"Assuming a sales tax does not tax the consumption of education, the same result could be made by exempting teachers, professors, school administrators, school construction, etc. from taxation under a flat tax."
That isn't an apples to apples comparison. The FairTax does not exempt teachers, professors, etc. from paying the sales tax on their consumption. It exempts students from paying a sales tax on their tuition.
Does your flat tax proposal (and you still have not clarified which flat tax proposal you support) tax grade schools, high schools, etc?
You are grasping at straws, trying to find a flaw that does not exist.
For the record, as a student of economics, I prefer the Hall-Rabushka Flat Tax. Calling other things a flat tax is placing an inaccurate label on things.
Yes, the flat tax captures education. As I observed, teachers, professors, school administrators would be subject to the flat tax. Constructions firms that build schools and their employees would be subject to a flat tax. Suppliers (paper, electricity, busses, school lunches) to school districts would pay a flat tax. A flat tax does not treat education any differently than any other sector of the economy.
That isn't an apples to apples comparison. The FairTax does not exempt teachers, professors, etc. from paying the sales tax on their consumption. It exempts students from paying a sales tax on their tuition.
Sometimes I wonder how serious you are regarding this discussion. There are two ways to tax consumption. The producer can pay it (flat tax) or the consumer can pay it (sales tax). It doesn't matter which way the law says, the effect is the same. If you don't tax education through a sales tax, it is the same exact thing as exempting teachers, administrators, school suppliers etc. from the flat tax.