Absentee overlord

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

I've become involved in a discussion of how much money someone in a position roughly analogous to a strong ruler of a country might be able to tax his people for his own private account's sake. I.e. how much would go into the ruler's private account for him to spend on his own personal purposes.

The title refers to the ability of these rulers to move to the equivalent of Monte Carlo and let someone else actually run their territories while they just write out checks for their personal consumption as their share of the loot rolls into their personal accounts.

The sort of control such a ruler has is defined like this: "the ability (within reason) to create law and behavioral expectations; the ability to control who can occupy the land (and pay rent or taxes)." [Traveller 5 rulebook]

I'm assuming that his people have the right to "vote with their feet" and move out of his territory if they feel oppressed.

The main ambiguity is the number of people in his territory, so I'm looking for an answer in terms of 'per subject', i.e. so and so many percent (or fractions of a percent) of income.

This is for a generic rule, so his territory and people are supposedly average in all ways.

Does anyone know of figures for personal income of historical rulers?


Hans

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

I've become involved in a discussion of how much money someone in a position roughly analogous to a strong ruler of a country might be able to tax his people for his own private account's sake. I.e. how much would go into the ruler's private account for him to spend on his own personal purposes.

The title refers to the ability of these rulers to move to the equivalent of Monte Carlo and let someone else actually run their territories while they just write out checks for their personal consumption as their share of the loot rolls into their personal accounts.

Generally speaking, the ruler has to remain in-country at least the majority of the time to make sure that the money keeps flowing; kleptocracies work on 'he who is closest to the money steals it'.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Generally speaking, the ruler has to remain in-country at least the majority of the time to make sure that the money keeps flowing; kleptocracies work on 'he who is closest to the money steals it'.

I really don't think that's true. I don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction, but I've heard about many oil sheiks and Indian princes who spent most of their time in Europe's fleshpots.


Hans

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

I've heard about many oil sheiks and Indian princes who spent most of their time in Europe's fleshpots.

The oil sheiks do it simply. The money the foreign oil companies pay for the right to extract the oil goes straight to them, personally. They then dispense patronage.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by johndallman

The oil sheiks do it simply. The money the foreign oil companies pay for the right to extract the oil goes straight to them, personally. They then dispense patronage.

Yes, oil sheiks may be bad analogs. Still, I believe that other kings have been known to leave their kingdoms for extended periods. The notion that a king is obliged to fulfill certain duties in return for his income is a fairly recent one.

Anyway, the rules that I'm having a discussion about assume that the rulers in question are able to leave their territories and go gallivanting around the galaxy. Presumably leaving a deputy behind to do the actual work.


Hans

[dcarson]

I'd figure no more then 5% of whatever taxes are collected. More then that and either the government is so short of money it can't do its job and unrest starts, or whoever is running the place for you figures they can pocket it them selves. For example at 10% you give 5% as extra goodies to the secret police and military so they back you instead of the absentee and pocket the other 5% yourself.

The oil sheiks in Monaco are seldom the actual rulers they are usually family who get a share of the family business often because they are less trouble if not around.

[Loukas]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

This is for a generic rule, so his territory and people are supposedly average in all ways.

Does anyone know of figures for personal income of historical rulers?

When you say "average", do you mean average for current society? I only played a little Traveller, and remember it being TL8-9? In general the bigger and better develpped a state is the more it inevitably sucks up in terms of self-maintenance, paying police and other servants of the state, keeping up the infrastructure. So while the overall sum may be large a modern monarchy would have a very low per-subject income compared to, say, an undeveloped little kingdom run as the ruler's personal property.

Edit: if it's an undeveloped area then the sum will be based on simple extractive industries and money per mine/well rather than on population.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

I'm assuming that his people have the right to "vote with their feet" and move out of his territory if they feel oppressed.
[..]
Does anyone know of figures for personal income of historical rulers?

These would limit the scope of consideration to post-serfdom and pre-1830 rulers, which entirely eliminates some of our better known monarchies like Russia and Japan. There would be such a period for Britain and France, Denmark, Sweden, Austro-Hungary...who else?

[johndallman]

There are figures for the historical income of the British monarchy here.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

I've become involved in a discussion of how much money someone in a position roughly analogous to a strong ruler of a country might be able to tax his people for his own private account's sake. I.e. how much would go into the ruler's private account for him to spend on his own personal purposes.

What TL? Richard LionHeart spent a lot of time doing his own private thing, which was crusading in the Middle East, while his brother helped him tax England.

Medieval knights and lower nobles sometimes had an underling to manage their manors, while they were absent for long periods, doing something else, although according to my understanding of Christian theology, it was quite sinful to accumulate wealth. It was okay to be rich, but you had to spend your money, and so rich wasn't having lots of money but rather spending a lot of money (which meant you could look rich if you borrowed a lot of money and then spent them).

Another place to look might be the pre-Christian Norse, or the poorly converted early Christian Norse (not having caught up with the theology yet), for various kinds of estate management.



A better way to handle it might be to come up with some kind of political power rating, defining how much power a government (whether consisting of a single individual or not) has over its nation (or fief, or whatever). Greater control can facilitate a greater level of taxation, and if great effort is expended it should be possible to Taxate one Level higher than the Control Level, or possibly two levels if the scale used is fine-grained.

It'd then make sense to use such a scale to say that if you don't manage your lands yourself, but get someone to do it for you, the effective Taxation level is one lower than it'd otherwise be, or two if you are also physically absent a lot.

I'll be needing to make such a system eventually, for Sagatafl, but it's not an urgent priority. Nor is it particularly hard. Trickiest part might be to define formal area sizes, e.g. the size of a knight's fief, the size of a knight bannerette's personal fief, the size of a "baron's" fief, and so forth, and to find a mechanic to modify things according to the tech level of the setting. I've got the first part already, a formal widely used "Extent scale", but not the second.