Those with more money can afford to pay more. They've also received disproportionate benefit from government - for example, if they run a business then they depend on public roads to transport goods, public schools to educate their workers, etc., and if they have more stuff then police protection is of greater benefit in protecting their greater property. So wealthier people are both able and deserving of paying their fair share.
Those who use the most of our infrastructure should pay for the largest share of the maintenance and development costs.
The poor, even those who must rely on public assistance (such as veterans, children and seniors) use a very small portion of our national assets when compared to the privileged. Millionaires and billionaires must use up, strain and occupy space on our nation's highways, bridges, police and military protection services, financial regulatory structures, environment and schools.
It barely matters to the extremely impoverished if an educated workforce exists, or a subsidized consumer base.
Moreover, the costs of protecting the assets of the wealthy are immense - and cannot be borne by the poor; there is not enough financial wealth in the bottom brackets to pay for the national infrastructure that enables the great wealth of the top 10%. (The bottom 80% of Americans only own 5% of the financial wealth in the nation.)
If the top earners want to enjoy an educated workforce, a subsidized consumer base, and if they want to use expensive police and military protection for their assets, then they must pay for these things. The middle class and poor cannot, because these sectors have been de-monetized.
Moreover, the use of the environment, roads, bridges, schools and financial and regulatory systems is not free. Those who use such systems should be required to maintain them.
We need to think about building our economy, lessening income/wealth inequality, and providing for our infrastructure.
Currently the tax structure puts much burden on the lower and middle classes to support the government. This strangles the economy, decreases the abilities of the lower classes to move up the ladder, and limits what we are able to provide in infrastructure.
We should consider progressive sales taxes instead of the standard proportional taxes. This could relieve the burdens on those making smaller purchases and enhance the possibilities of new markets. It would place a disincentive on purchases of luxury items and an incentive for buying necessities. It should decrease inflationary pressures.
Progressive property taxes would also help decrease inflationary pressures, allow for infrastructure needed to maintain property values (including code enforcement), place into consideration long-term community needs, and keep properties more in reach for all.
A progressive property tax is a maybe. The reason that we can't do a progressive sales tax is because the purpose of doing any progressive tax structure is to have those that make more, pay a greater share. It is not possible to measure that via a sales tax system. When a rich person buys milk or a poor person buys milk, the store cannot know how much they make to apply such a tax. It would also be questionably unethical to require people to have identification cards to indicate their wealth standings for stores.
The other primary issue that we run into is how to track it. Right now, stores collect and turn in the taxes themselves, which is not too hard to track, since they have to keep track of total sales, which would have a known tax amount. However, if different people have to pay different tax rates, the stores would have an entire new level of data that adds a whole new degree of complexity. It would be like going from a 2D video game, to a 3D one, only with government trying to figure it out.
Rather than property tax, or the other for that matter, why not have a Rent Mortagage Tax (RMT)? Unlike property tax, which can rise if an outside entity moves in and raises the rates - sometimes forcing people off their property because, through no fault of their own, they could not pay the new rates, RMT would be a percentage of your mortgage (if house) or rent (if apartment). So if your rent was $800 and the RMT was 10%, you would pay $880 total. I believe this would be fair and it is a flat tax. Oh, and that would be included in your payment so no extra stress in trying to make sure you got the numbers right and mail in on time.