It was possible for many empires to tax effectively before modern bookkeeping. Property tax needs very little in the way of financial records to administer.
Can you clarify what precisely you mean by this statement? Most empires historically-speaking have had sophisticated book-keeping methods. Chinese empires used to tax anyone who exited a city on the profits they made during their visit. The Romans when they took over Egypt, taxed the hell out of it and for that purpose kept meticulous records on all of the transactions that happened. The notion of Tax itself goes back to Mesopotamia.
The general principle of a tax which can be levied fairly, equally, clearly, and with low costs of collection or effort, are not new:
The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2,
Part 2: Of Taxes.
About arbitrary taxation, I understand that's how they handled it in ancient Athens. Some nobody would say something like "It's been a while since we taxed the Alcmaenids, I propose they pay for the next Panathanea festival".
Since that state was radically democratic, it may not have had the corrupting influence on the taxers as Smith suggests... but maybe it was a factor in the aristocrats allying with their rival Sparta to topple their own constitution.
In Athen's case I don't think it technically counted as corruption in the "misappropriation" sense as the intended beneficiaries received it. Given the number of votes to "pillage and enslaved their neighbors" it would certainly count morally if not for the fact it was "the norm".
At that point the difference between bandits and city state military was essentially just diplomacy in terms of how their neighbors and survivors would react to somebody putting killing or enslaving them.
> Smith's preference was for a tax on land, which is difficult to move off-shore.
I like the idea of land tax, but I like that statement even more. (Land tax, on paper, seems like it would be such a good idea, and transaction taxes are nowadays so invasive, that it's incomprehensible to me why we don't have them.)
Not who you replied to, however modern taxation requires lots of information to work. For instance income tax works, because every employer is reporting how much they paid you. Then you report how much money you got paid, then factor in deductions such as specific contributions to charities etc. All of which are reporting to the Government at the same time.
Before the advent of computing and auditing it would be hard to tell if a blacksmith sold 50 or 55 swords. So income tax wasn't viable and instead taxation on lands were more common.
>HK raises practically all of its revenue from land
I don't know what you mean. Hong Kong is a trading port, and any wealth it "creates" is done by refining imported materials. This option is only available someplace lots of trade naturally occurs, like Hong Kong's river basin.
I mean the government raises its tax revenue almost exclusively by leasing land and taxing real estate transactions instead of taxing income like we do in the West.
If the only tax in a jurisdiction is an income tax and you choose to make your money through capital gains, you don't pay tax.
If the only tax in a jurisdiction is a land tax and you don't own land, you don't pay tax. This will either be because you ideologically are opposed to paying taxes and you're willing to pay more in foregone profits/opportunity cost, or because there's better more profitable investments elsewhere in the marketplace, in which case land values will grow more slowly till an equilibrium is reached.
But since most transacations are tied to land somehow (because the good was imported at the port, transported by trucks that are stored in a truckyard, and sold to you by a person who lives in a house using mobile phones that connect to transmitter towers) so you won't be engaging in some kind of pure untaxed marketplace.
It'll probably create a stockmarket bubble though. Best to tax shares as well as land.
