Quote from: Lunamancer on February 28, 2023, 08:21:49 AM
There's nothing that's necessarily sinister, adversarial, gotcha-ish, or screw-over-the-players about a substantial tax on a treasure haul.

Look, if you're farming, and you've got one guy who owns the land, one guy with the know-how to know what and when to plant and who bears the risk if the yield underperforms, and another group of people who do all the work, nobody is going to be astonished that the land-owner is going to get a cut just like the risk-taker and the laborers.

Well, if you're delving into a dungeon that happens to lie within the borders of a kingdom, why wouldn't that be presumed de facto owned by the king, and why wouldn't the king get their cut? ...

When the party clears out a hex, then any dungeon within that hex they can plunder without paying the king.

When Cortes returned to Spain with the gold he got from kicking Aztec ass - he gave the king 1/5th of the haul.

This solved a lot of problems for him, as he had a few enemies that would have made some serious trouble if he came back empty handed...

The old King's Fifth, or 20% is rather interesting, as modern studies have shown that when tax rates etc, start to go above 20%, that's seems to cause people to really exert themselves to "avoid" paying the higher tax rates.


One reason to cut a nearby monarch in, even if you are clearing out a hex in the wilderness - Favor and Protection/Patronage...

Contrary to what most of us learn in school, most noble rulers had lots of incentives to keep their people relatively happy, and to show favor to those that fill their coffers with gold.

Quote from: SHARK on February 28, 2023, 04:21:58 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 28, 2023, 04:03:44 PM
It doesn't even have to be forged. Titles and lands that have no heir typically revert to the crown, but at some point it might be advantageous to hand them out again.

But noble titles are just 'up for purchase' (though it does happen). A canny king might offer an adventuring group a deal: a land grant, in exchange for a cut of the windfall. No government ever complained about having too much money. Said king might sweeten the deal with a proposal that any further windfalls found on the land would be untaxed (figuring that once the adventurers have cleared out the riff-raff, they'll have to plow any gains back into restoring said lands and buildings).

Greetings!

Ghostmaker, your commentary inspired me to also chew on this more. The Royal Government nearby, of all the potential flies and assorted people eagerly flocking to interfere with the player character's newly acquired fortune--is perhaps uniquely in the strongest position to actually get the players to eagerly cooperate with the agents of the King.

The government can greatly assist in all of the logistics involved in transportation of such a vast horde. Likewise, the government has exceptional abilities to help with the security, and even helping to maintain storage and site security for the treasure horde as well. Most kingdoms likely have a good number of fortresses, fortified and well-guarded dungeons, besides temples, monasteries, and wizard towers. Such governments really can make so many of these details much easier--and through their own authority, power, knowledge, and resources, the kingdom can also handle the security better.

Besides offering noble titles and aristocratic land-grants, the Royal Government can provide *Legitimacy*. Real Power. Real Prestige. The Royal Government can very much set you up for *Genrational Success*. Educational opportunities, laboratories, libraries, control of monasteries and temples, besides fortresses and castles, but also ports, harbours, mines, all kinds of things--but also on a *BIG SCALE* Stuff that can alter your entire family's social and financial position literally for generations down the line. The scope is staggering, and extremely persuasive for any such player characters to willingly engage with such a royal government.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

While governments and kings can be a royal pain in the ass (SWIDT?), there is a certain... cachet that can be gained, for being the King's friend. Just as the man who loses the King's colors loses the King's friendship, so too a man who enriches the crown can count on the crown's generosity.

Titles of nobility, land grants, writs of passage and licenses (remember, this ain't the U.S.A. -- not everyone has the right to bear arms), even marriage and adoption prospects. A newly titled Baron and his company may be 'jumped up scoundrels' -- but even a scoundrel has to be reckoned with when he has royal favor.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 28, 2023, 06:56:46 PM
When Cortes returned to Spain with the gold he got from kicking Aztec ass - he gave the king 1/5th of the haul.

This solved a lot of problems for him, as he had a few enemies that would have made some serious trouble if he came back empty handed...

The old King's Fifth, or 20% is rather interesting, as modern studies have shown that when tax rates etc, start to go above 20%, that's seems to cause people to really exert themselves to "avoid" paying the higher tax rates.

There's the Laffer Curve. The idea being at 100% taxation, there's no incentive to produce, and hence no taxes will ever be collected. At at 0%, obviously no taxes will ever be collected. Apart from voluntary contributions in either case. And so somewhere in the middle there was some key point where tax revenue could be maximized. Art Laffer had surmised the maxima point was somewhere around 25%.

Cantillon has it at one third. There were some places where it was as high as 50%, but those societies all became impoverished. But Cantillon isn't necessarily talking about one tax rate by one entity. He's tracing where production is flowing. And so I thought it was interesting when I noticed that in the US after WWII, total taxation on all levels--combined federal, state, and local, was always equal to 33% of GDP. It would fluctuate plus or minus a few points, and those fluctuations tended to correlate to the boom-bust cycle. But it's an amazingly steady ratio. And it held even under a massive variety of different tax schemes, including when Laffer himself was serving as economic advisor to President Reagan. The only thing that significantly changed over the various different tax schemes is how much of the pie state and local governments got vs the federal government. It doesn't seem to matter who gets it. The ratio converges to one-third.

It wasn't always that way. Earlier on in US history, taxation had typically been at or under 10% of GDP. So it can be less, for sure. It just can't seem to go much higher on a sustainable basis.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2023, 12:12:35 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 28, 2023, 06:56:46 PM
When Cortes returned to Spain with the gold he got from kicking Aztec ass - he gave the king 1/5th of the haul.

