Care to explain why? Those taxes are basically pass-throughs meant to recover some of the costs associated with the government providing the service. The idea that the rich somehow benefit more from roads, the DMV, and other public goods is a completely ridiculous extension of the "it takes a village" idiocracy.
For one thing you've listed very different taxes, and I shouldn't have run with that - gas taxes play a very different role (depressing gas usage for our communal environmental good) than DMV fees.
But basically we should reduce or eliminate all regressive taxes we can, including sales taxes. We want a system where hard work and talent lead to success, and more hard work and talent are necessary and sufficient to maintain higher levels of success. That's done through progressive taxation, not making it harder for the poor to get a toehold on success.
The rich absolutely benefit more from roads, though. The roads bring their employees to work more reliably, quickly, and cheaply; allow more customers to buy their companies' goods; the rich have more to protect and benefit disproportionately from police getting there quickly; the rich are far more likely to travel; wealthier people (even without being "rich") are far more likely to own cars in the first place.
The same basic logic extends to public schools, DMVs to ensure only safe drivers are on the roads (and that employees can get necessary licenses to be more mobile and reduce wages by increasing competition), etc.
Please explain the causal relation for the first assertion about the poor,
Given that taxes are a necessity, as you've agreed (and yes, a balancing act, but let's pretend we've minimized them for our basic needs), you have to apportion them to minimize the barriers to everyone - as a whole - to get ahead through hard work / talent.
It's simply true that someone making $100 million/year won't have his ability to contribute to society as much reduced by only getting $80 million after taxes, as someone who makes $10k/year only getting $8k. The $20million would be nice, but the lost $2k means taking on another job, less sleep, no time for education, no money for childrens' education, likely worse health because of this, and possibly even a decision that with wages this low, there's no getting ahead by working so crime is more realistic. No savings means no investing which means no possibility of climbing up the ladder.
Regressive taxation makes it harder for people to climb the ladder, simple as that.
and any evidence for the second about the rich "never contributing" again.
It's not the first-generation rich who aren't going to do anything, it's their kids (which is why we should have high estate taxes after the first ~$1 million). Donald Trump and Paris Hilton are not super-rich because of their incredible talents and work ethic.
That they capture the political process is a flaw of the current paradigm of government to be Santa Claus distributing trillions of dollars. That you would trust a rich politician to dole out the goodies in the public interest but think the rich citizen who paid the taxes being doled out should not have any say because it somehow "corrupts" the process is the utmost pinnacle of willful blindness.
The rich citizen should have exactly as much say as any other citizen in our government. That's the whole damned point of democracy.