Let's say sales tax is 10%. If I'm a high earner and buy a cheap Android for $50, the $5 I'm paying in sales tax has a much lower impact on my budget than it does to someone who earns less than I do and wants to buy the same phone.
The Economist argues for it[1], quoting the following part:
> In terms of economic incentives, the most efficient remedy would be to replace the federal income tax with a much more steeply progressive consumption tax. Under such a tax, people would report not only their income but also their annual savings, as many already do under 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts
0: https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_m...
1: https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2010/11/17/al...
This is also why a “flat tax” is bad compared to increasing marginal tax rates. Remember that most systems don’t tax all income at the same rate; they tax anything above $a ie $(a-0) at x%, anything above $b and only that $(b-a) at (x+2)%, and so on.
Anti-tax fundamentalists use terms like “tax brackets” to trick people who don’t understand this system into thinking it’s possible for eg one’s net income to go down as they earn more money. (“Make this much, and you’ll be in the y% bracket!”) Don’t buy into this, it’s not true.