XVIII - XIX centuries, the period of formation and development of the school of classical economic theory. According to this theory, the economy is a stable and self-regulating system in which demand creates supply, and if there is an excess of any of them, the system self-balances by moving producers to scarce sectors of the economy. Self-regulation of the economy takes place according to the “invisible hand” principle. In this case, the state should perform only the functions assigned to it: protecting property rights and ensuring the development of a free market. The founders of the classical theory try to limit the scope of the tax, insisting that only the defense capability of the country should be ensured through the collection of taxes. All other government expenses, the administration of justice, the maintenance of public institutions and works, the establishment of education and religious upbringing must be paid for by targeted duties and fees levied on users of these public goods and government services. And only if there is a shortage of targeted fees, these expenses should be covered by taxes from the entire society.
Russia also continues to improve its financial system. By decree of Alexander I in 1802, the Ministry of Finance was created and its role was defined. State taxes remained the main source of revenue. The main direct tax was the poll tax. Along with general direct taxes, targeted fees were introduced (for the construction of state highways, for the establishment of water communications, etc.). As well as special fees: tax on travel on state highways; from passengers of railways, shipping companies, from railway cargo.
There were duties on property passed by inheritance or through acts of donation. At that time, only persons who did not have direct inheritance rights were subject to them. In addition to state taxes, there were local ones.
In 1824, a guild reform took place, patent taxation of trade and crafts was introduced, which remained almost unchanged until the 30s of the 20th century.
Crisis phenomena and budget deficit 1854-1856. provoked a new tax increase. The financial situation was getting worse, industry and trade were experiencing a shortage of capital. To stabilize the situation, customs duties were reduced on a number of materials necessary for the development of Russian industry. Control over the expenditure of funds was strengthened. In 1862 Alexander II approved new budget rules that introduced a unified system of budget accounting and reporting. All financial resources were concentrated in the treasury. Control chambers were created in the provinces. Each ministry and department was required to submit detailed cost estimates indicating individual items.
After the peasant reform of 1861, land taxation was introduced, and a house tax, zemstvo taxes and fees appeared. As well as excise taxes on consumer goods - wine, salt, yeast, kerosene, tobacco, sugar, matches, etc. In order to increase income, a state monopoly on the sale of alcoholic beverages was introduced. Income from such activities accounted for the majority of non-tax revenues to the treasury.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. In Russia, a period of urbanization began, the emergence of capitalist relations, the development of industry, trade, an increase in foreign investment and a construction boom. But the peaceful development of the country was interrupted by the First World War. This affected the financial situation of the country in the most deplorable way - paper money emission increased, which led to inflation. Taxes and fees were systematically increased, and new excise taxes were introduced. The amount of loans, both internal and external, grew rapidly, and gold reserves decreased.
After the February revolution the situation did not improve. The Kerensky government replenished the Russian budget mainly through the issue of depreciated paper money and in-kind collections from the population, which was no longer able to bear the tax burden.
Date of publication: 02.10.2013 16:33 (archive)
The process of developing the taxation system in our country has been long and difficult. Its origins can be traced back to the very birth of the state system in Rus', i.e., approximately from the end of the 9th century. As in most other countries, the main type of tax was the usual tribute - a direct tax that Russian princes regularly collected from their subjects. At the same time, as the famous Russian historian S.M. Solovyov writes, the amount of the tax was established from the “smoke” (inhabited dwelling) or from the plow - the main tool of labor at that time.
It is curious that from the very beginning of the Russian state, its development began to depend on the behavior of the authorities in matters of taxation. For example, Prince Oleg (?—912), expanding the boundaries of his possessions, wisely combined military campaigns with the provision of tax benefits to new subjects. So, in 884 he annexed the Dnieper northerners to his principality. Victory over them was given to him quite easily, since the northerners did not resist particularly fiercely: they learned that Oleg’s subjects were paying less tribute than the Khazars, the former rulers of the northerners, demanded. Having learned about this, the Radimichi, a tribe that lived on the banks of the Sozha River, then crossed Oleg’s arm. The benefit was obvious - the Khazars took tribute from the Radimichi twice as much as the Dnieper northerners began to pay Oleg.
Unfortunately, Prince Oleg's wisdom in tax matters was not passed on to his successor, Prince Igor (? - 945). He introduced for one of his subject tribes - the Drevlyans - a tax much more severe than under Oleg. Moreover, having already received tribute, he decided that it was not enough for him, and returned to the Drevlyans for additional tribute. Such a double demand for tribute outraged the Drevlyans, and they rebelled and killed Prince Igor.
The further development of the tax system in Russia, as well as throughout the world, followed the path of inventing various types of indirect taxes. For example, in the “Russian Truth” of Prince Yaroslav the Wise one can find the following types of taxes:
washed- for transporting goods through mountain outposts;
transportation - for transporting goods across the river;
living room- h and the right to have warehouses for goods;
trading - for the right to have a market in the settlement;
weight - for the provision of services for weighing goods;
measure - for the provision of services for measuring goods;
Then, after the defeat of the Russian troops in the war with the Mongol khans, the main tax in Rus' became a tax on the head of men and the head of livestock.
