This is a common concern regarding consumption taxes of all kinds, and it appears legit on the face of it. But think about it: when "poor folks" buy shoes, they're getting them at WalMart for $20, VAT @ 22% = $4.40; when "the rich" buy shoes, they're buying ManoloBlablablas for $400, $500, $600 and more per pair. VAT @ 22% on $500 shoes = $110. When "poor folks" buy cars, they're buying 2nd- or 3rd-hand used cars for $500, VAT = $110; when "the rich" buy cars, they're buying Porsches or Jags or Caddies, or vintage collector cars, or monster "Death Star" SUV things, VAT @ 22% on a $100,000 vehicle comes to $22,000. Tell me again who's paying more?
Also, there are ways of softening the blow for those at the lower end of the income scale. Our HST structure includes rebates for those at the lowest income levels, meaning they effectively pay no sales tax at all. It's a sliding scale, so as your income increases your rebate is reduced, until one day you find that the rebates aren't coming anymore. By that time you're making enough that the sales tax is affordable. Hell, I feel like I'm doing OK personally, but somehow I still qualify for small rebates that are deposited directly into my bank account quarterly.
In general, I prefer consumption taxes over income taxes any day. Taxes are a disincentive - want people to smoke less, raise tobacco taxes. Want people to drink less, raise alcohol taxes. Want people to work harder, save more money, invest more - reduce their income taxes, and recoup that revenue with consumption taxes. In other words, go ahead and penalize me for spending my money, but don't penalize me for earning it.
Amen. Ditto for real estate taxes. Over and over again we hear the "rich" don't pay their fair taxes, but you can be sure they pay through the ass for their megamansions.