I use the current tax system, because that's what I have to compare it to. The only other significant alternative is the Flat Tax, which is more regressive tha

I use the current tax system, because that's what I have to compare it to. The only other significant alternative is the Flat Tax, which is more regressive than the current system. Also, you say it is unattractive, but offer no alternative or rebuttal. Yes, the top wage earners could pay less % in tax to their income than they do today, because there are more tax-deferred investment opportunities available. But again, tax-deferred investments, are simply that... deferred. The rental income would be spent unless it is re-invested, but again, no one saves into infinity and you have that same opportunity today if you really wanted to. Now, I haven't seen evidence of a income snowballing effect as you say though, but I would like to see it. In fact there is little debate on the overall economic impact, like one study that showed a 10% increase in GDP, real wages, and total employment plus a doubling of domestic investment after 5 years. Again I ask for examples and data to discuss and look at. Studies using the Gini coefficient for example which is the most popular statistic of progressivity, show the FairTax as highly progressive. That number also rises even more if you raise the prebate base. We can certainly debate the merits of such a progressive system, but calling the FairTax "fairly" regressive because you believe it so based on your impression of sales tax systems shows that you are not well informed. There is study after study that shows that it is the most progressive tax system proposal. BTW, an influx in rental home speculation will only drive rental prices down as more rental supply enters the market. Which is good for the lower income brackets.