I can accept the $100k can remain $100k. What I don't see is how this becomes revenue neutral when I am already paying those included taxes of that $100k plus my 30% tax on income. I don't accept business is currently devoting 30% to "tax neutralization" (compliance etc.)
I see the savings as overly optimistic on "base" prices. I'll support flat tax but never sales tax.
Think a bit about the circumstances. With the $100K house under the FairTax (assuming it declines in price and then is boosted back as in your example), you are now paying for it with untaxed income whereas before you were using after tax income.
In addition, the interest rates will be considerably less with the FairTax, too. Those things make a huge difference in the affordability of the house.
Revenue neutral does not refer to YOUR purchasing power, but to the amount of tax money raised for the government. You should actually be much better off financially since - keep in mind - the consumption tax base is much greater than the IT base which means you'll pay less for the government's raising the same amount of money.
I've never raised the issue of "tax neutralization" so I'm not sure where that came from nor what you mean by it. Keep in mind, though, that with any flat tax we still have the tax code and the IRS plus all of the political mischief that can be done by Congress with hidden taxes, exemoptions, etc. - and we'll never be the wiser since much of that isn't visible. Also, most flat taxes still retain payroll taxes which are quite regressive (not to mention high).