This solved a lot of problems for him, as he had a few enemies that would have made some serious trouble if he came back empty handed...

The old King's Fifth, or 20% is rather interesting, as modern studies have shown that when tax rates etc, start to go above 20%, that's seems to cause people to really exert themselves to "avoid" paying the higher tax rates.

There's the Laffer Curve. The idea being at 100% taxation, there's no incentive to produce, and hence no taxes will ever be collected. At at 0%, obviously no taxes will ever be collected. Apart from voluntary contributions in either case. And so somewhere in the middle there was some key point where tax revenue could be maximized. Art Laffer had surmised the maxima point was somewhere around 25%.

Cantillon has it at one third. There were some places where it was as high as 50%, but those societies all became impoverished. But Cantillon isn't necessarily talking about one tax rate by one entity. He's tracing where production is flowing. And so I thought it was interesting when I noticed that in the US after WWII, total taxation on all levels--combined federal, state, and local, was always equal to 33% of GDP. It would fluctuate plus or minus a few points, and those fluctuations tended to correlate to the boom-bust cycle. But it's an amazingly steady ratio. And it held even under a massive variety of different tax schemes, including when Laffer himself was serving as economic advisor to President Reagan. The only thing that significantly changed over the various different tax schemes is how much of the pie state and local governments got vs the federal government. It doesn't seem to matter who gets it. The ratio converges to one-third.

It wasn't always that way. Earlier on in US history, taxation had typically been at or under 10% of GDP. So it can be less, for sure. It just can't seem to go much higher on a sustainable basis.

The rate varies a lot by country.  Many European countries have tax rates about 50%.  It's mainly about how much of the economy a society chooses to have run by the government versus private enterprise.  I'd like to see the US rate under 20%, because private enterprise is much more efficient with providing goods and services. 

If I was in a game where a king wanted to tax my treasure, a couple of things would figure into my willingness to cooperate.  If I'm in my home kingdom and the rate is not much more than 20% I'd prolly play ball.  Otherwise I'd be considering if we could sneak it out or if we could take whatever forces the government sends after us, either on our own or by using part of the treasure to hire mercenaries etc.  My POV would be that it (in most scenarios I've played in) it was never the king's or government's money in the first place, so they shouldn't have any particular right to it.  If they wanted it, they had every opportunity to get it before I got there, so tough luck, schmuck.

If you want a lot of fun introducing the local nobility in the mix, right off the bat with a new campaign, and maybe even new players, then:

- Have the nobility sponsor the characters.
- Provide them the map to the dungeon.
- Hire the mercenaries, link boys, mule drivers, etc.
- Provide the characters their starting money and equipment.
- Even more fun if this kind of money-grubbing isn't proper for the nobility.  So they get a merchant guild to act as their agents, for a cut of the action.

If you aren't careful, that can devolve into a rat race without much escape from real life.  But it can also turn into a group of players highly motivated to get a stake of their own, sponsor themselves, and head out into the wilderness.   It establishes up front why being an adventurer is dirty, thankless work in a dirty, thankless world--while also giving those same adventures some experience that might let them claw their way out of it.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 01, 2023, 04:08:18 AM
The rate varies a lot by country.  Many European countries have tax rates about 50%.

Yeah, and as I already mentioned, tax rates varied by a lot just within the US during the time period I'm talking about, including a top marginal tax rate of 90% in the 1950's. And it didn't really move the needle. Because tax rates are not even remotely the same thing as examining who gets the goods.

A slave has 100% of the value of their labor taken from them. But they get their basic needs met. So if you do an audit of the plantation, you're going to find a significant chunk of the production did in fact go to the slaves. The 100% takings is misleading. Just as a 50% takings is misleading in a system that provides for some of those basic needs, such as guaranteed health care.

QuoteIt's mainly about how much of the economy a society chooses to have run by the government versus private enterprise.  I'd like to see the US rate under 20%, because private enterprise is much more efficient with providing goods and services.

The problem is the king doesn't always fit neatly into that dichotomy. We're not just talking about the figure head of a political system ruling over a geographical region of unowned or publicly-owned land. We're talking about a large land-owner. Perhaps one who either personally or whose forefathers conquered the land through armies paid for out of their own coffers. That is privately funded ventures to attain private property. There is nothing contrary to principles of private enterprise to then charge rent to others living off that land, even if you just so happen to call that rent a tax.

QuoteIf I was in a game where a king wanted to tax my treasure, a couple of things would figure into my willingness to cooperate.  If I'm in my home kingdom and the rate is not much more than 20% I'd prolly play ball.  Otherwise I'd be considering if we could sneak it out or if we could take whatever forces the government sends after us, either on our own or by using part of the treasure to hire mercenaries etc.  My POV would be that it (in most scenarios I've played in) it was never the king's or government's money in the first place, so they shouldn't have any particular right to it.  If they wanted it, they had every opportunity to get it before I got there, so tough luck, schmuck.

But you're assuming it's about the treasure and ignoring the issue of the ownership of the land. Someone can own a claim on a mine full of gold. Claim jumpers aren't the rightful owners of the gold they extract just because they get to it before the rightful owner does. And there's nothing illicit about the rightful claim owner allowing a more skilled, better equipped mining operation who is more willing to take risks to have at their claim while expecting a partner's cut of the proceeds.

You're perfectly welcome to shop around for a land owner partnership that will take a lower cut if you like half-price sushi. Otherwise, you can just clear a hex and owe nothing to no one.