Roman Taxation

>>1941426
Well it would really depend on which time frame you asking about. During the Republic is more or less no taxes, but rather aristocrats paying out of pocket for roads, buildings and their own militias to gather prestige from among their peers and the people.

This slightly shifted when they reached the Imperial era and tax collection depended on who was in charge at the time. Some sent out tax collectors who harassed and extorted every single penny. While some like Julian the Apostate actually lowered the taxes, so it would be cheaper to pay the taxes then it would be to try and hide their wealth, which actually refilled the coffers.

But for the most part it was completely corrupt

>>1941456
All taxation is a form of corruption, in a sense, but I was specifically asking how it compared to income tax, or if income taxation was even feasible in that era.

I imagine property taxation has a lot of potential for abuse, as the tax collector has a lot of leeway in saying what property is and isn't worth.

For example, if you base property on its last sale price, you could sell your property to a relative for 0 dollars and sell it back to you for 0 dollars.

>>1941426
Wasn't land not taxed in Rome for a certain periods of time

>>1941426
I'm actually kind of surprised this thread got a bite. You must be a maven, cause you fell right into my trap.

I am legit curious though, especially as it relates to modern day tax policy among municipalities.

>>1941472
Italy in general wasn't taxed for the longest period of time

>>1941481
The way I see it, property tax isn't really any more convoluted than income tax, what with the thousands of itemized deductions and business categories.

>>1941486
>>1941472
then how did they maintain their armies?
who paid for their food and lodging?

>>1941495
Everyone else

Uh... they didnt really

Rich dudes paid a fee to be the official Imperial Tax Collector and it was up to him to collect a set amount for Rome.

How he did it was up to him really