True, though I wonder to what degree a per-person dividend (some sort of universal income) could offset the regressivity of consumption taxes.
That is, we go ahead and tax consumption of land, road space, emissions, extraction, etc and everyone receives the same monthly sum that is enough to cancel out the taxes paid by a person who uses a minimal share of resources.
(Though I'm not sure I'd consider police interactions as a source of consumption taxes as per the original poster.)
I don't think that scheme changes the progressive/regressive nature of a system at all because the incremental increases in wealth are regressive. You are basically setting up a charitable floor on a regressive system.
Consider the differences in tax rates under your system between someone making 200k and 2 million. And you will see near identical percentages (fractions of a percent difference) because the floor you set is a fraction of their earnings and they are being taxed evenly on all the rest.
So it is regressive between those income ranges, but progressive if you compare someone making 20k with 200k.
That is, we go ahead and tax consumption of land, road space, emissions, extraction, etc and everyone receives the same monthly sum that is enough to cancel out the taxes paid by a person who uses a minimal share of resources.
(Though I'm not sure I'd consider police interactions as a source of consumption taxes as per the original poster.)