A motorist who earns $250,000 per year, owns a vehicle with a fuel efficiency of 20 miles per gallon, and drives a total of 15,000 miles per year will pay the exact same dollar amount in fuel taxes as a motorist who earns $25,000 per year and drives the same vehicle over the same distance every year.
Yes, this is a "regressive" tax -- in that the fuel taxes paid by the second motorist comprise a much larger percentage of his income than the fuel taxes paid by the first one. But in this case, a regressive tax is the fairest means of taxation. The "rich" motorist doesn't use the road any more than the "poor" one, doesn't cause any more roadway deterioration or taffic congestion than the "poor" one, etc. So there is no sound reason why the "rich" one should pay any more in taxes than the "poor" one.
I never said a regressive tax is unfair. Regressive gets its name as the opposite of progressive. Progressive was originally meant as an apt description of tax rates that went progressively higher with income. It has in it no hint of fairness, nor regressive a hint of unfairness.
That is until the libs hijacked the word, making it synonymous with their politically "progressive" agenda. I hate how libs get to control the terms used in political discussions, it makes good sound bad and bad sound good. They even have two conservatives here misunderstanding each other.