I’ll admit that I have not read this carefully, and it is a complex topic. But the following excerpt from the article does not seem to make sense:
“Interestingly, Senator Cruz’s business flat tax differs from what most tax wonks call a flat tax, which is a subtraction-method VAT with the labor portion remitted directly by wage earners. Professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka developed the concept in the 1980s. Their flat tax is more progressive since the wage tax includes a generous exemption. A still more progressive variant, which the late David Bradford called the X-tax, includes progressive rates rather than a single-rate flat rate.
They are all variations on the same theme. But they are all VATs.”
So the Flat tax on income was a VAT? I don’t think so. It seems that every tax is a VAT in the eyes of Len Burman.
He never says tax on individual income as far as I can see but, yes, VAT is a tax on business income which is the "value added" to a product.
The fact that VAT is so "complex" as you say and, really convoluted with many holes and misunderstandings, all of that right there should put up a big red flag for you: don't go for it. The feds LOVE complexity and confusion because they can get more of your money that way without you even realizing it. VAT absolutely goes the wrong direction. We need SIMPLER tax not more confusing convoluted tax.