Historically, rulers have employed a mix of practical and ideological justifications for new or increased taxes. On a practical level, the need for revenue to fund public infrastructure, services, defence mechanisms, or to counteract economic downturns were often cited. Ideologically, rulers might appeal to a shared sense of duty, suggesting that taxes were a form of societal contribution towards common goals, prosperity, or security. In certain contexts, religious or moral obligations were invoked, portraying taxation as a divine mandate or a righteous act. Lastly, in autocratic systems, justifications might be minimal, with rulers leveraging their unchecked authority to impose taxes.

While both tribute and regular taxation involve the transfer of wealth or resources, their underlying purposes and dynamics differ. A tribute is typically paid by one state or ruler to another, often symbolising submission, allegiance, or a request for protection. It's a manifestation of power dynamics between entities, with the payer acknowledging the superiority or dominance of the recipient. On the other hand, regular taxation is an internal mechanism, primarily serving to fund public services, governance structures, or developmental projects within a state. It doesn't inherently carry the same symbolic weight of submission or dominance as a tribute does.

While the core principle of taxation—as a means to gather revenue for governance—remains consistent, modern taxation systems are generally more complex, nuanced, and based on principles of equity, efficiency, and administrative simplicity. Modern states have the advantage of sophisticated economic theories, data analytics, and feedback mechanisms to fine-tune their tax policies. Progressive taxation, where the tax rate increases as the taxable amount rises, is a modern concept aiming to ensure equity. In contrast, historical empires like the Ghanaian and Mamluk had more straightforward systems, based primarily on evident wealth sources, like trade routes or land productivity. However, the underlying objective—resource mobilisation for societal benefit—remains a shared theme across ages.

Indeed, the history of Mamluk Egypt wasn't devoid of tax-related resistances. Given the empire's militaristic governance and the complexity of its tax system, certain sectors of society sometimes viewed tax levies as excessive or discriminatory. The Jizya, or poll tax on non-Muslims, could at times lead to discontent, especially if the protection promised in exchange was perceived as inadequate. Moreover, frequent land surveys for the Kharaj could sometimes result in higher tax assessments, leading to dissatisfaction among landowners. However, the Mamluk military apparatus often ensured that such resistances were quelled before they could escalate into larger revolts.

The Ghanaian Empire's dominance over the trans-Saharan routes wasn't merely economic but also militaristic. They maintained a sizeable and formidable army which guarded trade routes, ensuring that merchants passing through their territory adhered to the tax obligations. Trading centres and check-posts were strategically established along these routes, enabling tax collection. Additionally, the reputation of the empire, built upon its wealth and military strength, likely served as a deterrent against evasion. While it's challenging to ensure complete enforcement over such extensive routes, a combination of physical presence and earned respect likely facilitated the empire's taxation success.