This chapter argues that beyond city and territorial states there was a third path of European state-formation: polycentric polities such as Spain. Spain maintained political legitimacy by devolving the power to tax and spend to urban and regional decision-makers. New data show that treasuries chose to restrict issuance of new debt forcing down yields. But while polycentric governance constrained the ruler effectively, local taxation stifled market development. Paradoxically indirect taxation and effective local and regional constraints on the ruler, both generally assumed to support economic growth, were obstacles to development in Spain.

Paintings of battles from the early modern age have always offered detailed insights on the strategies and the type of weaponry used at that particular time in history. In this case I have chosen the painting " The Battle of Gibraltar, April 25 th 1607 " , by the Dutch Golden Age painter Cornelis Claesz van Wieringen from 1622, located at the National Maritime Museum in Amsterdam, it depicts a decisive battle between the United Provinces of the Netherlands and the Spanish forces during the Eighty Years' War (1566/68-1648), also known as the Dutch Revolt, an exhausting conflict that was fought both on land and at sea. This painting caused me to wonder how Spain, once the most powerful colonial Empire in the known world, following its many military campaigns in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, slowly declined. But did it really occur? There is, in fact, a vastness of scholarly articles and books on this specific subject that will subsequently be employed, the majority of which state that Spain went through a gradual downfall and focused on trying to revitalise its economy following Philip II's miscues in implementing his economic strategy. The book " The Resilience of the Spanish Monarchy, 1665-1700 " by Christopher Storrs, offers a unique view from the other sources; it denies Spain's decline by emphasising that, through efforts in the financial, administrative and military sectors, king Carlos II and his ministers were able to maintain the Spanish empire at that time. What I wish to do in this paper is to compare these opposite beliefs by conducting a historiographical case study where there will be a thorough analysis of these different literary sources and then be able to assert whether the Spanish Monarchy did in fact decline or if it tenaciously resisted until the eighteenth century. The method by which I intend to answer this research question is to examine how different historians perceived the consequences of the outcome of the Dutch Revolt, the many military campaigns against England, France and in the Thirty Years' War, for the Spanish economy in the later seventeenth century.

Based on extensive archival information, this paper argues that royal fiscal policy contributed to the severity and persistence of economic distress in Ciudad Real, and probably in all of Castile. Given the perceived need to defend Spain's European position, fiscal policy often showed a perverse disregard for economic reality in Castile. Taxation was low through the stunning inflation and population growth of the early sixteenth century, and high during the economic distress of the mid-seventeenth century; private wealth was largely untouched while the economy was growing, but it was frequently commandeered when stagnation and decline had set in. Overall, the effects of Habsburg fiscal policy were counter-productive. To preserve Spanish power the crown plundered Castile, and without a strong economic base in Castile, Spanish power could not be sustained.

El CFDI de nómina como condicionante para la deducción Premisas para entender al CFDI de nómina: • Olvidemos por un momento que la nómina representa la lista de los nombres de las personas que están en la plantilla de una empresa o en general a cargo de un patrón, donde se especifica el salario y cada contraprestación que habrán de cobrar, esto es, la cantidad de dinero que recibe una persona por el trabajo realizado en bajo la dependencia de dicho patrón. • Olvidemos que la nómina, el salario y en general las prestaciones laborales están consignadas en la Ley Federal del Trabajo, órgano que constituye su natural –y único-marco regulatorio. • Olvidemos que la seguridad para ambas partes, trabajador y patrón, está en el cumplimiento cabal de la legislación laboral y que, entre otras obligaciones –y derechos-, se encuentra el documentar las contraprestaciones que recibe un trabajador por sus servicios prestados a través de un recibo en el cual, cumplidas las formalidades para su materialización, ambas partes quedan ciertas de que el salario y demás prestaciones fueron cubiertas conforme al pacto entre ambos y que, por tanto, dicha documentación adquiere validez probatoria ante terceros. Decimos que habría que olvidar momentáneamente lo anterior, en razón de que la legislación fiscal, divorciada de otras disposiciones que no le son útiles para su fin recaudatorio, ha dispuesto desde el 2014 una serie de normas que combinan el uso de la tecnología, la implementación de controles, documentos y tareas adicionales a las del normal cumplimiento de obligaciones laborales, además de candados, limitantes y requisitos cuyo fin, exclusivamente tributario, tiende a permitir o prohibir la deducción de dichos pagos derivados de una relación laboral y a dotar al calculador de la contribución, de los elementos para determinar la base sobre la cual habrá de determinarse el impuesto sobre la renta vía retención que ha de enterar posteriormente, el patrón. Para la mejor comprensión de éste intrincado conjunto de normas relativas al CFDI (comprobante fiscal digital por internet), cuya emisión es el último condicionante para poder deducir la nómina, habremos de apoyarnos en la legislación aplicable limitando nuestro análisis específicamente a la emisión-timbrado-retención-entrega del CFDI de nómina: