It does not, unless you define "equally" in a very particular way. Under consumption-based tax schemes, poor people spend a larger portion of their income on taxes than rich people (because they spend more of their income, and consumption taxes are a tax on spending).

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that progressive taxes are a sham. The goal of taxing rich people at a higher rate than poor people seems pretty obviously good. Maybe the implementation issues wherein unrealized capital gains aren't captured? But that's particular to our implementation of taxes, not to progressive taxes generally.

I support progressive taxes and that is not my motivation or reasoning at all.

It is a recognition of an increased share of discretionary income and the diminishing returns of higher incomes on quality of life.

We have to fund the government services, so it makes sense in my mind to do it with discretionary income and income that has diminishing returns in the quality of the life of the taxpayer. It is solid public policy IMO.

Second, the terminology is strange, because everyone is treated equally. No matter your race, sex, age, you are progressively taxed more based on your actions/earnings for the year. [Outside of carveouts for all the various tax credits and deductions, but within those carveouts it is equally progressive.]