The Russian princes, who became vassals of the Mongols, had to collect this tax, called “exit,” and then transfer it to the Grand Duke, who sent everything collected to the Horde. At the same time, disputes about the size of tax payments became the cause of subsequent invasions of the Tatar-Mongols and the disasters this brought. Thus, the invasion of Rus' by troops under the command of Tokhtamysh was caused by the fact that Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy (1350-1380) tried to obtain from Temnik Mamai, the real ruler of the Golden Horde, a smaller amount of “exit” than the great princes of Rus' had previously paid. But after the victory of Tokhtamysh and the capture of Dmitry Donskoy’s son Vasily, the Grand Duke had to capitulate and pay a huge “exit” to the Horde.
At the same time, the Horde tax burden was constantly increasing. If under Dmitry Donskoy the amount of “output” reached 1000 rubles, then already under Prince Vasily Dmitrievich (1371-1425) the Horde had to pay 5 thousand rubles, and then 7 thousand rubles. In addition, the Grand Duke had to support the Horde ambassador and his entire huge retinue with his own money.
Under these conditions, the Russian princes could raise money for their own needs only through indirect taxes, and primarily through trade fees. The desire to increase revenues from such fees was one of the main motives that prompted Ivan Kalita (?-1340) and his son Simeon the Proud (1316-1353) to constantly make efforts to annex new lands to the Moscow Principality. But then everything happened according to a model that is well known to almost every country in the world: “The state always has little money, and its need for money is constantly growing faster than income.”
In other words, the increase in the size of the state generated an increase in the costs of managing it, and the Moscow princes began to invent new indirect taxes. As a result, taxes were introduced in Rus' for the right to cast silver, brand horses, cook salt, and fish. Taxes began to be taken for marriage as well. As a result, Rus', in matters of organizing taxation, moved along the path paved by Rome, and this did not bode well for it.
The situation changed somewhat only under Ivan III (1440-1505), when Russian troops successfully withstood the “stand on the Ugra” and the country, having gained freedom, stopped paying “exit” to the Tatar-Mongols. This meant that it was now possible to generate treasury revenues through not only indirect, but also direct taxes. It was this tax reform that Ivan III took up after the onset of peace. The “exit” was replaced by a direct tax to the Russian treasury—“given money.” This tax had to be paid by black-growing peasants and townspeople.
And in order to collect taxes in full, Ivan III ordered a census of the Russian land in order (as we would put it today) to identify all taxpayers. It must be said that such steps of Ivan III are fully consistent with modern taxation rules: in relation to organizations and citizens, it begins with their registration, since without this it is impossible to determine who should pay taxes.
Thanks to the tax census of Ivan III, it became possible to take not only “given money”, but also the so-called pososhny tax, which included land tax. At the same time, the amount of the tax was determined quite competently - depending not only on the area of the land plot, but also on the quality of the land. After all, it is the quality of the soil that affects the yield, and therefore the income of the owner of the plot from the sale of the crop.
And when Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584) streamlined the reasonable Russian tax system laid down by Ivan III (land tax plus indirect taxes on the import and export of goods, as well as the sale of alcoholic beverages), the Russian treasury began to replenish itself quite successfully. True, at the same time, the tax burden on the country's residents was very high, and this dissatisfaction by the end of the 16th century. became very noticeable. In any case, the son of Ivan the Terrible, Fyodor Ioannovich, was even forced to take measures of “state camouflage.” To convince the people of the Tsar's "poverty", he, on the advice of his regent Boris Godunov, ordered some of the gold and silver vessels that he inherited from his father and which were kept in the Kremlin treasury to be melted into coins. This was supposed to convince the boyars and the people that taxes were so high because of the poverty of the state and that the tsar also gave part of his property to the needs of the country.
And yet, neither Ivan III, nor Ivan the Terrible, nor Boris Godunov managed to solve one of the problems of streamlining taxation in Russia. The trouble was that too many royal services were involved in collecting taxes, and therefore it was extremely difficult to figure out exactly how much money went to the treasury and for what. It was possible to establish relative order only at the end of the 17th century, when during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676) the so-called Accounting Order (the predecessor of the current Ministry of Taxes and Duties and the Ministry of Finance) was created. Only then was it possible to create an accurate picture of the sources of government revenue.
At first glance, the financial situation in Rus' at that time may seem prosperous: the state budget did not have a deficit, but, on the contrary, had a surplus. Thus, in 1680, budget revenues amounted to 1,203,367 rubles, and expenses - only 1,125,323 rubles, i.e., a surplus of 78,044 rubles was achieved.
But it is worth paying attention to the fact that 3% of government revenues were so-called emergency fees. This means that the government of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was not content with regular taxes and was constantly inventing new temporary levies from the population. In the end, this led to dire consequences - a tax, or rather, a “salt” riot began in the country.
