when your employer pays your wages, they have an incentive to report that to the govt as a cost so they don't pay tax on it. That gives the govt the information they need to come after you for not paying your income tax on it. So, same thing, income tax and VAT there is more enforceability because he structure of payments and information flow can make a difference to ease of enforcement...
but the amount of tax is based on what activity is being taxed. Sales taxes are considered "regressive" because poor people spend a greater %age of their income, so in some sense it can be seen as an "undoing" of progressive income tax. That's not strictly true, however, because the working class complaint about rich people is how much rich people consume while living greedy lavish lives: which shows that rich people would be paying a lot more of the overall %age of sales tax than poor people (not really strictly distinguishing VAT from sales tax here)
So, anyway, I'm not defending sales taxes here (meaning tax on final sale to consume-ers with no taxes backward up the supply chain). VAT taxes do make more sense in terms of economic efficiency: 10% sales tax on a printer selling for $200 is $20, where the printer cost $300 to make (remember, they're going to sell you expensive ink), and with a VAT tax the tax would be $0 (or would it even be a $30 refund?)...
...point is, VAT tax works out to a high sales-tax-on-high-profit-margin-goods and a low sales-tax-on-low-profit-margin-goods, which is helpful because govt doesn't want to distort the market for low margin goods with high taxes.
However, back to my original point, it simply means that income taxes make more economic sense than consumption taxes, and VAT is an income tax, not a consumption tax.
I'm not sure I follow your logic to say sales taxes are not regressive. And I don't think a strawman is the right argument for it.
It is regressive and it's clearly so because someone living, for example off minimum wage, will have no money (or very little money left) by the end of the month for savings or investment. Where has all this money go? It's gone to pay for goods and services. This isn't just for minimum wage incomes but it's generally also the case up to the median household though obviously the higher you go the less you need to spend in proportion of your salary in VAT. And that's the key difference, someone that's on top of the earning category will pay little in proportion of their earnings in VAT no matter how you slice it; because they always have money left for savings and investment! It's true that overall they're going to be paying more VAT but not more in proportion to their income. And this gets even worse when it comes to the top wealth as most of their "income" is through capital gains which tend to be taxed much lower.
VAT is however as you say an efficient tax. But I believe we should consider putting exceptions on certain products (such as basic foods and books) to ease the burden on low income earners.
Also capital gains taxes tend to be embarassingly low in most countries and the excuses given are, imo, quite speculative. As many economists have calculated people don't actually "fly off" until taxation is rather high, times and times higher what we tax either capital or income.
flat income tax: if you earn more, you pay more tax, but it's still the same percentage, so "earn twice as much, pay twice as much tax"
progressive income tax: if you earn more, you pay more, but also a higher percentage, so something like "earn twice as much, pay three times as much"
sales tax: spend twice as much, pay twice as much, a flat tax.
it's not regressive, it's flat. "progressive" doesn't mean the political tendency, it means the tax rate progresses higher with income. A "politically progressive" sales tax, you might say, would change the tax rate on the basis of total spend, but difficult to implement because it can't be properly calculated at purchase time, unless you just want to make more expensive items have higher taxes, but you'd lose the tax efficiency described above for the VAT.
now, it's not necessary to bend our thinking like a pretzel to try to make sales tax include an extra bonus for low income people (or extra burden for rich people) but why not just do that as part of progressive personal income tax?† and as discussed, fix sales tax with VAT... which we should simply call company income tax because that's what it is.
† capital gains tax is interesting to discuss but not here, except to say "don't try to fix your problems with capital gains tax rates by making the sales, income, or VAT taxes crazy"
but the amount of tax is based on what activity is being taxed. Sales taxes are considered "regressive" because poor people spend a greater %age of their income, so in some sense it can be seen as an "undoing" of progressive income tax. That's not strictly true, however, because the working class complaint about rich people is how much rich people consume while living greedy lavish lives: which shows that rich people would be paying a lot more of the overall %age of sales tax than poor people (not really strictly distinguishing VAT from sales tax here)
So, anyway, I'm not defending sales taxes here (meaning tax on final sale to consume-ers with no taxes backward up the supply chain). VAT taxes do make more sense in terms of economic efficiency: 10% sales tax on a printer selling for $200 is $20, where the printer cost $300 to make (remember, they're going to sell you expensive ink), and with a VAT tax the tax would be $0 (or would it even be a $30 refund?)...
...point is, VAT tax works out to a high sales-tax-on-high-profit-margin-goods and a low sales-tax-on-low-profit-margin-goods, which is helpful because govt doesn't want to distort the market for low margin goods with high taxes.
However, back to my original point, it simply means that income taxes make more economic sense than consumption taxes, and VAT is an income tax, not a consumption tax.