Taxes

[BricksAndSparrows]

I know very little about the economy of Westeros. But I wonder if the Vale continued to pay taxes to the Crown throughout the wars.

There is often mention or houses and Lords remaining neutral during conflicts. I'm not sure how often they are paying these taxes, but you think they would be choosing sides with their wallets (so to speak.)

(Let's see how many posters reply to this thread without reading the following statement.)

This is not to say that the Mad King would have considered Tywin's coin the equivalent to his swords through out the rebellion. But it would have spoken to rebels as to who Casterly Rock considered the rightful king. 

The same question can be raised in regard to Lysa and the Vale. Rob and Cat were upset enough on account of her silence and lack of action, but how would they have felt if they learned that Lysa continued to pay taxes to the throne. Did she? I don't recall from the books.

[Rise]

Most likely they continued paying the taxes, but it isn't mentioned. I recall that Manderly fired some toll collector who refused to pay to winterfell.

[Lion of the West]

14 minutes ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

I know very little about the economy of Westeros. But I wonder if the Vale continued to pay taxes to the Crown throughout the wars.

There is often mention or houses and Lords remaining neutral during conflicts. I'm not sure how often they are paying these taxes, but you think they would be choosing sides with their wallets (so to speak.)

(Let's see how many posters reply to this thread without reading the following statement.)

This is not to say that the Mad King would have considered Tywin's coin the equivalent to his swords through out the rebellion. But it would have spoken to rebels as to who Casterly Rock considered the rightful king. 

The same question can be raised in regard to Lysa and the Vale. Rob and Cat were upset enough on account of her silence and lack of action, but how would they have felt if they learned that Lysa continued to pay taxes to the throne. Did she? I don't recall from the books.

Paying taxes can absolutely be a form of statement of which side you are on. But if you declare for one side, and then not send swords to fight for that side, you are essentially making enemies with the other side and make the side that gets the money to consider you a coward.

As such if Tywin or Lysa paid taxes to the Iron Throne but didn't send swords. Both sides in the conflict would consider Tywin and Lysa to be cowards who don't dare to fight for their side. Better then to not send taxes and so avoid getting that trouble.

[Rise]

4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Paying taxes can absolutely be a form of statement of which side you are on. But if you declare for one side, and then not send swords to fight for that side, you are essentially making enemies with the other side and make the side that gets the money to consider you a coward.

As such if Tywin or Lysa paid taxes to the Iron Throne but didn't send swords. Both sides in the conflict would consider Tywin and Lysa to be cowards who don't dare to fight for their side. Better then to not send taxes and so avoid getting that trouble.

Do you really think they would forget that they didn't pay taxes, of course during kings landing siege it would be hard to sent taxes to capital but after that.

According to wiki, Defiance of Duskendale started when lord of Duskendale refused to pay taxes.

So i would think it would be smarter send the taxes if not soldiers during the war. Since war is quite expensive.

[Lion of the West]

Just now, Rise said:

Do you really think they would forget that they didn't pay taxes, of course during kings landing siege it would be hard to sent taxes to capital but after that.

According to wiki, Defiance of Duskendale started when lord of Duskendale refused to pay taxes.

So i would think it would be smarter send the taxes if not soldiers during the war. Since war is quite expensive.

I think it would be best to either be entirely neutral and declare for a side when things a pretty much settled or send both taxes and soldiers and ensure that the side you are on actually wins the fight.

[BricksAndSparrows]

11 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Paying taxes can absolutely be a form of statement of which side you are on. But if you declare for one side, and then not send swords to fight for that side, you are essentially making enemies with the other side and make the side that gets the money to consider you a coward.

As such if Tywin or Lysa paid taxes to the Iron Throne but didn't send swords. Both sides in the conflict would consider Tywin and Lysa to be cowards who don't dare to fight for their side. Better then to not send taxes and so avoid getting that trouble.

Right. Totally. So I wonder what actually happened in these cases. 

I am perfectly content to consider this a overlooked detail. But I'm certain there are plenty of people who would not accept that and so it's interesting to get their explanation.

[BricksAndSparrows]

1 minute ago, LionoftheWest said:

I think it would be best to either be entirely neutral and declare for a side when things a pretty much settled or send both taxes and soldiers and ensure that the side you are on actually wins the fight.

I can't imagine things would be that simple when the dust settles. 

