Roman Taxes

[M. Porcius Cato]

With April 15 around the corner, I found myself suddenly interested in Roman taxes. How much did Roman citizens have to pay? How did the tax rate change over time? How did tax policy differ among the various grades of Roman cities?

 

Unfortunately, I've found vastly contradictory information on the topic. For example, the UNRV article on Roman taxation reports that in the early days of the Republic, "The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% and sometimes would climb as high as 3% in situations such as war." In contrast, this article at Cato Journal reports a tax rate that is ONE HUNDREDTH of what is reported on our site, "In the earliest days of the Republic Rome's taxes were quite modest, consisting mainly of a wealth tax on all forms of property, including land, houses, slaves, animals, money and personal effects. The basic rate was just .01 percent, although occasionally rising to .03 percent. It was assessed principally to pay the army during war. In fact, afterwards the tax was often rebated (Jones 1974: 161)."

 

Then there is the article on the Vectigalia in Smith's Dictionary, which alludes to a 1% sales tax imposed after the civil wars. What civil wars? Presumably the Sullan wars, since it's mentioned by Cicero (e.g., here)--but nothing about the tax appears in the UNRV article.

 

In any case, if anyone has a good article on Roman taxation to recommend, I'd appreciate it.

[Faustus]

In any case, if anyone has a good article on Roman taxation to recommend, I'd appreciate it.

I can

[Gaius Octavius]

Try this out for size. The amount of tax received depends on the amount at which the thing taxed is valued at. Thus, if a home is valued at $1,000.00, and the tax rate is 1%, the tax is $10.00. If the same home is otherwise valued at $2,000.00 and the tax rate remains at 1%, the tax is $20.00.

 

Maybe everybody is right! The Cato Institute, of course, most certainly is Right.

[Faustus]

Try this out for size. The amount of tax received depends on the amount at which the thing taxed is valued at. Thus, if a home is valued at $1,000.00, and the tax rate is 1%, the tax is $10.00. If the same home is otherwise valued at $2,000.00 and the tax rate remains at 1%, the tax is $20.00.

 

Maybe everybody is right! The Cato Institute, of course, most certainly is Right.

 

This is precisely the formula adapted in our state for property taxes. To exceed that one percent proportional rate local government entities must get dispensation from the State Tax Board. But there are several other levels of taxation in the system which add to the State and US burden on citizens. Taxing proportionally for benefits and seems to have been a standard system advanced by the Romans because it make good sense, consider The Edict of Venarfrum

 

Faustus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Can I just ask--who wrote the UNRV article on taxation, and what sources were used?

[ASCLEPIADES]

In any case, if anyone has a good article on Roman taxation to recommend, I'd appreciate it.

Salve, MPC

 

Here comes Titus Livius Patavinus, Ab Urbe Condita, liber XXXIX, cp. XLIV:

 

In equitatu recognoscendo L. Scipioni Asiatico ademptus equus. in censibus quoque accipiendis tristis et aspera in omnes ordines censura fuit. ornamenta et uestem muliebrem et uehicula, quae pluris quam quindecim milium aeris essent, <deciens tanto pluris quam quanti essent> in censum referre iuratores iussi; item mancipia minora annis uiginti, quae post proximum lustrum decem milibus aeris aut pluris eo uenissent, uti ea quoque deciens tanto pluris quam quanti essent aestimarentur, et his rebus omnibus terni in milia aeris attribuerentur.

 

In the revision of the register of the equites L. Scipio Asiatico was struck out. In fixing the assessments the censorship was severe and harsh on all classes. Orders were issued that an account should be taken on oath of all female dress, ornaments and carriages which were valued at more than 15,000 ases, and that they should be assessed at ten times their value. Similarly, slaves less than twenty years old who had been sold since the last lustrum for 10,000 ases or more were to be assessed at ten times that amount, and on all these assessments a tax was imposed of one-third per cent.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Here comes Titus Livius Patavinus, Ab Urbe Condita, liber XXXIX, cp. XLIV

 

1/3 percent? That's still another figure--not at all consistent with the previous two.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Here comes Titus Livius Patavinus, Ab Urbe Condita, liber XXXIX, cp. XLIV

 

1/3 percent? That's still another figure--not at all consistent with the previous two.

 

Keep reading the same book (ibid, cp. VII):

 

sed ad populi quoque gratiam conciliandam amici Manlii ualuerunt; quibus adnitentibus senatus consultum factum est, ut ex pecunia quae in triumpho translata esset, stipendium collatum a populo in publicum, quod eius solutum antea non esset, solueretur. uicenos quinos et semisses in milia aeris quaestores urbani cum fide et cura soluerunt.

 

"But the friends of Manlius succeeded in winning the favour of the people also; by their efforts a resolution was passed in the senate ordering that so much of the soldiers' stipends contributed by the people as had not yet been paid should be paid out of the money borne in the triumphal procession. The quaestors, making a true and just valuation, paid back 25 1/2 for every 1000 ases."

[Faustus]

1/3 percent? That's still another figure--not at all consistent with the previous two.

Taking into account the assessment was to be imputed "at ten times that amount" and...

(quoting Asclepiades)....an account should be taken on oath of all female dress, ornaments and carriages which were valued at more than 15,000 ases, and that they should be assessed at ten times their value. Similarly, slaves less than twenty years old who had been sold since the last lustrum for 10,000 ases or more were to be assessed at ten times that amount, and on all these assessments a tax was imposed of one-third per cent... then the applicable tax rate would then be a full 3-percent (or 10-times 1/3-percent) at each tax event would it not?

[M. Porcius Cato]

So Roman tribunes of the plebs sponsored the world's first tax rebate? Bravo!

[ASCLEPIADES]

So Roman tribunes of the plebs sponsored the world's first tax rebate? Bravo!

Actually, this rebate from the quaestors (not the tribunes) at DLXVII AUC / 187 BC was a defeat for Marcus Porcius Cato Maior.

Here comes Mestrius Plutarchus, Vita Cato Maior, cp. XVIII, sec. I-III:

 

"...But he was most obnoxious to the majority of his enemies because he lopped off extravagance in living. This could not be done away with outright, since most of the people were already infected and corrupted by it, and so he took a roundabout way. He had all apparel, equipages, jewellery, furniture and plate, the value of which in any case exceeded fifteen hundred drachmas, assessed at ten times its worth, wishing by means of larger assessments to make the owners' taxes also larger. Then he laid a tax of three on every thousand asses thus assessed, in order that such property holders, burdened by their charges, and seeing that people of equal wealth who led modest and simple lives paid less into the public treasury, might desist from their extravagance. As a result, both classes were incensed against them, but those who endured the taxes for the sake of their luxury, and those no less who put away their luxury because of the taxes. For most men think themselves robbed of their wealth if they are prevented from displaying it,.. "