[citilife]

Actually, no it's not. The poor are taxed at the same rate as the wealthy. Regressive, is that they are taxed more.

I'm suggesting that we take substantially more from the ultra wealthy; many of whom already pay <15% tax. I'm also suggesting we tax the middle class less as well (who often pay more by percentage >15%) and the poor don't pay taxes until after they make a "live-able wage", i.e. only after they can afford food and shelter do we tax.

A flat 20% tax rate, plus removing loop-holes or tax refunds would dramatically impact the wealthy and middle class. Then we drop taxing the poor (which the U.S. already does).

I think it's naive to think we should just "raise taxes" to disproportionately take from the people who have money. They may have earned it, I don't want to take their wage, any more than I want to take from someone who works in the field all day.

[rosser]

Ignoring marginal utility is absolutely regressive.

[gnicholas]

The income tax would not be regressive, but the overall tax system (including sales tax, gas tax, and other consumption or usage taxes) would be regressive.

That isn't to say that regressivity is a fatal flaw — tobacco taxes and other "sin taxes" are all regressive, but they're seen as good because the goal is to discourage behavior, not raise revenue.