I think you need to get a little bit crafty in how you keep a foot in each camp. Who was the lord who sent a son to each side in the Blackfyre rebellion? Butterwell? I can't remember. 

[Lion of the West]

15 minutes ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

Right. Totally. So I wonder what actually happened in these cases. 

I am perfectly content to consider this a overlooked detail. But I'm certain there are plenty of people who would not accept that and so it's interesting to get their explanation.

 

13 minutes ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

I can't imagine things would be that simple when the dust settles. 

I think you need to get a little bit crafty in how you keep a foot in each camp. Who was the lord who sent a son to each side in the Blackfyre rebellion? Butterwell? I can't remember. 

Well, I agree it isn't an exact science but its how I would probably see it. But while keeping a foot in each camp can certainly keep you from being among the losers, I also think that it would prevent you from being among the winners as well when it came to rewards as everyone knew you hedged your bets and your loyalty is not something to rely on.

As for those who sent men to both sides in the Blackfyre Rebellion the wiki says that Butterwell, Hightower, Oakheart and Tarbeck all did it.

[BricksAndSparrows]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

 

Well, I agree it isn't an exact science but its how I would probably see it. But while keeping a foot in each camp can certainly keep you from being among the losers.

Yeah... Like most things, it would probably vary from administration to administration.

Lets say Lord Jon Doe sends troops to both sides, it's hard to imagine the Mad King considering it a wash..

[Lion of the West]

7 minutes ago, BricksAndSparrows said:

Yeah... Like most things, it would probably vary from administration to administration.

Lets say Lord Jon Doe sends troops to both sides, it's hard to imagine the Mad King considering it a wash..

As English isn't my native language I'm not sure what a "wash" is in this example. But with the Mad King you never know, but I will agree that even should be more likely to let a House that was on both sides off the hook than not.

[Raisin' Bran]

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

As for those who sent men to both sides in the Blackfyre Rebellion the wiki says that Butterwell, Hightower, Oakheart and Tarbeck all did it.

Is this about the time that the Tarbecks began their decline? Culminating with Tywin's extermination of their house.

[Protagoras]

You are not really choosing sides with your wallet since most taxes has nothing to do with the war. Or rather, not paying what you are supposed pisses off the side not getting taxes (obviously) but it doesn´t work as a benefit for the other side really. If I am fighting the crown and am angry at you for not sending troops, I am not going to accept the argument "I didn´t pay my wine tax this year, so the crown got less money - that is support". Sure, you didnt, but the reason you didn´t is because you are a cheapskate, not that you support me. Its not war-related. Likewise, paying taxes doesn´t mean support. That you do is sort of seen as a standard. The "Neutral position" would therefore mean no military assistance yet tax payments.

Now, if you want to show support you need to either adhere my commands for direct military assistance or give me more than I have reason to suspect. So, yeah - if house Weakling give me one million gold dragons as a war contribution, I will acknowledge their support (and disrespect them plentily for their cowardly ways). If house Weakling instead pay their taxes to me (as usual) and claim that this should be seen as support, then I will certainly send and angry letter back - threatening with a less than pleasant visit after the war in order to "discuss" their oaths of fealty.

And, of course, if you refuse to pay taxes - then you can´t been considered neutral. You have after all taken a symbolic economic action against me. So of course there will be punishment. In short, not paying taxes impresses no one and has no impact on the percieved loyalty apart from a negative from those not getting their normal stuff. So, you only do it if you are an active part in the conflict - not if you stay by the sidelines. Because no one is going to punish a house after Robert´s rebellion for paying taxes - aka what they were supposed to do. But if you are Robert, you sort of expect your allies in the war to not send Aerys money.

[Lion of the West]

7 minutes ago, Raisin' Bran said:

Is this about the time that the Tarbecks began their decline? Culminating with Tywin's extermination of their house.

Could be, but I am to be honest not sure when the decline began. The Tarbecks seems to have been of some importance during the Dance of the Dragons though as Adrian Tarbeck lead the Westerland host for a while.

[Nevets]

Sending taxes to the Crown is essentially an obligation.  If you refuse to do so, you are, in effect. rebelling.  If you are already in rebellion, this is not a problem.  If you are neutral, you had better pay your taxes, or the Crown will likely be quite displeased.  I therefore expect that, since Lysa was intent on keeping the Lannisters as far away as possible, she paid every penny that was due, and on schedule.  No way is she going to upset them. 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

This thread makes me wonder how many times during various wars people claimed to have sent someone with the tax payment who just conveniently never made it to their liege lord's castle. It would be easy enough to claim you sent it and the other side stole it, or your messenger was accidentally killed. Sort of a medieval equivalent of "the check is in the mail."

