"Landholders were taxed on their land, but once they became tenants they were tax-free; although obviously they had to pay land-rent. But it seems that for many small farmers this was cheaper than paying taxes. There were even laws that prevented, or tried to reverse, the trend toward land concentration."
If land rent is lower than taxes, latifundia owners go broke. They must have gotten a tax break, no? If so, how did laws attempt to prevent land concentration?
It's complicated. Large landholders had a number of strategies. First, they would just not pay. If they don't pay, and they have more loyal retainers and peasants than the local tax official, the tax official can't coerce them. Then, they would wait for a tax holiday since at some point a new emperor would declare tax forgiveness rather than collecting 15-year-old debts. It's like moving all of your assets to stocks or rental properties and waiting for the step-up in basis at death: you pay almost no taxes and at some point the problem goes away. Second, the large estates could put huge parts of their land in the hands of a monastery, maybe with a management agreement back to the noble. The monastery would be untaxed. Peasants sell land to magnate; magnate donates land to monastery; peasants work on monastery land; voila. It's like starting your own private foundation today to hire you and your kids, with a big tax deduction up front, and no taxes owed on the interest or dividends over the years. Just gotta make those 5% donations to charities every year.
Breaking these guys up was hard and never lasted. First, it wasn't always about the peasants looking for a tax break because taxes were too high. Sometimes they sold out because of war or famine induced by weather. They had little backup, so they might just sell out cheap and move to Constantinople. (This is the classic pattern in precapitalist agrarian societies with private ownership and debt and/or slavery rules: when the going gets tough, the small freeholders take out debt, pledge land or family members as collateral, and then end up selling out or taken into slavery.) Too many people did that during the reign of Romanos I, for example, who found the whole land grab distasteful. He basically passed laws requiring lands to be returned to the old owners, seizing some lands, etc. to undo the land concentration. Other emperors like Basil II literally shut down monasteries to put the land back on the tax rolls. Second, not just war or famine, but also just plain intimidation could be the reason peasants sold out. If the rule of law isn't strong enough, for example because the land magnate is also the local strategos (a general/governor figure), your small freeholder will eventually start to worry about his daughter getting abducted or people breaking the kneecaps on his oxen. So emperors also tried to embrace more norms protecting small freeholders. For example, land tenure that was inalienable and tied to military service was instituted. With that, the peasant or village would not even have the ability to sell the land to a magnate. (Although innovative lawyers could always find ways around these things, like adoption, pledging the produce of the land, etc.)
"Landholders were taxed on their land, but once they became tenants they were tax-free; although obviously they had to pay land-rent. But it seems that for many small farmers this was cheaper than paying taxes. There were even laws that prevented, or tried to reverse, the trend toward land concentration."
If land rent is lower than taxes, latifundia owners go broke. They must have gotten a tax break, no? If so, how did laws attempt to prevent land concentration?
It's complicated. Large landholders had a number of strategies. First, they would just not pay. If they don't pay, and they have more loyal retainers and peasants than the local tax official, the tax official can't coerce them. Then, they would wait for a tax holiday since at some point a new emperor would declare tax forgiveness rather than collecting 15-year-old debts. It's like moving all of your assets to stocks or rental properties and waiting for the step-up in basis at death: you pay almost no taxes and at some point the problem goes away. Second, the large estates could put huge parts of their land in the hands of a monastery, maybe with a management agreement back to the noble. The monastery would be untaxed. Peasants sell land to magnate; magnate donates land to monastery; peasants work on monastery land; voila. It's like starting your own private foundation today to hire you and your kids, with a big tax deduction up front, and no taxes owed on the interest or dividends over the years. Just gotta make those 5% donations to charities every year.
Breaking these guys up was hard and never lasted. First, it wasn't always about the peasants looking for a tax break because taxes were too high. Sometimes they sold out because of war or famine induced by weather. They had little backup, so they might just sell out cheap and move to Constantinople. (This is the classic pattern in precapitalist agrarian societies with private ownership and debt and/or slavery rules: when the going gets tough, the small freeholders take out debt, pledge land or family members as collateral, and then end up selling out or taken into slavery.) Too many people did that during the reign of Romanos I, for example, who found the whole land grab distasteful. He basically passed laws requiring lands to be returned to the old owners, seizing some lands, etc. to undo the land concentration. Other emperors like Basil II literally shut down monasteries to put the land back on the tax rolls. Second, not just war or famine, but also just plain intimidation could be the reason peasants sold out. If the rule of law isn't strong enough, for example because the land magnate is also the local strategos (a general/governor figure), your small freeholder will eventually start to worry about his daughter getting abducted or people breaking the kneecaps on his oxen. So emperors also tried to embrace more norms protecting small freeholders. For example, land tenure that was inalienable and tied to military service was instituted. With that, the peasant or village would not even have the ability to sell the land to a magnate. (Although innovative lawyers could always find ways around these things, like adoption, pledging the produce of the land, etc.)