We discussed the Han tax system, including what farmers had to pay, recently and thought might be worth linking for other readers.

In theory, the Han tax on farmers was meant to be one-thirtieth of production but as the tax rate was unchanging sum on acreage whatever you produced, in practice its worth compared to what you made would vary. It isn't exactly agreed on how much each mou (the measurement of land) was expected to produce but Rafe De Crespigny's Fire over Luoyang has it as a tax of ten per mou so an average farm of 70-80 (around 3.5 hectares) would be 700-800 cash with the expectation such a farm would get around 15,000 cash with the harvest. The tax rate for farmers was deliberately low but it relied on the farmer getting that amount of produce and the prices the government assumed the crop would be worth while there, of course, the other taxes we discussed. As long as the farm was going as expected and nothing went wrong like bad harvest, land not being that good, prices being poor or the taxes didn't shoot up in an emergency, a farmer could support his family.

But if a farmer fell on bad times and couldn't find a way out of debt, a way of feeding family, selling up to a local rich landlord was a way of surviving before the debts saw the lands seized. I don't know what prices they might hope to have got from this as a one-off influx of cash but remaining at their farms was not guaranteed. Landlords had plenty of workers for the farms and methods (quality of seeds, rotating land, variety of goods for the year-round) to make it easier to farm with better results that they could use instead. So the farmer might have to find another home (perhaps cross the Yangtze), rely on government relief for displaced farmers and maybe even find another trade.

However for those that were kept on, the landlords could take on (and shrink) the tax burden on themselves, the name of the new owner (and their armed retainers) might provide some protection in the area for the farm from local bullies or troublemakers. They could indeed bring in supplies to increase productivity that, as a free farmer, the farmer struggling in debt might have struggled to have got hold of like draft animals. Even further, there had been innovations in farming technology, new deeper, adjustable iron ploughshares (with two oxen required), better pottery bricks for better wells for irrigation, nose-rings for oxen and perhaps add it to what you owed. The landlord might also pay (or pressure local officials to arrange for) an irrigation project. These didn't always happen but a landlord had the money and the clout the free farmer did not have while the Latter Han did not usually provide such modern tools for people outside of a crisis measure.

The farm is no longer the farmer's, he is a tenant and his payment would depend on the agreement but it could be as much as half of the crops or even two-thirds (Patrica Ebery's The Economic and Social History of the Later Han). The farm might be more productive, the farmer might not be paying taxes, the payment for the chance to work on land the farmer no longer owned might be more flexible but the rent for this was very high. To support the family, a tenant farmer might also turn to a second job or hire out their family members for military or other services.

So if the deal wasn't sweet, why would the tenant farmer side towards his local landlord over the government? I wouldn't go as far as to raise a revolt against the Han, disobedience would be more low level or localized than outright treason usually. The Han was a distant thing, a court that could be miles and miles away with ministers and an Emperor you will never see and whose representatives were either local families or outsiders. Those outside officials could sometimes be great and popular but could also get the corrupt, the weak, ones that may have attacked your way of life including your worship and practises. The Han's taxes might well have pushed the farmer (or the farmer's ancestors) into losing the farm, what relief the central government provided increasingly became stretched. The Emperor was the Son of Heaven and that meant something but it isn't a great pitch overall for siding with the far off court vs...

Your landowner and family had likely been in the area for generation after generation as had yours, the landowner was a presence (even if just for clients acting on his behalf) in your local community. The landowner had an education and (within the appropriate restrained style), cash to spend including on clothing, tombs, mansions, a jobs provider via farms, trade, retainers, building works, using influence to ensure local officials were their men. They had armed retainers to impose their will on the local area if cash and influence didn't work out. The landlord was providing protection and a job for the tenant farmer which, though the cost was high, might perhaps be seen by the farmer as better than the alternatives they were facing.

In case that wasn't a strong enough pitch, the farmer owing the landlord, their job and survival reliant on the landlord and the retainers with pointy swords might also be influential in persuading the farmer to back the landlord.