The fact is that direct taxes (“from bellies and industries”) in Rus' became so high that it was no longer possible to increase them further. And Tsar Alexei needs additional money. And then it was decided to increase one of the indirect taxes - on salt. Its size was increased from 5 to 20 kopecks. per pound (16 kg). At first glance, there should have been nothing wrong with the increase in the price of salt caused by this decision - all citizens of the country buy salt and, therefore, the additional tax burden, in theory, should have increased evenly and not too much.
In reality, everything turned out to be wrong. The Tsar's officials did not take into account that there were a lot of poor people in the country. They lived only off the fish that they caught in the Volga, Oka and other rivers, and then salted them with cheap salt. When salt became more expensive, salting fish became unprofitable. As a result, a huge amount of fish went rotten without salting, and people were left without food. And then the poor rebelled in 1648, demanding a reduction in the price of salt (remember that at that time only the state traded salt - no one else was allowed to do so). The king had to cancel the salt tax and start looking for other sources of income.
This “tax invention” continued in the future, and received particular development under Peter I, who introduced a new public position - profit-maker. This was the name given to officials whose duty was to come up with new sources of treasury revenue. There are known cases when Peter even gave freedom to serfs for a well-invented tax. The result of the “creativity” of profit-makers was: a tax on cab drivers - 1/10 of the fee for hiring their vehicle, a tax on stoves, on watermelons, on nuts and even on religious beliefs (schismatics had to pay taxes 2 times higher than adherents of the official church) etc.
It was the profit-makers who proposed to Peter I the most serious tax reform of that time. Its meaning was the transition from taxes established “from the yard” to taxes per capita (more precisely, on men, since women were not taken into account when calculating the tax). The fact is that collecting taxes “from the yard” was getting worse and worse. After this tax was introduced in 1679, the Russians quickly figured out how to reduce it: they began to fence off the yards of all relatives living in the neighborhood, and even strangers, with a single fence.
To deprive citizens of this method of evading payment, profit-makers in 1718-1724 organized a capitation census of the population of Russia. And after that, every male soul was obliged to pay 74 kopecks to the treasury annually. (if it was a peasant) or 1 rub. 14 kopecks (if the man was a townsman, that is, a city resident). The new taxation system ensured greater uniformity of payments for the country's citizens, but the taxes were very high. And yet, tax reforms allowed Peter I to have a deficit-free budget and successfully pay for all his huge military expenses. Thanks to his efforts, industry and trade began to grow rapidly in Russia, and other areas of economic activity began to develop. This means that the incomes of Russians began to increase, from which correspondingly more taxes could be collected. This is what allowed Empress Catherine I (1684-1727), after the death of Peter I, to decide to reduce the poll tax (from 74 kopecks per year to 70) - they were afraid of angering their subjects, because the memory of the “salt” riot was still alive.
A new stage in the development of the Russian tax system is associated with the name of Empress Catherine II (1729-1796). During her reign, much was done to make the tax system more thoughtful and the tax burden less heavy. For example, the amount of tax on a merchant depended on which guild he belonged to: the richer the merchant was (and to earn this title, one had to have trade property worth more than 500 rubles), the higher the guild he belonged to and the more paid tax on the commercial property he owned. Merchants of the III guild paid 2.5%, and merchants of the II and I guilds - 4%. But at the same time:
the merchant had to declare the size of his trading property himself, “in good conscience”;
government officials were not allowed to verify the veracity of such statements;
denunciations of concealment of wealth were not accepted by the state.
The 19th century and the beginning of the 20th were for Russia a period of gradual construction of effective taxation and public finance systems.
At this time, the names of such wise ministers as M.M. Speransky, E.F. Kankrin and S.Yu. Witte entered the history of domestic finance. Through their efforts, a taxation system that was not ideal, but acceptable for the economy, was created in the country, which made it possible to ensure the growth of production and the creation of completely new sectors of the economy. But even then the country lived with a state budget deficit. What contemporaries thought about this is convincingly evidenced by an excerpt from an article published in 1909 by the newspaper "Moscow Weekly" (editor-publisher - Prince E.N. Trubetskoy) and dedicated to the discussion in the State Duma of the budget for the next financial year: "Comparison of the needs of the state in the coming years, with its possible resources, left no doubt in the mind of an impartial listener that the Russian budget has entered a period of chronic deficits, which can only be eliminated through heroic efforts...".
The basis of the tax system of our country during the period of Soviet power was deductions from the profits of enterprises (their size was set by the state - the owner of these enterprises - very arbitrarily, without any participation of the legislative branch), payments for the building, structures and equipment of enterprises (funds), as well as tax on turnover. The latter was paid mainly by those enterprises that made consumer goods. All other taxes, including income taxes (its rate was the same for everyone and amounted to 13% of the monthly salary), played only a supporting role in generating income for the Soviet state. At the same time, the state actually took away almost all income from enterprises and citizens, and then mercifully gave them salaries, meager interest on deposits kept in savings banks, and benefits to pensioners, single mothers, disabled people and other categories of low-income citizens.
