Well, I mean, sorta? This is the point where, indeed, rational discussion can happen. In the real world, VATs and tariffs are both taxes collected at the point of trade. The distinction is just about what boundary constitutes a "trade" and what accounting is done to determine the "value" of the trade. But they're close cousins and do most of the same thing and can be used for most of the same policy purposes.
But again, that's not what's happening in US policymaking right now. They don't want tariffs, they want "Tarrifs!", and splitting hairs over the precise definition isn't going to change their mind.
No this is incorrect. The VAT is paid by all the steps in the line and reclaimed until it hits the final seller. That seller collects the VAT and pays it to the taxman. If you import something into a European country, you pay VAT but the VAT is reclaimable basically immediately. Many European countries allow you to postpone the payment of vat as long as you are VAT-registered in that country. You can then declare it to your VAT tax return and basically deducted in the same return. So although the vat might give some cashflow problems, you cannot put it in the same ballpark as a tariff or import tax.
FWIW, I don't see how any of that rebuts the idea that VATs and tariffs are both taxes collected at the point of trade and that they can be used for basically all of the same policy purposes (which, as we all know, is not limited to revenue generation).
Yes yes yes, complex rules are complicated. So what? You can do things with a VAT that you can with a tariff, and that you can not with an income tax or estate tax or usage fee or whatever.
But again, that's not what's happening in US policymaking right now. They don't want tariffs, they want "Tarrifs!", and splitting hairs over the precise definition isn't going to change their mind.