AHC: churches in America taxed from the very beginning?

With the idea, they're not going to be taxed any more, and they're not going to be taxed any less. They're just going to be taxed the same as everyone else.

This can even be considered a bulwark of religious liberty because then a mayor or governor or judge won't be able to pressure a church to conform to this or the other doctrinaire line.

Okay, so how does this come about?

It would necessitate a removal of freedom of religion and would most likely cause the governments to play favorites with religions/churches. It would actually cause government's to have even more pressure on churches to conform, because if they don't, their church's taxes would go up. You'd also see that kinda thing with all the sects and other religions that popped up.

Having the US be utterly dominated by one religion and Jefferson not writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom would probably do the trick.

Medibee said:

It would necessitate a removal of freedom of religion and would most likely cause the governments to play favorites with religions/churches. It would actually cause government's to have even more pressure on churches to conform, because if they don't, their church's taxes would go up. You'd also see that kinda thing with all the sects and other religions that popped up.

Having the US be utterly dominated by one religion and Jefferson not writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom would probably do the trick.

Click to expand...

I reckon that would depend on one's definition of freedom of religion. Governments play favorites with religions/churches anyway because those who make up the governments (usually) have a favorite religion. Taxing them the same as everyone would certainly cause there to be fewer churches, though.

And yes, taxing at the very beginning could potentially cause the beginning of government hostility toward religion.

Or, it could be a jumpstart toward neutrality on the part of government towards different religions. I hope this second possibility would be the one to play out, but I guess it could go either way.

Could you just do a flat tax at like 10%

In early Virginia, I think they had a head tax, which frankly I think is a stupid tax. Husbands had to pay the tax, wives were excluded. Later laws I think made masters pay the tax for Indians held in "service," as well as Africans. Full-fledged slavery came somewhat gradually, still in big steps.

Will try and look up some more about the tax.

PS I think I've also run across the phrase, tithes levied, or something similar, which again shows how hard it is to read into another time and place.

about early Virginia:

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/tithables_vanote.htm

By 1658, when the assembly passed a law defining "What Persons are Tithable," a "tithable" was a member of the potentially productive labor force: free caucasian males age sixteen or older plus "all negroes imported whether male or female, and Indian servants male or female however procured, being sixteen years of age" (Hening, Statutes at Large, 1:454-455). Subsequent laws made the immigrants' descendants tithable, too.
.
.
Relatively few tithables lists are extant.
.
.

Click to expand...

You'd need a huge change for this. The colonies all had established churches an d taxed people for their support. Taxing churches would be counterproductive for what they were going for.

I thought a few of the colonies didn't have established churches.

Now, as much as I like the idea of taxing churches early on, I'm not sure it's plausible. It's a big jump to go from having churches take tax money to having them give it. I hope somebody who knows more than me can make it work.

Jasen777 said:

You'd need a huge change for this. The colonies all had established churches and taxed people for their support. Taxing churches would be counterproductive for what they were going for.

Click to expand...

It is not true that the colonies "all" had established churches. Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware did not. https://books.google.com/books?id=BZRJSx3uMYEC&pg=PA179

You are correct of course, I overgeneralized, my bad.

whether overgeneralized or not, still a big, big problem

I put the chance of this AHC as 1 chance out 10, if that.

But the norm could have just been different from the beginning.

For example, some religious people take a worry or an idea and take it to the logical extreme. The Calvinists are an example of this.

So, let's have a timeline where one of the newer nonconforming churches in England becomes worried that if we take money from a government, even a government we establish which is favorable to us, we exist only while we are in that government's favor. Even if we pay no taxes, we still exist only during that government's favor. The only solution is for ministers to pay the same taxes as everyone else and for the church itself to pay the same taxes as any other enterprise that size. And upon this principle we can stand.

GeographyDude said:

whether overgeneralized or not, still a big, big problem

I put the chance of this AHC as 1 chance out 10, if that.

But the norm could have just been different from the beginning.

For example, some religious people take a worry or an idea and take it to the logical extreme. The Calvinists are an example of this.

So, let's have a timeline where one of the newer nonconforming churches in England becomes worried that if we take money from a government, even a government we establish which is favorable to us, we exist only while we are in that government's favor. Even if we pay no taxes, we still exist only during that government's favor. The only solution is for ministers to pay the same taxes as everyone else and for the church itself to pay the same taxes as any other enterprise that size. And upon this principle we can stand.

Click to expand...

But if the government is able to start taxing churches, why wouldn't it be able to whack up the taxes of already-taxed ones?

GeographyDude said:

whether overgeneralized or not, still a big, big problem

I put the chance of this AHC as 1 chance out 10, if that.

But the norm could have just been different from the beginning.

For example, some religious people take a worry or an idea and take it to the logical extreme. The Calvinists are an example of this.

