What was the Roman tax system like?

>>34389000
usually tax rate would be between 1-3% on your wealth, but higher in wartime. sometimes there would be an income tax in Urban areas.
in Rural areas where organised tax collection was either impossible or poorly executed Rome would put a levy and lump sum tax on the provincial governor, as long as he paid and supplied the soldiers needed, be basically got free reign over the region.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/299558 http://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php

File: the_ebony_giantess_vs_me__by_dragonesslife-d9hbyjj.jpg (173KB, 787x1016px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 787x1016px

>>34389009
That's fascinating. I wonder, why was tax collection impossible as you say? Is the issue that people live in very low density areas with little oversight, or is it something else? If, as I imagine is the case, taxation was made impracticable because of a lack of census data (address, income, etc), then how did Roman authorities determine how much to tax provincial governors in their lump sum payments?
Additionally, how would taxes be paid? With cattle? Gold? Was there a Roman equivalent of filling your taxes? If so, what would that process entail?

>>34389029
The individual cities and communities in the provinces usually performed their own census, which could be used as a starting point. Free landowners outside of the cities had to pay taxes based on the size of their property. The tarrifs and tolls could be evaluated by just watching the traffic for some time, calculating the amount of money you would have charged in that time and then calculating it for a whole year.
Taxes were usually paid in roman or local currencies (there were still hundreds, even in the late empire). Filling your taxes: Not really, the closest thing would be the census, where roman officials (or your local magistrate) would make a list of every citizen and non-citizen in town and evaluate their wealth. You would then get assigned to a certain tax class and had to pay taxes based on that (or not, if you were a roman citizen or otherwise privileged).

>>34389000
There was a poll tax, which meant that senators owning thousands of acres of land had to pay the same tax as the poorest. By the end of the Empire vast areas had broken away in independence revolts called Bagaudae revolts in response to the harsh taxation imposed on people. It was originally done in cash payments since most of it was to go to the soldiers, but as the currency began to fail in the 3rd century it was mostly replaced with tax-in-kind.

>>34389000
Some of the other answers here have mentioned the tax rates (although there was no fixed rate at all, and it depended on the province--in Spain and Africa the tributum soli was paid at a fixed rate, regardless of the actual population or wealth of the province, and Asia paid a sort of bizarre early form of the tributum as laid out by the Lex Sempronia) and the various kinds of provincial tributa, but no one has mentioned the vectigals or the method of tax collection, which is what is so unique about Roman tax collection. By the late Republic the vast majority of Roman state revenue came from provincial tribute, and citizens were exempt from the tributum from 167 on. Most citizens wouldn't have to pay taxes at all, and colonies were also generally exempt as they had some form of Italian or Latin status. Any taxes that citizens had to pay would be some form of the vectigalia, the vectigals. By Cicero's day this had become a catch-all phrase for the state's revenue in general, but it appears to have originated as a term describing import/export taxes, as it's derived from "veho," "to convey" (from which we get the word "vehicle"). The vectigals were duties imposed on particular goods and privileges, particularly the portoria, an import/export tax, and the various rents paid on the ager publicus and the public pastures. They were not, like the tributum, levied per head, and therefore citizens who weren't participating in any of the various activities included as vectigals (again, a difficult word, as tribute was often simply lumped in under the term after it came to mean "state revenue") didn't pay any taxes at all. This was perfectly satisfactory--the income earned from the provinces was more than enough to sustain the state, and since magistrates generally relied at least in part on their private funds there was no shortage of cash.

1/4 cont...