[Jaak]

Besides, if the official excuse of Vale for not sending army to protect King´s Landing is "We are threatened by Clansmen" then Vale are not spending money to fight clansmen. The men ostensibly mobilized to protect Vale are mobilized by feudal obligation, not paid in cash.

[Traverys]

I am not convinced that the nobility were ever directly taxed. I assumed, like in our world, nobility were expected to provide levies (some call this a blood tax, I think) at time of war and that was that. But to require that the nobility send you money on an annual basis? That sounds all kinds of iffy to me.

In our world, taxes were placed on peasants, merchants, etc. in order to pay for the expenses of governing (i.e., paying guards, maintenance of walls, etc.). Special taxes could be issued in order to provide emergency funds, but these were also only collected on the local level. For example, the government approved several of the crown taxing London (specifically) in order to fund the many campaigns in France going on in medieval times. Nobility could donate if they wanted favor with the king, but otherwise their funds were left untouched.

Apparently in France there were "estates." First (clergy) and Second (nobility) Estates were free from taxation, leaving the burden of funding the government and crown to the Third (everybody else).

In my mind, standing in between the nobility and their gold is like standing between a cub and mother bear. It's just not something you do, especially not to those who essentially help you maintain your throne and authority.

[Lord Wraith]

Found this quote in Feast

 

Quote

"A war in the Vale would be most tragic," said Pycelle.

"War?" Orton Merryweather laughed. "Lord Baelish is a most amusing man, but one does not fight a war with witticisms. I doubt there will be bloodshed. And does it matter who is regent for little Lord Robert, so long as the Vale remits its taxes?"

No, Cersei decided. If truth be told, Littlefinger had been more use at court. He had a gift for finding gold, and never coughed. "Lord Orton has convinced me. Maester Pycelle, instruct these Lords Declarant that no harm must come to Petyr. Elsewise, the crown is content with whatever dispositions they might make for the governance of the Vale during Robert Arryn's minority."

 

[Traverys]

18 hours ago, Lord Wraith said:

Found this quote in Feast

 

 

Nice catch! So in Westeros there appears to be some form of national taxes. I'm rereading the series and am on ACoK, I'll keep my eyes peeled for any other hints at a national tax. I think collecting the taxes seems very problematic considering the technology level. Sending chests full of gold/goods is just asking to be ambushed. The quote is also vague, so we don't know if it's a customs tax (Vale has an important port town), nobility tax, peasant tax, or any combination of those things. I also venture to say that none are taxed by percentage, so the actual method of determining what is owed becomes murky.

It also gets into murky ground when you consider who is actually required to pay taxes. Considering how much gold the crown owes the Lannisters, is it safe to say they don't pay taxes anymore? I would also imagine lords who serve at court may be another example of those who are exempt, though that's just me speculating. But knowing how entitled and greedy the nobility can be, it would seem out of character for them to not try and weasel their way out of it. Hell, look at the top 2-3% wealthiest people in the modern world and how bitter they are about being taxed.

[velo-knight]

On 4/27/2017 at 11:53 PM, Lady Blizzardborn said:

This thread makes me wonder how many times during various wars people claimed to have sent someone with the tax payment who just conveniently never made it to their liege lord's castle. It would be easy enough to claim you sent it and the other side stole it, or your messenger was accidentally killed. Sort of a medieval equivalent of "the check is in the mail."

I actually am very skeptical that tax payments are at all regular enough for anyone to know who is paying who unless a war is very long or the vassal very near. As you say, people can play the uncertainty off whoever wins - and they can even play the uncertainty off of everyone, by sending small payments to each faction and claiming "I divided all of your tax payments into multiple shipments, your Grace, so that if robbers seized them, you would not lose everything". That way, you can stay neutral and yet have each faction thinking you're amenable to them: and if anyone traces coin to you, you can claim it was simply meant for them all along and must have been stolen by bandits or an unreliable defector who you've dismissed from your service / executed.

21 hours ago, Lord Wraith said:

Found this quote in Feast

 

 

I wonder if they were paying taxes before Baelish went to the Vale - IIRC, one of the reasons for the marriage and promotion was that Lysa's swords and taxes were needed to prop up the flailing Lannister regime.