Lets do this (if you have any interest in continuing an intelligent debate backed by facts and figures and stuff):
Like real facts and figures, or are you going to make stuff up again?
I understand that state taxes are graduated. There is no ambiguity in that statement.
Now, how do you explain the study I referenced that shows the top 1% pay a 6.4% state and local tax rate, whereas the middle class pay 9.7%? Does that or does that not fit the definition of a regressive tax system? Doesnt that invalidate your unsubstantiated claim that the rich pay a larger % of their income in state and local taxes than the middle class do?
You're smart enough to know that that you're mixing income taxes with other taxes such as sales. Let's do a little math:
Joe Lunchbox makes $20k/year. He buys the discount isle 70/30 ground beef at $3/lb.
Then Joe Millionare enters the same store. He buys the prime aged fillet at $25/lb.
Lunchbox got charged 7% x $3 = $0.21 in taxes
Millionare got charged 7% x $25 = $1.75 in taxes -- a lot more.
But wait... Lunchbox just spent 0.21/20,000 = 0.00105 of his income on hamburger.
Now Millionare spent 0.000175% of his income on his fillet.
OMG! It's regressive! Joe Millionaire got a break! This is aweful!
But wait a second... Millionare spent over eight times more in taxes. And wait... he bought an expensive, high-margin product that lets the grocery store carry lost leader products like $3 hamburger in the first place. So the store made a killing on Millionaire and shifted some of its profits so it could sell to Lunchbox as well.
I can't tell if you're playing dumb or really don't get it. It's fun to play either way.