Thread by @JaredWalczak

I love a good historical example, but I'm not terribly convinced by this @taxjustice piece holding up classical Athens as an exemplar of progressive taxation embraced by the wealthy, and don't know how you'd distinguish it from, say, all of feudalism. 1/

taxjustice.medium.com/tax-avoidance-…

The basic premise here is that the wealthiest Athenians paid a wealth tax to fund military and religious expenses, and that they took pride in these duties, in contrast to today's wealthy. I'm skeptical on a number of points. 2/

I'm not qualified to adjudicate historians' disputes on these taxes, but most think the eisphora, while sometimes progressive, applied to all landowners, rich and poor. All agree it was low, only imposed during war, and was actually a property tax.

hellenicaworld.com/Greece/WS/en/E… 3/

The other claim is the requirement of leading citizens to command triremes and fund militias, which is true enough, but also applies to, like, every feudal power. Did royal benevolences, carucage, and the requirement that lords equip armies make medieval Europe progressive? 4/

In Athens, medieval Europe, and other places with such systems, the income of estates derived substantially from the labor of lesser vassals, serfs, or outright slaves. That the landowner remitted some of the tax didn't make it an era of cheerful progressive taxation. 5/

The other part, on early America, hinges on one vague quote from a Washington letter on religious toleration which references, generically, citizens' obligations to support their country (contrasted here with obligations to support the dominant religion). 6/

Again, I love learning more about taxation in earlier eras, but color me unconvinced that either Athens or the early American republic featured stronger affinity for progressive taxation than we see today. 7/7