It has zero chance of happening so debate about its feasibility is essentially just jaw-jacking. Here's why: Using Rebel's figures, spreading the taxes now paid by over 40 million over 300 million may be great for the 40 million, but that means not so great for 260 million, and the Congressmen that would have to pass tend to not be so keen on 4:26 odds. There are massively more stakeholders on the status quo side of the equation than on the Fair Tax side of it.
Those 260 million other people get a monthly check up to the poverty level. About 150 a month per person.
They also vote, at least in the same proportion as the 40 million do. Are you math-impaired, or just don't want to think through how the House of Representatives actually works (including that little 'Popular election every two years' thing)?
Everything you've said is a great argument for the 4 in that 26:4 setup, and a worse deal for the 26. That 26 is not going to go for big changes like Fair Tax just because 'It won't make the prices that much different,' they would only do it because they see some advantage for them or their interests in the change, and so far it all cuts the other way for them. The fact that the present system doesn't seem equitable to the 4 means exactly jack to the 26.
Figure it out using some actual brain cells instead of testosterone and wishful thinking, and spare me the asswipe snark about "The same attitude as you, Revolution never would have happened, blahblahblah," you sound like some retard Paulista when you do that.