"As it affects everyone at the same rate." That's a flat tax. A regressive tax is one that affects the poor more.

However, you are right that it is probably regressive, since the rich normally place more of their wealth percentage-wise in non-cash assets than poor people do.

A flat tax is regressive. It affects the poor more since each marginal dollar affects their lifestyle to a greater degree.

It is the difference between not being able to afford childcare and not being able to afford a second vacation home.

> A flat tax is regressive [because what matters is utility of money].

It's fine to think that, but normally when people are talking about tax progressiveness, they are thinking about the fractional tax on dollars, not "utils". Otherwise, you'd also call our existing, progressive taxation scheme "regressive," since it still probably taxes poor people's utils at a higher rate than rich people. And there would probably not anywhere in the world be a tax scheme that can properly be called progressive.

One good rule of thumb, IMO, is that when you want to change the meaning of a classifier such that all extant instances of the classified type fall into a single bucket, that's probably not a useful change. YMMV.

A flat tax is regressive in nature since the wealthy demand a greater share of the services provided by civil society.

Do they really 'demand a greater share' in proportion with how much more they contribute?

Police protect assets, fire services protect assets, schools are better in wealthy districts, The IRS targets poor and middle class because it's easier. Courts give better outcomes to the wealthy. Businesses are generally started by those with money. Pretty sure that the wealthy use significantly more resources because they have more to protect.

But where's "with how much more they contribute?" part of the answer? Such as the jobs created?

I would think that most public services, such as public schools or public transportation are consumed by lower and middle class people.

The upper class has their own private version of pretty much everything.

Even if true, you need to make that inference explicit, because that's a confusing, non-standard usage of "flat tax" and "regressive" tax.

Second, can you show your basis for thinking that? I would think it's the opposite: the wealthy aren't using the public schools, free health care, etc.

You know, that's probably debatable. The high wealthy also spend a lot on private services above and beyond what's publically available. Private security, planes, accountant and legal teams, private doctors, etc.

This seems counter intuitive to me but I’m not saying you’re wrong. Could you share more?

Utility of wealth is non linear.

That's why I included ubi in essentials. The thing this solves is tax avoidance evasion.

Inflation's greatest impact is on those holding cash reserves or dollar-denominated assets: bank deposits, loans, mortgages, bonds (federal, state/local, corporate), insurance policies, annuities, cash-denominated contracts, and the like.

The cash-poor with few or no financial holdings or savings, are largely unaffected, as are those holding non-cash assets (real property, capital, commodities, stocks).