AHC: churches in America taxed from the very beginning?

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.

OT3H, if there were NO exemptions for specific types of organizations in the first place. If colleges and churches and such were taxed from the beginning, you could get a legislative culture that did not want to play with the tax code like that.

In particular, if Senator X wants special exemptions for the industry in his home state, every other senator might say 'Ack!!! no way are we opening that can of worms. If we give exemptions for industry Y, we KNOW the churches will be all on our case, and think of all the tax revenue we'd lose.'
 
and that could be the norm, much like social security is currently the third rail of American politics.

(and yes, around '05, President Bush talked about privatizing a third of it, but didn't really get anywhere)
 
As an analogy, Quakers focused a lot of energy on the issue of oaths and decided they could take an affirmation but not an oath. In fact, the United States Constitution even says "Oath or Affirmation."

So, maybe the early Puritans or Congregationalists decide, we're not going to accept any privileges from the government because that will make us vulnerable to later pressure or influence.
 
OT3H, if there were NO exemptions for specific types of organizations in the first place. If colleges and churches and such were taxed from the beginning, you could get a legislative culture that did not want to play with the tax code like that.

In particular, if Senator X wants special exemptions for the industry in his home state, every other senator might say 'Ack!!! no way are we opening that can of worms. If we give exemptions for industry Y, we KNOW the churches will be all on our case, and think of all the tax revenue we'd lose.'

Call me over-cynical, but I don't think that very likely to happen. Nobody ever went broke betting in favour of the government's propensity to meddle with things.

As an analogy, Quakers focused a lot of energy on the issue of oaths and decided they could take an affirmation but not an oath. In fact, the United States Constitution even says "Oath or Affirmation."

So, maybe the early Puritans or Congregationalists decide, we're not going to accept any privileges from the government because that will make us vulnerable to later pressure or influence.

But being taxed would make them far more vulnerable, especially since the government wouldn't even have to officially whack up tax rates to put pressure on Churches. Just subject the ones which disagree with you on issue X to a load of intrusive and costly audits, lawsuits and the like, and you can make life difficult for them without changing any laws or tax rates or drawing attention to what you're doing.

ETA: Also, bear in mind that the Founding Fathers were rather sceptical about government power, generally viewing it as a necessary evil. They'd be very unlikely to trust the government not to abuse the powers state taxation of Churches would give it.
 
Last edited:
If it starts with a head tax,

and then tariffs, and later on, sales taxes,

probably not going to have abusive audits unless income tax comes much sooner than OTL.
 
Top