According to my understanding of the fair tax, it would work like the VAT where even if I buy something in California and I am from Minnesota a tax is still placed on that transaction. Would that then violate the following part of the constitution?
The tax code would have to be re-written....because there would no longer be an income tax or an IRS...
no, its not...check out fairtax.org for more info...if what you said is true, how come when I buy something in another state I am charged tax?
On the fairtax website it says that the tax would be collected through current state sales tax collectors, which is fine. Does this tax apply to interstate trade though? That is the main issue, if it does not apply to interstate trade then I am for it but if it does I think it is unconstitutional.
As I have read it, it is a flat tax....on everyone, no matter what state you are in. At the end of the year you get a refund based on what you spent and how much vs. the tax class you are in...its a great idea, and gaining more support everyday...and no, it will not make the cost of things go up, which is the standard argument from the socialist liberals...
Take my example for example, If I live in Minnesota and purchase something from California would I have to pay the tax? If I would not have to then I think it is great, but if I do then I think it is unconstitutional. Also, regardless of what tax system we have, if the government is able to spend 3 trillion dollars a year things need to get cut.
Why is it unconstitutional...currently if you live in minnesota and buy something in cali it is taxed? unless you buy it over the internet...i'm not fully understanding what you are asking...
I mean over the internet or by catalog and that sort of thing. If I were in the state of California I would have to pay the tax for sure but what if I was not? The reason I ask is because And if I were to buy something over the internet or by catalog from another state it would have to be exported to this state.
That gets into an iffy category. The Federal Government has the ability to regulate interstate trade, and that might not be considered a true export. I believe that it was mainly set in place to prevent states from taxing each other's goods. A universal sales tax (which is what this sounds like) would not be technically taxing an export, it would be taxing the purchase transaction on your end. I think this is similiar to those things you see on infomercials, where California and a few other states have to pay an extra sales tax on the product. I think there is a similar setup on ebay too.
The Constitution also says that government won't make anything other than gold or silver lawful money. 'Dollars' are private paper notes issued by Federal Reserve, a private corporation, so as I understand Constitution doesn't apply to transactions handled in dollars any more than it applies to euros, roubles, or Ithaca hours. If they were printed by US Dept. of Treasury then it would be a different story.
Technically, when you buy something over the internet now, you are supposed to report it and pay taxes on it...however, hardly anyone does. So in that sense, no, the fairtax is not unconstitutional.
d16man is correct. Almost every state has a Use Tax clause. As an individual you are supposed to voluntarily pay tax on everything you buy from out of state. As a business, I have to pay Use Tax on everything that is consumed by the business. Even if I buy a database or software from someone in Europe, I still have to pay use tax on the purchase. The Internet Tax is coming. Wait and see.
It has always been the case that you are expected to pay in state taxes on products you purchase out of state. Since I live in Arizona, I'm expected to pay the Arizona state tax on things I purchase on-line. This is virtually impossible to enforce so nobody bothers to mail their state a check. If you reside in the same state that the on-line business is in they have to collect the state tax from you.