Tax rates are based on income. The less you earn, the less taxes you pay. So in that sense, you could argue you don't pay for the higher education you never rec

Tax rates are based on income. The less you earn, the less taxes you pay. So in that sense, you could argue you don't pay for the higher education you never received. But beyond that, there is a deeply flawed logic behind indicating the tax would be "regressive" just because you personally don't benefit from it. So long the taxes are reasonably efficiently allocated (by macroeconomic standards, not by business standards) and increase a societies overall well-being, the vast majority of people benefit from it, either directly or by proxy. There are debates to be had which kind of "services" benefit from this scheme of financing the most, but being from a country where higher education is publicly funded and having benefited from this accessibility of higher-ed as well, I can see the merits of this scheme in the context of higher-education.