A completely new stage in the construction of the tax system began in Russia in the 90s. During these years, our country began a long and painful journey from a rotten command economic system to a completely new structure of economic and social life. This required, among other things, serious changes in the organization of tax management.
It's surprising that the best head of a national bank in 2015, according to Euromoney magazine, Elvira Sakhipzadovna Nabiullina still didn't go to Davos , when the ruble continued its steady decline, recording new anti-records. Probably, one of the older comrades still advised not to do this. After all, for the head Bank of Russia much more important is not the state of the national currency, but communication with representatives of the world elite, whose orders this establishment seems to serve. However, it is not 1. Judging by the actions of the government headed by a lawyer and its financial and economic bloc, she is not alone in this. Awarding the honorary title of the best Minister of FinanceAnatoly Borisovich Chubais in 1997 and Alexey Leonidovich Kudrin in 2010 by the same Euromoney magazine clearly demonstrates the high assessment of their activities in Russia in the interests of their foreign owners. They made their feasible contribution to the destruction of Russia, now in their place there are new performers who are successfully continuing their work.
Strictly speaking, this process began in 1991 during the so-called “democratic” revolution. As befits any decent revolution, since the Dutch rebellion in 1572, it has always resulted in an inevitable increase in the tax burden imposed on the broadest sections of the population. For example, under the ruthless Spanish tyranny, ordinary workers in the Netherlands paid taxes not exceeding 5% of their income. For craftsmen, these representatives of the middle class of that time, taxes reached 6%. After the victory of the Dutch bourgeois revolution, which Western historians usually call the Dutch rebellion or riot, in 1630 taxes for workers increased to 16%, and for representatives of the middle class to 20%. The new state had something to fight for.
In anti-people Tsarist Russia, this “prison of nations,” the poll tax was equal to 5 rubles in gold per year, while the average salary in the country in 1913 was approximately 40 rubles per month. Skipping the shocks associated with revolutions, civil wars and wars with Germany, the amount of taxes during the period of “stagnation” for workers consisted of an income tax of 13% for a salary of more than 100 rubles per month and approximately 2% inflation. If we add to this a tax for childlessness of 6%, then in total the total amount of taxes in the worst case scenario did not exceed 21%.
In 1991, this time another “democratic” revolution won in Russia. Let's skip the turbulent 90s with their 200% inflation, crises and other delights and see how things are now. It would seem that they might look even better than under socialism. Income tax is the same 13% and no tax on childlessness. If you take a closer look, then to this 13% income tax is added 30%, which is transferred by enterprises to the pension fund, as well as social and compulsory health insurance funds. The payer here seems to be the enterprise, and not the employee himself, but in essence these are the funds that the employee could receive as wages, but the government, under the guise of the law, actually takes them away from the workers. Also, formally these are not taxes, but in essence that is exactly what they are. Since the government is currently not doing well with its funds, as part of the 2016 anti-crisis plan, the government is considering the possibility of transferring their collections to the Federal Tax Service. This will certainly simplify their administration. But we digress a little.
So, for now we have 43% income taxes. That's not all. Another tax on personal income is inflation. Even with the official 13%, our total taxes gradually increase to 56%, and in reality even more. If we add to this the inevitable value added tax of 10-18%, which is ultimately paid by the same consumer, the amount of income tax rises to 66-74%. Or 3/4 of a worker’s salary is taken away by the “democratic” state. This does not include other excise taxes, direct and indirect taxes, and so on. But even if we stop there, it is quite interesting to compare current tax payments with similar payments in Tsarist Russia. Moreover, gold allows this perfectly.
If we take the current price of an ounce of gold at approximately $1,100, then even at an exchange rate of 85 rubles for $1, the royal 5 rubles in gold (4.3 grams of 900-carat gold) is approximately 11,700 current paper rubles. With an average salary of 30,000 current paper rubles per month and only a 13% income tax, the amount of the employee’s direct income tax for the year turns out to be = 46,800 rubles or 4 times more than under the Tsar!
If this is democracy or the power of the people, then a natural question arises: what kind of people are we talking about in this case? If democracy in this case means the power of slave owners over slaves, then, probably, yes.
As treasury revenues deteriorate, we may see not only an increase in existing taxes, but also the emergence of new ones. For example, the introduction of a progressive tax scale for individuals. To begin with, these will be individuals with high incomes. No one will object to this, forgetting that today’s ruble will also differ from tomorrow’s ruble, as well as from yesterday’s ruble. Unlike a gold ruble or a gram of gold, a paper ruble yesterday, today and tomorrow are different rubles with an ever-decreasing purchasing power. And those tax rates that today seem to apply only to the rich may already apply to everyone tomorrow.
Another option could be a capital increase tax for individuals. If you previously, protecting your savings, bought an American or European bank note for, say, 30 rubles, and now it costs 90, then the state may ask you to pay income tax on the difference. After all, as a result of the fall in the national currency, you have become 60 rubles “richer”. To simplify the tax collection process, they can simply introduce a tax on the sale of currency by the population and oblige banks to collect it for each transaction and transfer it to the tax service. No expenses for the state, but 1 continuous income. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of options for how you can collect funds from the population.
