Take Europe, where the VAT is a major source of government revenue. When Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands adopted a VAT--all between 1968 and 1971--their stated revenue goal was neutrality: Gains in revenue from the VAT were to be fully offset by reduced taxes elsewhere. (France already had a VAT but needed to revise it to meet European Economic Community Standards.)
All failed. Government revenues--and spending--rose substantially as a percentage of GDP. In 1967 in France, the year before that country adopted its EEC-compliant VAT, total government revenues were 33.4% of GDP. In 1968, France adopted a VAT rate of 13.6%. By 2014, its VAT rate was 20% and government revenues were a whopping 45.2% of GDP. When Britain adopted a VAT, the government's stated goal was to reduce revenue. That failed, too.
Only one country, Denmark, adopted a VAT to increase revenues. It succeeded.
On the other side, arguing for a VAT, is Columbia Law School professor Michael J. Graetz.
We didn't get to see each other's various drafts while writing and revising.
By the way, one of the sources that helped me a lot was Randall G. Holcombe and Jeffrey A. Mills, "Is Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform Revenue Neutral," Public Finance Quarterly. Vol. 22, No. 1. January 1994: 65-85, especially the table on Europe's VATs on page 73.