Not really a fan of government officials going into villages and telling the locals that all able bodied men will be building roads for the next two weeks and no they won't be getting paid for it because it's a service they're providing to the government and they should think of it as a form of tax.
Understandable.
At the same time, if we're still running on a pre-industrial economic base, there's some...
issues with any conceivable means of doing taxation at all.
Thanks to our helpful volunteer narrator, this entire post series is now also available in audio format! This essay will hopefully be the first post in a series (II, III, IV, A) covering some of th…
acoup.blog
The great majority of the population are most likely peasant subsistence farmers. Left to their own devices, they will grow enough food to comfortably feed their own families with a modest margin for error, most of which is diverted laterally to feed other members of their own community who are unlucky enough to have had a bad crop or to not be easily able to feed their family on the available land under current conditions (this lateral support is reciprocal, but over long timescales, potentially generational).
As a rule, the farming population will tend to be long on labor but short on arable land they actually own, which is why "landlord" arrangements are so common.
...
Now, if you are a state, you're in the position of trying to extract some kind of useful support from the peasantry that can be turned into infrastructure projects, armies, schools, and the other things the state does. Many of these are ultimately good for the peasantry too! The peasants cannot farm safely if enemy raiders are pillaging their villages. Good roads and mills will make their lives better in various ways. And widespread education will likewise improve society in the long run. But none of this can happen at all without some form of taxation- somehow, something useful and productive must be extracted from the peasantry and used to sustain these projects.
Taxing the peasants in money is problematic. Peasants have relatively little use for money, because at their level the economy is typically governed mainly by reciprocal obligations, gift exchanges. They are likely to count their wealth in arable land, calories to survive the winter, or both. As such, the only way for them to get money is to sell their crop, which they were planning to eat for sustenance, or to toil as wage laborers on someone else's land.
The peasants are unlikely to have much of a surplus of land on which to raise crops for sale directly because, as noted above, peasant farmers tend to be long on warm bodies and short on land. Because people don't kick out Aunt Mabel to die of exposure just because it's getting a little crowded in the farmhouse. So in effect, taxing them in money is just a roundabout way of forcing them... we'll get to that.
...
So you are left with taxing the peasants in grain. This is a very common solution to the problem- but the peasants were going to
eat that grain. Extracting taxes from them in this way forces them to work significantly longer hours (if they even have the land to raise enough grain) or face malnutrition (if they don't). Also, grain is subject to spoilage and there are significant transport costs associated with moving it around much, so it's not a good substitute for money in the national budget. One solution is to tax the peasants in grain and then sell it to merchants (I believe this was common in Eastern Europe and likely elsewhere), but that still leaves you with the problem of hungry peasants.
...
Corvée labor, while not ideal, does provide a way around some of these issues. If the state is either compassionate or not idiotic, it can time the corvée labor for periods of the agricultural calendar when the farmers are not "all hands on deck" working in their fields, most notably harvest. The alternatives to corvée labor are to tax the peasants in grain (forcing them to labor to grow more grain if they even can on the land available) or to tax them in money (forcing them, typically, to agree to perform labor for the state or for large landowners to make the money to pay the taxes).
The former is, again, problematic if you wish to avoid hunger among the peasants. The latter, to paraphrase Rick and Morty, is "corvée labor but with extra steps," steps whose main function is to permit the extraction of additional profits from the peasantry for the benefit of the state, the large landholders, or both.