Does that really matter, though? If we had a communistic system for years after the IRs were made, without anyone ever raising a fuss, maybe that's because they are compatible? If you cut a noble's estates by half when he switches from warrior to courtier/diplomat, so what? What's he going to do with that gold anyways? He doesn't need it. He can't even recruit a fourth of what he used to be able to recruit. Courtiers gain no new way to spend gold, and diplomats do not gain a need to spend it either. Reducing their income does not, in any way, prevent them from enjoying their new career path. All it does is help prevent too much of the realm's resources going to people who have no need or use for it, and who will either send it to their family coffers or make ridiculous uses of it like holding tournaments while their realm is at war.
Or perhaps because of the glacial pace with which the code is updated, it simply took that long for Tom to implement a new tax system that was more in line with the intend of the IR's? Frankly without input from Tom regarding his exact thinking when designing the first estate system speculation about weather the old system was or was not compliant with the IR's is rather pointless.
Similarly arguing about ones need for gold is often pointless. Very few Dukes and City lords really need all the gold the region gives them, as evidenced by family gold. If we are arguing that the game requires methods that provide income re-distribution in order to maximise efficiencies as that will provide fun, as opposed to feudal concepts that obviously support the concentration of wealth, then I believe that requires another thread and we can discuss the complete picture of methods to prevent waste of "realm" resources.