>>34389131
However, no discussion of the Roman tax system is complete without mention of the publicans, whom all the other answers have inexcusably left out. The Roman state did not collect taxes itself. That's extremely important, because it's the fundamental principle of the Roman tax system. Originally, back when Roman citizens still paid tributa, the state itself collected that revenue, but it appears that the vectigal was always collected by the publicans. The publicani were private individuals to whom the rights to collect taxes were sold. By the late Republic the publicans collected pretty much all taxes, including the vectigals in Italy. A few taxes, such as the Spanish and African stipendium, collected by the quaestors, and the Asian tithe (that bizarre tax provided by the Lex Sempronia I mentioned earlier), which was actually sold by the censors, were collected by magistrates, but these laws generally applied to provinces which, like Spain and Africa, had existed before the Romans really had many provinces. By Caesar's day provincial management had swelled to a size that the state, particularly the senate and the censors (no doubt made worse by the fact that the censorship basically ceased to exist in the 1st Century, B.C.), simply could not keep up with affairs, and the publicans basically take over. The publicans collected taxes on the mines, the ports, the ager publicus (these three in Italy as well as elsewhere), and in some provinces the various forms of tributum--the precise details of publican affairs is pretty complicated, and with some provinces we don't know precisely how taxes worked. It was an extremely lucrative business, more or less monopolized by the equites, who were often used synonymously with the publicans.

2/4 cont...

>>34389148
Publican companies were large and well-organized, and in general the state sold contracts to the publicans based on how much they expected to earn--the publicans would promise a certain amount (usually by bids, with the highest bidder being the recipient of the contracts), and then whatever they earned beyond that was theirs to keep. Publicans were therefore notoriously extortionist, and their bands of thugs were often so exploitative and menacing that many promagisterial governors found it easier and safer to simply go along with it, rather than try to protect the provincials. Many governors held shares in the companies--although magistrates, senators, and promagistrates were legally barred from holding publican contracts and from holding a share in the company, by the late Republic a market for partes, the unregistered shares of a publican company, had developed, and thus both Caesar and Crassus held large stakes in various publican companies. From an early date they were absurdly wealthy--after Cannae the state's funds were artificially re-created by donations from the publicans from out of their private fortunes. It was also a relatively risky job--an overly-optimistic bid could cost you everything. Famously during Caesar's consulship in 59 he reorganized the contracts that particular companies of publicans, who were almost certainly connected to Crassus, held, since they had bid in excess of what they had discovered they could actually produce--if such a thing occurred the publican would have to pay the difference himself, and it could destroy him if his bid had been unwise. But Cicero described them as the foundation of the state's revenues, and therefore of the state's power itself. The civil wars cost the publicans dearly, as the opposing generals collected revenue themselves.

3/4 cont...

>>34389170
4/4

Augustus reformed the provincial taxes, restricting publicans to the collection of the vectigal proper--henceforth tributum would be collected by the quaestors and procurators (who could be just as exploitative as the publicans, and as the OCD notes the exploitation of promagistrates and their staff--who could collect their own duties, particularly grain taxes to feed their troops, which were often embezzled--was generally much in excess of what the publicans could do)

File: caged.jpg (161KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1024x768px

>>34389131
>>34389148
>>34389170
>>34389195
It might be interesting to talk about the reforms of Diocletian. Could you provide anything about the capitatio-iugatio and the other late-roman forms of taxation?

>>34389227
By that time the imperial bureaucracy had been built up much more than it had during the late Republic or even the Principate, so publicans were relied on rather a lot less.

Lewis in life in Egypt under Roman Rule writes on page 178 that it was under Trajan who transferred most (money) tax-collection (in Egypt) from publicans to liturgical collectors.
Liturgies, here, refer to something similar to feudal duties: a task that was assigned to civilians which they had to perform without pay as a form of extra taxation. The Romans were very fond of these. They could include things like maintaining roads and public works, transporting goods for the army, serving with the police (again, in Egypt. Not sure if this happened elsewhere) or, as of Trajan's reign, collecting taxes.
The advantage for the Roman state was that they didn't have to let the liturgists keep any of the tax for themselves. More income for Trajan.

1/2 cont...

>>34389245
2/2

The second advantage was that the system put all the responsibility on the shoulders of the liturgist. Any expense related to the collection of taxes had to be paid by the liturgist. If he failed to collect the required amount, he had to make up the difference from his own pocket. (And if the liturgist somehow weaselled out of this, the community as a whole would be held responsible. Lots of redundancies and contingencies were built in the system.) This was possible because liturgies were assigned to people based on their wealth. A rich man could get a responsibility for taxes in a big region, a poor one might have to serve a stint as village guard. (It was this practice that later played a part in the de-urbanisation of the Empire, as rich people started to prefer retreating to country estates where they could escape such duties.)
Essentially, this system was another way of solving the problems of collecting taxes in a giant empire without much in the way of bureaucracy and administration, let alone the means to control and supervise the activities of officials in distant provinces. By forcing locals to take personal responsibility, the Romans could get the money they needed for their state and army relatively easily. That it caused hardships for the locals was a lesser concern...
Still, on the positive side, this change pretty much marked the end of the Publican's influence. They didn't disappear completely with Trajan's measure, but it marked the beginning of their end. (Again, according to Lewis.)
Oh, and just in case the above didn't make it clear: the system of liturgies had been slowly established over decades from the middle of the 1st century A.D. Trajan didn't invent it, he just shifted the tax-collection over to it.

File: in-her-shoes.jpg (139KB, 696x1000px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 696x1000px

>>34389245
>>34389270
You seem like an expert on this topic. Was also wondering what would you classify the tax collectors mentioned in the new testament as?

>>34389288
You mean like Mark? I don't know much about biblical scholarship but I can only presume that Mark was either a publican or (more likely, since I don't know of a tradition that gives him citizenship) an employee of a publican company. The publican companies still existed in the Principate, they just did less, and though tribute was officially collected by the quaestors or procurators it was often publicans who did the local collection--somebody had to be collecting the taxes, and though the quaestors and procurators had agents of their own they couldn't be everywhere at once. Depending on what exactly revenue was being collected (and if I'm remembering the Bible correctly here Mark is sitting at the tax-collector's booth, so he's collecting one or another of the portoria) they might be publicans one way or another, as the publican companies still largely collected the vectigal. Greek is also a bit imprecise about such things, so you'd either have to find someone who knows more about New Testament Greek than I do or I'd have to examine all the terms used to describe tax collection and their contexts, which is not something that I'd know much about.

>>34389000
>>>/his/

ghnguhvgyjhggyu

File: XHveHSD.jpg (113KB, 752x1063px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 752x1063px

>>34389304
Thanks for the chat up m8!

>>34389009
In addition to this post, taxation in the provinces was hard for 2 main reasons. First there was almost no reliable census data. This is also what Barbuckleyourpants' link mentions. But mainly, the problem was that there just was no formalised administration like we know it today. There was no IRS of the roman republic. Everything was taken care of by the ruling officials and a small circle of personal friends and employees. There were no bureaucrats in the modern sense. The roman republic was just not capable of taxing their provinces! That is also the reason they had to rely on Publicani, private entrepeneurs who bought the right collect taxes in a certain area from the state and did so with help of the local governor (of course enriching themselves by charging extremely high tolls and tariffs and such).
Also, the taxes you had to pay greatly depended on if you were a citizen or not. Roman citizens did not have to pay most of the direct taxes (for example the "tributum capitis", basically a wealth tax), they did not have to pay taxes on property ("tributum soli") as long as it was on the territory of roman cities, and many more exemptions. They did however have to pay a 5% inheritance tax. Taxes that everybody had to pay equally were tolls and tariffs, a 1% sales tax (3% if slaves were sold), and taxes on liberation of your slaves (5% of the value you bought him for).

File: image.jpg (654KB, 1768x2505px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 1768x2505px

>>34389000
>trips

Wtf kind of shitposting is even this thread?

File: 1483349101133.gif (58KB, 752x752px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 752x752px

>>34389413
>>34389000
>>34389009
>>34389029
>>34389076
>>34389110
>>34389131
>>34389148
>>34389170
>>34389195
>>34389227
>>34389245
>>34389270
>>34389288
>>34389304
>>34389316
>>34389321
>>34389338

I don't get these new memes

oreganogbetnhjshhjysthnjmuk,iymjtnhyrtbgrvfbnrm,kutmjynhtbgrhyju

Towards the end of the Western empire farmers were burdened with heavy taxes that were implemented to prop up the military. They were taxed regardless of their output. At the same time their currency became inflated, no one used gold just copper and bronze coins, and the cost of living increased. As a result, many fled their land and became essentially serfs to wealthy landlords.

File: t3_3fre6n.jpg (426KB, 1560x1152px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1560x1152px

bumpingo for interestino threadaru

>>34389245
dude how can you think and write out an answer like that in about one minute apparently without double checking...