VAT works something like this: when you buy X, you pay VAT on X. If you then sell X, you reclaim the VAT on X from the government. The last "user", the one that didn't sell X to anyone else (or integrate it into a larger product that they sell to anyone else) is the only one that effectively pays any tax once you draw the line.
If you did nothing but buy it, hold it, and sell it on, you didn't use the product. If you integrated it and sold it on, you didn't use the product.
Once you start actually using it, once it becomes a 'used product', selling it has no VAT and you cannot reclaim VAT. At least that's what google results told me. Were they wrong?
The exact law may be more complicated (you may have to pay the full 20 cents now and file for a 10 cents tax rebate; you may not be eligible for this if you are an individual and not a registered organization, etc.) but that shouldn't affect the basic principle.
For example, if you buy a computer for 100$+10$ VAT, and you then use that computer in you back office to keep your accounting, and you sell 1000$+100$ VAT worth of haircuts in the month where you bought the computer, you only owe the government 90$ of VAT even though you are an end user of the computer by any reasonable definition.
If you later sell the computer on to a refurbisher for 50$+5$VAT, and the refurbisher sells it on for 75$+7.5$ VAT, they will only owe the government 2.5$ VAT.
So normal people don't have to pay VAT when selling used things, but larger entities do.
VAT is not a sales tax because it's an income tax. That's what value added means, profit, income, the measure of the value you've added. Wether it gets hidden in the price or tacked on to a fake price makes little difference.
I would not really describe VAT as an income tax. It's not a tax on an income, it's a tax on the value add. Income tax means something specific, and perhaps VAT is one degree away from that, but money is fungible! On a long enough time scale everything is inheritence tax and income tax I guess!
EDIT: rereading my original post at the start of this thread I now feel a bit silly saying the explanation is "VAT-like". Metaphors and similes are bad!
That's distribution, not use. (Except for when they're testing it or running local instances, and GPL doesn't get in the way of those things.)
> Not to say GPL is bad, just that the VAT-style "only the last user counts" view of things is playing with semantics.
By my understanding VAT doesn't work that way. Once a user pays VAT and starts using something, that's it. The taxes are done with, and VAT doesn't pass on to later users.