemployed, you’ve paid taxes even if your marginal income tax rate is 0%.
I understand that goods and services acquired with currency can experience diminishing returns. But unless you think the rich and poor should be paying different amounts for every good and service (for example a cup of coffee), then I don’t think this is a consistent, principled argument.
And once again, let me point out that GP’s comment on a flat tax would STILL mean the rich give up more value than the poor, and it would still not be a truly ‘fair’ tax. And on a side note, ‘progressive’/‘regressive’ are made up terms used to play rhetorical games by leveraging the negative connotation of the term ‘regressive’. A better set of neutral terms would be ‘uniform’ or ‘fair’ or ‘flat’ versus ‘non-uniform’ or ‘unfair’ or ‘graduated’.
The dictionary definition is quite clear: A progressive tax is a tax in which the average tax rate (taxes paid ÷ personal income) increases as the taxable amount increases. [Google]
A regressive tax is a tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. It is in opposition to a progressive tax, which takes a larger percentage from high-income earners. [Also Google]
As such, Medicare taxes are regressive because they are capped at some amount of earned income, whereas the ordinary income tax rate is progressive because your marginal rate increases as you earn more money.
You are correct that a flat tax is neither progressive nor regressive with respect to dollars, but it is regressive with respect to marginal utility of those dollars to the earner. "Fair" is a value judgement and colors the conversation.
The dictionary definitions you are quoting are in existence simply due to common use in modern times, but I am claiming they are nevertheless bad definitions that were engineered to color the discourse on this topic.
We're both kids. I have 12 marbles. You have 24 marbles. We need to give up some marbles for the common good. We could debate whether us both giving 6 marble is fair, or wether you giving 8 and me giving 4 is fair. I can see both arguments.
However… in no rational world is it fair for you to give 10 and me 2.
Let's replace marbles with hamburgers. You and your buddy Steve lay out your food for the day. You have 2 hamburgers, exactly enough to meet your daily caloric needs. Your buddy Steve has approximately 10 hamburgers. Dramatically more hamburgers than he needs to live. More than he could eat if he tried.
Now, we need 1 hamburger for the common good. If you take that one hamburger from the guy with 2, he's hungry, and if you keep doing it, he may die. Steve, on the other hand, can't eat all his hamburgers one way or the other, so taking one from him makes much less of a difference.
Now how does that change the equation? It's fair for Steve to donate 0.8 burgers and you to donate 0.2 -- this represents fair distribution on a marginal value basis. So yes, 10:2 is completely fair. In fact, 10:0 is fair if I'm making millions and someone else is making a handful of thousands per year.
I'm personally in one of the top tax brackets and I think it should be higher. We already pay 50%-ish marginally in California, so moving up to AOC's 70% isn't really a big difference. I should be paying more, because we live in a community and I want that community to be nice. I don't want to live in a world where I have nice things and walk by people with nothing, on the ground, doing heroin like I do on my way to work every morning here in SF. All because it's not "fair" to take a burger from me, when I have more burgers than I know what to do with.