And the further the authorities move in this direction, thereby showing more and more concern for Russia and its citizens, the worse life will be for these broad sections of the population, but the more “better” ministers and central bankers there will be.
The patience of the people is great, but not unlimited, and can end in a social explosion or rebellion, perhaps senseless, but most likely definitely merciless. And the authorities should remember this well, otherwise it will turn out like in that poem: “There gathered at the gate, these, what’s his name, people ....”
Ending. Home http://uborshizzza.livejournal.com/4285972.html
http://uborshizzza.livejournal.com/4286716.html
It was especially bad for the peasants in the central provinces. Of these, 11% of the peasant population of all categories turned out to be unsecured with land, that is, they received less than 2 dessiatines. per capita, and 54% are poorly provided for (received allotments below 4 dessiatines per capita). Only 34% of peasants received sufficient plots.
In 47 provinces of Heb. In Russia, 40-45 million dessiatines are leased. Peasants rent more than 2/3 of the rented land from private owners; in addition, they rent 3,500,000 des. state-owned land and 1,737,000 dess. specific. What amount should peasant tenants pay annually for rented land to land owners? According to the most conservative estimate, this amount is at least 100 million rubles. annually.
Arable lands account for 60.9%, mowing - 13.4 percent, and other lands - 25.7%. The average gross profitability of one dessiatine of arable land for 27 provinces is 11 rubles 78 kopecks, while the costs of agricultural production are 7 rubles 65 kopecks.
For individual provinces, the gross yield of a tithe of arable land ranges from 8 rubles to 8k. up to 21 rubles. 88 k., and production costs from 5 rubles. 3 8 k. to 14 r. 6 k. The net yield of a tithe of arable land, on average, for 27 provinces is expressed in only 4 r. 13 k., experiencing fluctuations in individual provinces between 7 r. 8 2 k. and 1 rub. 72 k. and reaching a maximum in St. Petersburg. province (7 r. 8 2 k.) and in Tambov (6 r. 93 k.), Kursk (6 r. 29 k.) and Oryol (6 r. 23 k.). The lowest profitability is observed in Samara province. (1 rub. 94 k.) and Kaluga (1 rub. 72 k.).
The net profitability of mowing turns out to be greater than that of arable land, amounting to, on average, 8 rubles. 64 kopecks and fluctuating between 2 rubles. 3 2 k. (Vyatka province) and 22 rub. 4 4 k. (Voronezh). The gross profitability and net profitability of the remaining lands is very insignificant, expressed for 27 lips. only 54 kopecks and 39 kopecks.
It turns out that salaries and duties fall on each tithe on average in the amount of 1 ruble 39 kopecks, amounting to 15.4% of the gross and 36.8% of the net profitability received from one tithe of allotment land. For individual provinces, payments range from 5.5 to 27.1% of gross and from 11.0 to 76.0% of net profitability!
In Suzdal district Vlad. lips payments and duties are equal to the net profitability, and in 16 counties payments and duties exceed the net profitability of the land. For example, in Sapozhkovsky district. Ryaz. lips this excess turns out to be 292.1% of net profitability.
According to 1900 data, it was occupied by local and third-party crafts in 50 provinces. Russia has 14.2 million souls, of both sexes, i.e., 32% of the total peasant population. In other words, with the current size of peasant land ownership, about 1/3 of the peasantry can no longer feed itself from the land. Most of the workers are employed in local industries (73°/o) and a minority of them are employed in latrines (27°/o). The profitability of all types of fishing earnings was equal to 1,083,086.00 0 rubles at the beginning of 1900, including latrines—202,345.00 0 rubles. (18.6%) and local—880.741.00 0 rub. (81.4%).
The highest rate of peasant earnings is observed in three southern regions: Novorossiysk, South-Eastern and South-Western, then in the Baltic region and eastern provinces. On average, this type of earnings per person per year is 3 rubles 80 kopecks, per 1 male worker. floor 16 rub. 60 kopecks, for 1 yard—24 rubles. 20 kopecks. In all other areas of Europe. In Russia, the peasant earnings of a landowner are lower.
On average, for 50 provinces, the daily wage of a male worker (with his own support) is only 44 kopecks in the spring, 60 kopecks in the summer; term summer - 40 rubles, annual - 61 rubles 50 kopecks, tithe - when harvesting grain 4 rubles 97 kopecks, when harvesting herbs - 4 rubles. 2 0 k. In the northwestern, Little Russian and central agricultural regions it is even lower, namely: the summer term 37 r. 80 k., annual - 56 rub. 80 k. and 53 rub. 40 k.
