And you're wrong - if the person wants something badly enough to buy it and pay the tax ... that's his decision.
He has no such decision under the income tax since all his income (rather than just what he decides to spend) will have been filtered through the income tax system and most taxpayers will pay tax based upon all their income. The few who don't are the exception but the tax on consumption will catch the gross big spenders such as you and Mrs Kerry.
As for passing wealth on to future generations - that a big plus of he FairTax and if the present generation piddles it all away, well, that's their decision too but at least they will have had the opportunity to improve financially. How do you think the large family fortunes in history have come about - such as the Kennedys in the US and the Rothschilds in Europe. It wasn't all earned in one big blast but passed along from ancestors to progeny.
You seem to be missing the point - money is only useful, for the vast majority of us - to trade for the things we need or desire in life. Most of us hope to or will die penniless, baring a premature death, and/or planned provision for dependents. Listen to one who would be a looser if the FairTax were implemented - it doesn't have to be that way, because the FairTax bill could and should compensate people in my position for this dramatic change in the way taxes are collected for the government. It should also compensate those who are holding tax free bonds or annuities for the immediate reduction in value of those assets - and any other asset class that is impaired due to the change. Of course, it will not even be considered - it would be much too expensive to contemplate. The theft that makes the plan seem so good will be buried under a pile of lies.