I agree with your rebuttal in response to that other person's comment, but ultimately I do think those programs are regressive for the poor, at this very point in time.
I guess the question becomes, should those poorest suffer for the betterment of all future generations? I would personally say no.
Life is regressive. Charity is a good thing, but not every single conceivable public policy has to include a charity component. Charging citizens a reasonable price for the cost of services rendered is a perfectly fair thing to do. The fact that life itself isn't fair doesn't change that. I'd prefer we try to address that later problem separately through a centralized welfare program rather than by hamstringing good public policy.
Thank you for letting me clarify my point with two examples of how these seemingly regressive policies ultimately help the poorer among us: 1. carbon taxes will improve poor air quality which currently impacts the poor more than the wealthy who can afford to live in cleaner areas. The poor will enjoy significant health benefits that far outweighs the small regressive tax they pay know. 2. A Congestion pricing stands to dramatically improve mass transit options like buses, which the working class rely on far more than the wealthy to get to work on time and will even expand the job options they have available to them.
I guess the question becomes, should those poorest suffer for the betterment of all future generations? I would personally say no.