[flagged]
Roman elites made themselves wealthy through service to the empire, but they were expected to use that wealth to serve the public. Individuals who exploited the system to an extreme degree to amass wealth (e.g. Marcus Licinius Crassus) could tarnish their reputation. However, even Crassus died in military service trying (very dumbly) to attain the military glory that was expected of roman elites.
In the modern world, pretty much all responsibilities that the Roman elite served now rest on governments. Billionaires are free to amass obscene wealth with almost no social responsibility. There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses. Today's system works only if the rich pay their taxes and governments regulate them to prevent excesses on the level Crassus was famous for.
The rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes and are subverting government power to free themselves of regulations. In the case of some countries, the rich are even seizing the reigns of power and undermining fundamental state institutions.
It's a recipe for revolution.
1) slavery and ownership of lives: they could literally own slaves. No matter how much anyone will want to twist "working for corporate" as slavery, there is simply no comparison to such direct dominion.
2) magisterial power: consuls and praetors could even sentence people to death with barely any resistance. You're welcome to find me an example in the first world.
3) land and resource control: we are in an era where the masses have a much larger share of land and resource ownership compared to then (e.g: latifundia).
4) judicial immunity: yeah, we all know the legal system isn't perfect but you don't have the same extreme levels of abuse you had back then unless again, you appeal to corrupt 3rd world countries.
5) military command: I don't see the billionaires in the first world with their own personal armies.
3, it depends, and 5 is really rare nowadays. The closest I can think of is the Wagner Group and the Akhmat Chechen units in Russia, and Wagner showed quite clearly why this privilege is dangerous to the rulers.
You can get a one way ticket to a supermax in El Salvador even if you have the protection of the supreme court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...
Or Nora al-Awlaki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki
Do you consider the state of Israel "first world"?
This kind of "social obligation to share within the group" behaviour is seen all over the Animal kingdom too, not only in humans. The difficulty comes in scale and abstraction as we see today.
It’s the other way now. The taxpayers are paying for stadiums so the billionaires can charge a ton of money for entertainment
Today, we are collectively less into gladiators and more into colleges.
"The rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes"
The taxation levels in OECD countries are way higher than whatever any Roman emperor could dream of, and the top 1 per cent usually pays ~ 30 per cent of the total income tax revenue.
Roman elites made their big bucks through governorships (corruption) and campaign (conquest).
> There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses
Philanthropy is absolutely an expectation, though I agree the noblesse oblige8 has decayed.
> rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes*
Relatively, yes. In aggregate, the rich pay the lion’s share of taxes in the West.
> It's a recipe for revolution
To the extent we are, it’s towards an imperial transition where the elites take a greater share.
Depends on your definition of rich, your definition of "lion's share" and where in the west.
In the UK 18% of government revenue comes from national insurance - which is an income tax only on earned income, and charged at a higher rate on people in lower tax bands.
Another 17% is from VAT. Yes, rich people will buy more stuff subject to VAT, but a much lower proportion of their incomes, and it falls a lot as incomes go up. I would guess it pretty much plateaus for the super-rich.
About 4% comes from council tax, which is per household with an adjustment for the value of the property you live in, and a that adjustment if far from proportionate and there is a maximum level that is far below the typical value of the residences of the rich. There is a penalty for owning multiple houses for personal use. Again, would plateau at some point.
About another 5% comes from fuel and tobacco alcohol duties. Rich people might have bigger cars, but they are also more likely to have EVs, and they do not drink more alcohol AFAIK and are less likely to smoke.
Only 23% comes from income tax which is the only clearly progressive tax - and that becomes less clear when you leave for exemptions and the greater ability of the rich to avoid it.
It would take a detailed analysis to figure this out.
Sources:
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/where-does-go...
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
Doubt. Rich people usually have holding corporations or trust funds that can buy their yacht, and employ a wide range of tax evasion techniques carried out by an army of specialist lawyers and accountants to minimise tax impact to the absolute minimum.
They play a different game than you or me, but on the same playing field.
To clarify, rich people will spend more on the things subject to VAT than the rest of us. They will spend a lot more on entertainment, maintaining houses, cars and fuel, luxury consumables etc.
However, a much higher proportion of their spending will be able to escape VAT because they can evade VAT (and income tax) to a much grater extent.
Not really, it just requires pointing out that the rates you’re using to compare the modern West and Ancient Rome are much, much higher in every case for the latter.
> In the UK
I’ll admit I don’t know British figures well, so you may have a point. (As a small country, it has e.g. non-dom issues the EU, China and America do not.)
In the U.S., about half of taxes are paid by the top 1%. That’s not commensurate with our power or privilege. But it’s also not nothing.
Your comment defeats the point you are trying to make. When talking about paying fair share or paying enough in taxes it’s the relative part that matters; not the aggregate.
Arguably nobless oblige has been embedded in the legal system. The expectation is there and expressed in the tax code. The philosophical process was the elites sat down, codified their obligations and called it "our taxes".
Ironically, big chunks of beloch's post is pointing out that billionaires have a huge amount of social responsibility under the modern system. They are expected to provide welfare and build stadiums. Just not administer the process.
America's 1% owns around a third of its assets [1]. We'd have to more than double that rate to approach ancient Rome.
We have problems with income inequality and political stability in the West. They are probably not informed by this comparison.
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-the-1s-share-of-...
From TFA:
The Roman Empire scored 0.46 and Han China scored 0.48. ... currently the Gini coefficient for the U.S. is 0.41.
the original paper's IER is absolutely meant to be compared across eras. (It tries to correct for the distortions of Gini I mentioned above)
Tiny bit of bad faith, IER for US is ~0.41(!), much less extractive than Han or Rome. IER is not covered by visualcapitalist.com which hints that they are not a totally good faith source as well..
Both Han China and the Roman Empire were fairly long-lived entities. The US hasn't even made it yet to half of Han China's lifespan, and maybe an eighth of the Roman state lifespan (too many people don't realize that Byzantium was a Roman state).
Deriving lessons from their longevity is tricky, though. The structure of the economy changed profoundly in the meantime. For example, in absence of engines, every old empire would require a large body of non-free labour to even exist.
Literacy and easier sharing of information is yet another thing that happened in the meantime. For example, country-wide rebellions are feasible, even though not necessarily more successful. If Spartacus could broadcast his message all over the Empire, his revolt could have ended up very differently.
We take it for granted that continent-wide politics is basically synchronous. That wasn't the case when it took months to reach the outskirts of the realm. An eager outpost commander could start a war without the metropolis even knowing, much less condoning his action.