So, let's have a timeline where one of the newer nonconforming churches in England becomes worried that if we take money from a government, even a government we establish which is favorable to us, we exist only while we are in that government's favor. Even if we pay no taxes, we still exist only during that government's favor. The only solution is for ministers to pay the same taxes as everyone else and for the church itself to pay the same taxes as any other enterprise that size. And upon this principle we can stand.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt that you will find significant numbers to join a movement based in taxing them, especially when its just as equal to tax nobody. The argument that it makes them freer could be undone by the argument that raising taxes is a lot easier to do that placing a new tax on something which had previously been guaranteed tax-free.

Medibee said:

It would necessitate a removal of freedom of religion and would most likely cause the governments to play favorites with religions/churches. It would actually cause government's to have even more pressure on churches to conform, because if they don't, their church's taxes would go up. You'd also see that kinda thing with all the sects and other religions that popped up.

Having the US be utterly dominated by one religion and Jefferson not writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom would probably do the trick.

Click to expand...

Hunh?

Arguably, the tax-free status of churches is unconstitutional iOTL, because it give Churches special privileges. OK, so it's a bad argument, because they could incorporate as not-for profits under other rules, but still.

How does treating churches THE SAME as any other organization contravene Religious Freedom? How would it get governments involved in church affairs?

It wouldn't. Your arguments are, IMO, totally groundless.

---
Speaking as a church-going tithing Christian.

Not at all. The power to tax IS the power to control (or at least influence).

There's really no such thing as government THE SAME. Even if that exists briefly, it would soon change.

The tax code is ridiculously complex SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE the government likes to play politics with it -- give tax breaks to certain kinds of companies (solar, energy, etc.), penalize certain kinds of things (luxury taxes), and allow some things to be deducted and not others.

That being the case, how long would it be before some churches got certain tax breaks (churches that do job placement or even as severe as the 3rd Methodist Church at address X -- see Jim Wright's tax breaks) and others got penalties (churches that aren't integrated, that don't allow gay marriage, etc.)? It WOULD happen.

Even if that wasn't a HUGE problem (which it would be), it could simply be a matter of the paperwork. A hostile government could make the required paperwork very onerous, selective, or invasive.

For instance, it could be so complex that any congregation would have to hire an expensive tax attorney to keep up, effectively forcing small congregations "out of business."

It could be selective in that the requirements were structured with certain denominations in mind -- the paperwork is easy for them but hugely expensive for other denominations.

And, of course, who would worry about government invasiveness? Just imagine government asking a church for a list of their parishioners, their level of donations, how many meetings they attended, etc? Could you imagine THAT being abused?

Finally, if the government is taxing something, it (of course) has to verify it. So, then you'd have the IRS showing up to audit churches. Everyone knows that our IRS is absolutely neutral, never plays favorites, treats everyone equally, and has never been used as a pawn by an administration ... Or maybe NOT!!!!!! Huge problem. This whole thing with Lois Lerner could have been harassment of conservative churches vs conservative groups.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

Hunh?

Arguably, the tax-free status of churches is unconstitutional iOTL, because it give Churches special privileges. OK, so it's a bad argument, because they could incorporate as not-for profits under other rules, but still.

How does treating churches THE SAME as any other organization contravene Religious Freedom? How would it get governments involved in church affairs?

It wouldn't. Your arguments are, IMO, totally groundless.

---
Speaking as a church-going tithing Christian.

Click to expand...

I can see something like that under income tax, but with a property tax, much harder to get in your business to the same extent.

Even if a county appraiser is on one side of a disagreement, say, within the Methodist church and either tries something deliberatively or takes the attitude "Not going to do those people any favor!", there is an appeals process and a limit to how out of line an appraisal can be with the rest of the neighborhood.

A situation which worries me more is that a church has been in a location for 50 years and property taxes keep going up and up because the neighborhood is getting more built up and commercial. That's a tough one. Hard to know how to reconcile that with the idea that a church is going to be taxed the same as everyone else.

(and by no means have given up on the idea of an income tax, may be the case that it's the least lousy tax for a modern economy, may be able to draw inspiration from 1986 Tax Reform Act, etc.)

GeographyDude said:

Even if a county appraiser is on one side of a disagreement, say, within the Methodist church and either tries something deliberatively or takes the attitude "Not going to do those people any favor!", there is an appeals process and a limit to how out of line an appraisal can be with the rest of the neighborhood.

Click to expand...

OTOH, tying a person or organisation up in vexatious litigation can be a good way to get at them. Even if you don't have a hope of winning, you can still put them through the expense, uncertainty and hassle of fighting endless court cases.

I'm hoping there's a widespread societal norm of religious freedom.

And I'm also hoping we'd stay with the standard practice of a public listing of properties and appraised values. So, with that transparency, plus an appeal process available which is not too laborious, might kind of work out okay.

But people do game systems, so what you describe might come to pass. 'Course the current system's not perfect either.

Exactly, the government doesn't have to be right, or even win, they just have to make it to hard and expensive to fight them.

This is the course of action often followed today -- right or wrong, take people to court -- if you can outspend them enough, you can force them to give up

Fabius Maximus said:

OTOH, tying a person or organisation up in vexatious litigation can be a good way to get at them. Even if you don't have a hope of winning, you can still put them through the expense, uncertainty and hassle of fighting endless court cases.

Click to expand...