I am not abbreviating your post to be dishonest (after all one can look up to see your whole context), rather I am abbreviating you to make my post more concise.
1) Rich people use tax professionals to lower their taxes
2) That the Trump tax cuts benefitted the rich more than the poor is regressive.
3) The chart shows the total precentage of the taxbill for the poor slightly increased.
So, before I respond to any of these, I'm impressed that someone is civilly arguing politics and will concede that their opponent has a point. That's rarer than a four leaf clover. You have earned my respect as a fair and honest debater, whether or not we come to an agreement.
Moving to the debate itself. While none of your points are wrong, in and of themselves, they are not being viewed in context. So let's supply that context.
1) First, everybody uses tax professionals today. Put bluntly, given the complexity of the tax code and the penalties for making a mistake if you are audited...it's too difficult and scary for most people to do their taxes. Unless you live in the most rural of areas, there are tax professionals who donate their time to the poor everywhere. 81.2% of people get help (https://www.gobankingrates.com/taxes/fi ... 6R%20Block
.) If we object to using tax professionals, then virtually everyone in the country is a criminal or cheat.
Second, no one of any economic stripe objects to tax breaks. And EVERYONE who is offered a tax break takes it. It's like objecting to people using coupons. Clearly, it's not illegal...it's in the tax code after all...so we can't object on those grounds. And if we object to rich people using exemptions, then we have to object to the single mother with three kids using her 6000 dollar tax credit (thanks Trump) to not only avoid taxes...but to get money back. No one of sound mind says "Thanks for pointing out that I qualify for this break, but I'd rather pay the IRS 500 bucks more." So, while true, this point lacks much substance.
2) I will use the most beneficial definition of "regressive taxes" to address this point. (A regressive tax is one that imposes the same rate of taxes on people regardless of income.)
First, the Trump cuts are not regressive, as they actually make the ICC refundable, even if the person does not pay taxes. Thus, in impact to the poor in terms of percentage (of their income not the federal income), the Trump tax cuts (actually authored by Paul Ryan) are the first tax cuts ever to benefit the poor more than the rich, as no rich person has a negative tax rate.
More importantly, this assumes that regressive taxes are bad. They most certainly are not.
To use an example. When one shops at a store, and sees that a bottle of soda costs $2, they would expect to pay $2. But, if they got to the counter and were charged $20 in taxes on that one bottle, they would leave the bottle behind and complain heavily. They would be even more chagrined if the person behind them in line paid $1 for 5 bottles.
Thus, if it would offend me to pay 1/3 of my income, I must accept that it is unfair to expect another to pay 1/3 of theirs. And this is before I even consider the hundreds of other taxes people pay.
3) I will assume your graph is true for the sake of this argument.
We need to differentiate between the tax burden on individuals, and the percent of taxes collected from a group. To make up numbers, if an individual is given a 75% tax cut, meaning he pays 25 dollars instead of 100, he will likely be apathetic that his group, although each one paying a significant share less, pays a statistically insignificant percent more.
Here, in 2017, the personal deduction, that amount of money one makes which they pay no income taxes on, was $4050. In 2018, it was $12,000. https://taxfoundation.org/2017-tax-bracketshttps://taxfoundation.org/2018-tax-brackets
Since it was almost impossible to work part time in 1997 when I started in 1997 and not make 12,000, this means that every working person received a minimum of an $800 tax break. If you're poor, that's a significant break. While it may mean nothing in the terms of trillion dollar deficits, for the poor person, that's a huge break. That may be a months rent and utilities, a car payment, or an emergency covered.
The Trump tax cuts not only took massive numbers of people off the roles, they transformed hundreds of thousands from taxpayers into benefit recipients. And, by taking them off the roles, they marginally raised the percentage of all of the remainders into the general total.
None of the three points, however, means that tax cuts are bad, or that they hurt the poor.