With short-term loans, no more than 1-2 months, the peasant population has to pay 9.7% per month, i.e., 116.4% per year. Peasants of the Kasimov district (Ryazan province) pay monthly loans from 120 to 180% per year. When borrowing in order to “turn over”, under the pressure of extreme necessity, they pay, on average, 5.7% per week, i.e. 296.4% per annum. In the Ufa province, it turned out in court that they paid when necessary and 30% per week, i.e. 1560% per year. The local judge established at the trial that the Bashkirs were sometimes charged 1200% per year, and in some places 2600% per year.
Read all of this carefully and think about why your ancestors supported the revolution.
Let's estimate: 77.1% are peasants, 15-20% are workers, 1% are nobles, 0.5% are clergy, 3.2% are merchants, some pennies, well, let 0.1% be people of liberal professions, the rest - burghers -10%
Moreover, in the most successful case, a peasant family has 4 dessiatines, and 14% of peasants are landless. A family can have a maximum income of 108 rubles a year - this is if they go to work in winter.
A worker can receive 4 rubles a month or 48 rubles a year if he is a laborer, 3 rubles a month or 36 rubles. per year, if it is a servant, about 200 rubles per year, if it is a worker at a factory, and 400 rubles per year, if it is a railway worker.
The teacher received 250 rubles a year.
Doctor - 1500 rubles per year.
An official received from 250 rubles to 1000, but 25% of them received 1000 per year, and 1% - from 7000 to 15000 or more per year.
The clergy had an annual income: 3,500 rubles for a monk, about 10 thousand for the highest hierarchs. Priest - 300 rubles per year.
But this was not all the income of high officials and monasteries - they were all large landowners. So a peasant family had 4 dessiatines of land, and senior officials had 15 thousand dessiatines each.
At the same time, the peasants were robbed during their liberation from serfdom: they were forced to pay for the land that they considered theirs. This land was valued much higher than its real price, and they were also forced to pay interest.
For everyone it was offensive, and for some it was too much to bear. Until the end of payments, the peasants could not sell their land, and they had to wait until everyone had paid. They received little land, but their families increased. There was a catastrophic shortage of land. The reform of 1906 was late, plus 8 years later the war began.
It is obvious that with such a distribution of income and such injustice, the revolution was inevitable, and everyone who lived in Russia then understood this.
In 2010, we celebrate a double anniversary: the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Russian tax authorities and 125 years since the formation of the Tax Inspectorate within the Ministry of Finance. However, the prototype of modern taxes arose in Rus' much earlier
Taxes appeared with the emergence of the first social needs. They began to emerge during the collapse of the tribal system, and began to develop from the moment the state was formed. In modern society, taxes are the main source of replenishment of the state budget.
Ancient Rus'
In Rus', the financial system began to take shape during the period of the unification of the Old Russian state, that is, from the end of the 9th century. Having established himself in Kyiv, Prince Oleg (sc. 912 or 922) began establishing tribute from subject tribes. These were the Krivichi, Ilmen Slavs, Drevlyans, Meri, etc. In 884, Oleg defeated the Dnieper northerners and demanded a light tribute from them. The ease of taxation pursued far-reaching political goals. The northerners, who had previously paid tribute to the Khazars, did not put up strong resistance to Oleg’s squad. Taxation turned out to be easier for them than during their dependence on the Khazars. The Radimichi, who lived on the banks of the Sozha River, learned about this, and without resistance began to pay tribute to the Kyiv prince, who protected them from the Khazars. Tribute was paid both in money and in kind. For example, the Drevlyans (a Slavic tribe that lived in Ukrainian Polesie) paid one marten per dwelling, and the population of the Novgorod land paid tribute to the Kyiv prince in Russian hryvnias and silver bars.
The tribute was collected in two ways: by cart, when it was brought to Kyiv, and by polyud, when the princes or princely squads themselves went to collect it.
It is known that in Ancient Rus' there was also land and indirect taxation. Indirect taxation existed in the form of trade and judicial duties. Trade duties were charged for transporting goods through mountain outposts, for transportation across rivers, for the right to have warehouses, for the right to set up markets, for measuring goods.
Court fees punished for criminal offences. Depending on the severity of the offense, they ranged from 5 to 80 hryvnia. For example, for the murder of someone else’s slave without guilt, the killer paid the lord the price of the murdered person (as compensation for losses), and the prince a fee, called 12 hryvnia. Vira could also be paid for other crimes - for killing someone else’s horse, cattle, stealing a beaver from a trap, etc.
If the killer escaped, then the vira was paid by the residents of the district where the murder was committed. The duty of the vervi to capture the murderer or pay the viru for him contributed to the detection of crimes and the prevention of enmity, quarrels and fights.
Having arisen as a custom, these orders were subsequently legalized in the “Russian Pravda” of Prince Yaroslav the Wise (about 978-1054) - the first Russian code of laws that included tax legislation.
Middle Ages
In the 12th century, a toll collector in Kyiv was called an osmenik. He charged Osmnic— fee for the right to trade. Since the 13th century, the name “customs officer” has come into use in Rus'. This is how the chief collector of trade duties began to be called. Apparently, this word comes from the Mongolian “tamga” - money. The customs officer had an assistant called a mytnik.
