reply on: Why Taxes Were So Hated in the Middle Ages \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

42 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker 6 Oct \ on: Why Taxes Were So Hated in the Middle Ages econ

I think the case might be a bit overstated:

To understand the Scholastic treatment of taxes one must bear in mind that taxation, as we now know it—namely, as a routine, normal, and respectable method of providing for the financial needs of government—is a comparatively modern phenomenon. In feudal times, on the other hand, rulers derived their revenues mainly from personal estates, customary tributes and dues paid by their vassals, tolls on strangers and on traffic on roads and rivers, war booty, rapine and piracy, and, in times of special need, from ‘‘aids,’” subventions, donations, etc., ... All of St. Thomas’ references to taxation that I know of treat it as a more or less extraordinary act of a ruler which is as likely as not to be morally illicit.

"Customary tributes and dues paid by vassals" sounds a bit like taxes to me, just at a different level.

"Revenues from personal estates" also seems to do a lot of work in the argument. Would taking a share of the peasants' crop output not be considered a form of taxation?

30 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Oct

Agreed. My sense of the qualitative difference is that those taxes were customary, as opposed to arbitrary.

They didn't have a tax policy that was expected to change regularly and entirely at the discretion of the ruler.

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 6 Oct

An interesting thing to consider is that even though in the medieval era, kings and emperors had more de jure power over their subjects, the de facto situation was probably a lot more decentralized and locally controlled than things are now. Even though we live in a democracy, I'd venture to guess that the medieval king had less control over a random peasant's everyday life than the President of the USA has over the average American citizen's life.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Oct

I'm sure that's true

52 sats \ 1 reply \ @unboiled 7 Oct

"Customary tributes and dues paid by vassals" sounds a bit like taxes to me, just at a different level.

From what I gather as I'm reading through The Sovereign Individual, there are key differences worth considering.

For one, vassals had their own armies from which they provided numbers when the king called on them. The kings' own armies, ie. with direct fealty to them, wouldn't necessarily outnumber those of their vassals combined.

This leads to the second factor, that their vassals could (and did) work together to keep the tributes and dues in check. Together they often could field a force that would make a ruler think twice in trying to enforce new/higher tributes. In essence, vassals had more bargaining power over how much they'd pay than a citizen has today.

The main difference therefore when comparing to governments today is someone else (other voters and/or government officials) decide how much someone else (you) have to pay in new taxes whereas vassals struck bargains directly on how much they would be required to pay.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 7 Oct

That fits with my understanding of the period, too.

It's one reason why I think the tax system under the Articles of Confederation was better. The national government received taxes from the states, rather than the citizens, which meant the states could push back.