There's actually a good reason for regressive taxes: the rich get more from the infrastructure.
Think about it, without police, laws, courts and jails, you can only keep what you can defend. If you've a lot of money, you have a lot more to defend and it's a juicier target, meaning you need better protection than someone with a little.
And that protection goes with a lot more clout with the police: will they listen to someone who has a large posh house and knows the Judge personally, or some dole scrounger?
As for education, although the rich will use private, they either own or invest in businesses. And an educated worker is more productive, meaning higher profits or lower costs. So the owner gets a little from EACH educated employee, whereas the educated employee only gets from their education.
Similarly with ambulance, hospitals and other services.
What's wrong is that the more you earn, the more worthwhile it is to dodge taxes by employing an accountant. The poor don't pay much, the rich can afford to avoid it and the middle class get enough money to tax but not enough to make it worth dodging. And, because the rich avoid taxes, the tax rate or rate of regressive increase is increased to cover it.
IMO, remove almost all of the tax law, all the breaks and fiddles. It means the poor and middle class lose out on the breaks, but they can't open loopholes that the rich can dodge. so, because they can't dodge it, the rich pay taxes and so the rates can be reduced, helping all payers.
If you live here, you pay here. No Maldives residence or if you do, you're paying UK tax AND Maldives rates. Some will find out that having an income of £1.4M rather than £1.8M but saving £200k on your accountant and having no worries about being bagged by the revenue is not as bad as they thought. Others will leave, but since we weren't getting much out of them except demands on the UK resources, we haven't missed much.