During the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the main tax became exit, levied first by the Baskaks - the khan’s representatives, and then, when they managed to free themselves from the khan’s officials, by the Russian princes themselves. The yield was levied on the male soul and on the head of the cattle.
Each appanage prince himself collected it from his appanage and handed it over to the Grand Duke for sending to the Golden Horde. But there was another way of collecting tribute - farm-out. The tax farmers were most often Khorezm or Khiva merchants. By contributing lump sums to the Tatars, they then enriched themselves, increasing the tax burden on the Russian principalities. The amount of the exit began to depend on the agreements of the grand dukes with the khans.
As a result, collecting direct taxes into the treasury of the Russian state itself became almost impossible. The main source of internal revenue was duties and, above all, trading fees. The amount of income increased significantly due to the annexation of new lands to the Moscow Principality under Prince Ivan Kalita (about 1288-1340) and his son Simeon Gordom (1316-1353). Trade duties were usually as follows: “duties on goods and money; if someone goes without a cart on horseback, but for trade - pay money, from the plow (boat) - altyn. When someone starts trading, an altyn is taken from the ruble.” The chronicles also mention duties on silver casting, horse branding, living room, honey store, etc.
The conflict between Prince Dmitry Donskoy (1350-1389) and Temnik Mamai (circa 1335-1380), the de facto ruler of the Golden Horde, began with disagreements over the amount of tribute. The victory in the Battle of Kulikovo, won in 1380 by Russian regiments led by Prince Dmitry Donskoy over the Mongol-Tatar troops, did not bring Russia liberation from the Horde tribute.
After the overthrow of the Golden Horde
The exit payment was stopped only 100 years later in 1480 by Ivan III (1440-1505), after which the creation of the financial system of Rus' began again. As the main direct tax, Ivan III introduced given money from black-growing peasants and townspeople. This was followed by new taxes: yam taxes, pishchal taxes (for the production of cannons), taxes for the city and zasechny business, that is, for the construction of zaseki - fortifications on the southern borders of the Moscow state. In addition to tribute, quitrents served as a source of income for the Grand Duke's treasury. Arable lands, hayfields, forests, rivers, mills, and vegetable gardens were given for rent.
The oldest census salary book of the Votskaya Pyatina of the Novgorod region with a detailed description of all dates back to the reign of Ivan III. In each churchyard, the church with its land and the courtyards of the clergy was first described, then the quitrent volosts, villages and hamlets of the Grand Duke, then the lands of landowners and merchants. When describing the village, the amount of grain sown, the income in favor of the landowner, and the land existing in the village were indicated. If the residents were engaged not in arable farming, but in another trade, then the presentation of information changed accordingly.
The description of the lands is important, since in Rus' it developed plow tax(the unit of taxation was the plow - a certain amount of land), which also included a land tax. The size of the latter depended not only on the quantity of land, but also on its quality. To determine the amount of taxes, a “cow letter” was used. It provided for the measurement of land areas, including those built up with courtyards in cities, the translation of the obtained data into conventional tax units - plows and the calculation of taxes on this basis. The plow as a unit of taxation was abolished in 1679. The unit for calculating direct taxes was the courtyard.
Indirect taxes were collected through a system of duties and taxes, the main of which were customs and wine.
Reign of Ivan the Terrible
Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584) increased state revenues by bringing order to the collection of taxes. Under him, farmers were taxed with a certain amount of agricultural products and money, which was recorded in special books. Concerning direct taxes, then the main object of taxation was land, and the layout (calculation) of the tax was carried out on the basis of scribe books. The books described the quantity and quality of lands, their productivity and population. Since the reign of Ivan the Terrible, in industrial places the distribution of taxes began to be made not according to plows, but “according to bellies and trades.” Many in-kind duties were replaced cash rent.
In addition to quitrent, we practiced targeted taxes. These were the Yam money, the Streltsy tax for creating a regular army, the Polonyan money for the ransom of military men captured, and Russians driven into captivity.
The distribution and collection of taxes was carried out by zemstvo communities through elected salarymen. Their duties included ensuring that tax burdens were distributed evenly “according to wealth,” for which so-called salary books were compiled.
The main indirect taxes remained trade duties, which were levied for any movement, storage or sale of goods, as well as customs and judicial duties. Trade duties were often farmed out, that is, the right to collect them was transferred to private individuals (farmers) for a certain fee. The introduction of the tax farming system served as an obstacle to the development of trade, as it led to an artificial complication of taxation, unreasonable quibbles and extortion on the part of tax farmers and the collectors they hired.
XV-XVII centuries
At the end of the 15th century, the political unification of Russian lands took place. However, a coherent system of public financial management did not exist for quite some time. Collected most of the direct taxes. At the same time, territorial orders were engaged in taxation of the population:
- primarily the Novgorod, Galich, Ustyug, Vladimir, Kostroma cheti, which served as cash registers;
- Kazan and Siberian orders, which collected yasak from the population of the Volga region and Siberia;
- An order of the great palace that taxed the royal lands;
- An order from the large treasury, where collections from city industries were sent;
- A printed order charging a fee for affixing acts with the sovereign's seal;
- State patriarchal order in charge of taxation of church and monastic lands.
