That seems to be a matter of opinion.
You might want to read A National Retail Sales Tax: Consequences for the States
(The authors ask not to be quoted or cited without permission)
"... That seems to be a matter of opinion ..."Not really. The paper from the two U. of TN guys has been linked to numerous times on these threads so your neglect in doing so is certainly spurious. And I've read the paper long ago. And the paper has been pretty well criticized on these threads also.
In fact the authors (who draw heavily from the aforementioned William Gale of Brookings) misstate some parts of the FairTax and, for example, arbitrarily assume a "20% erosion" (shades of Mr. Gale and the President's Tax Panel) with absolutely no definitive (or other) information showing why this is reasonable. That's merely one of the "flaws" in the paper.
The paper primarily (after stating in general terms what the FairTax - which it misnames as "Fair Tax" - is then proceeds to make other assumptions (such as the "erosion" mentioned above) is a fretting that the NRST (it seems to drop the correct name since it prefers the bill-altering tactic of Mr. Gale et al) will badly affect the income tax legislating and enforcing abilities of the states.
Certainly it will since most states use the Federal income tax as a base to club their own citizens similarly with and probably most will quickly ponder whether they can (or wish to) afford duplication the IRS, income Tax Code, etc. at the state level. Most thoughtful people would think that's all to the good since it would probably help eliminate income taxes at that level, too. The paper's authors, though, seem to be trying to replicate the President's Tax Panel and Mr. Gale's efforts but at a state level since they come up with a "rate" of the (non) FairTax plan they devise of over 37% te. this is more of the same old "mis-definition and attack" ploy that we see repeatedly.
Offering this as some sort of serious opinion of the FairTax as you do merely shows how bereft you are of valid analysis.