In addition to those listed, certain types of taxes were also collected by the Streletsky, Ambassadorial, and Yamsk orders. In other words, the Russian financial system in the 15th-17th centuries was complex and confusing. It was somewhat streamlined during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676), who created the Accounting Order in 1655. The task of the Accounting Order was to control the incoming and outgoing amounts for different institutions.
Checking the financial activities of orders, analyzing receipts and expenditure books made it possible to quite accurately determine the country's budget. At the same time, the tax burden grew. Increased and became permanent polonyanichnaya serve. Has grown sharply Streltsy tax, which was previously a minor grain tax. Was introduced property inheritance tax. Significant increase excise tax on salt caused public outrage and salt riots. The excise tax on salt had to be abolished, but it managed to cause serious damage to the Russian economy.
Reign of Peter I
Large-scale government reforms in Russia, which affected almost all spheres of the economy, including finance, are associated with the name of Peter the Great (1672-1725). In pre-Petrine times, the financial system of Rus' was focused on increasing taxes as the needs of the treasury emerged and increased, regardless of the real state of affairs in the country's economy. Peter I made efforts to boost the productive forces, as he considered this necessary to strengthen the financial position of the state. New crafts entered the national economic turnover, the development of still untouched mineral resources and wealth was carried out, new tools of production and new labor methods appeared in all sectors of the economy. Mining and manufacturing industries developed, and the country was covered with a network of factories and manufactories.
It was established in 1717. Peter the Great ordered her to support industrial entrepreneurs, “to help with instruction, machines and all sorts of ways.” Metallurgy, mining industry, shipbuilding, cloth and sailing industries arose in Russia.
Actively adopting foreign experience, Russia pursued a protectionist policy, that is, it took measures to protect the domestic market from the penetration of foreign goods, including through the collection of customs duties.
To stimulate the development of industry, the occupation of factory owners and factory owners was placed on a par with public service. Industrial development required expansion of trade. However, the development of trade was hampered by the state of communications. Despite this, Russia's tax base grew rapidly. It provided funds for the reorganization of the army and the construction of the fleet. And in parallel, there was an exploration of Russian open spaces, the search for new mineral deposits. While guaranteeing returns in the future, all this required enormous financial resources in the present.
In addition, were introduced war taxes: money from dragoons, recruits, ships, to pay for the purchase of dragoon horses. The tsar even established a special position - a profit-maker, whose duty was to “sit and make profits for the sovereign.” Stamp duty, a capitation tax on cab drivers, taxes on inns, a duty on beards, etc. were also introduced.
Subsequently, profit-makers proposed a radical change in the taxation system, namely the transition to poll tax. Let us recall that until 1679 the unit of taxation was the plow, established by the “plow letter”. Since 1679, the courtyard has become such a unit. Now it was proposed to move from a household taxation system to a universal one. The unit of taxation instead of the yard became the male soul.
Peter I also reorganized financial management. Instead of numerous orders in charge of income and expenses, the Chamber Board and the State Office Board were established. The first of them was assigned to oversee salaried and non-salaried parishes. Salary income was the amount of which was known in advance (for example, the capitation tax), non-salary income was customs duties, farming, tax on factories, and others, the amount of which was unknown in advance. The Chamber Collegium had a network of its local institutions. The State Office Collegium was in charge of expenses and kept a book called the General Staff of the State. The main expenditure items at that time were the maintenance of the army and navy. An Audit Board was created to control the expenditure of funds.
The era of Catherine II
During the reign of Catherine II (1729-1796), the taxation procedure for merchants underwent fundamental changes. All private fishing taxes and the capitation tax on merchants were abolished, and instead they were established. Depending on their property status, the merchants were divided into three guilds. To get into the third guild, you had to have a capital of at least 500 rubles. Persons with less capital were considered not merchants, but bourgeois, and paid a poll tax. With capital from 1000 to 10,000 rubles. the merchant was part of the second guild, and merchants with large capital were part of the first. Moreover, each merchant announced the amount of his capital himself “in good faith.” No inspections of the property were carried out, and denunciations of its concealment were not accepted.
Catherine II transformed the financial management system in her own way. In 1780, a state revenue expedition was created, divided the following year into four independent expeditions. One of them was in charge of state revenues, the other was in charge of expenses, the third was in charge of auditing accounts, and the fourth was in charge of collecting arrears, shortfalls and charges (fines).
In the provinces, collegial provincial treasury chambers were created to manage state property, collect taxes, audit accounts and manage other financial affairs. The provincial and district treasuries, which kept government revenues, were subordinate to the provincial treasury chamber. State chambers existed until the 20th century, although some of their functions were subject to changes.
Thus, Catherine II continued Peter I’s course of strengthening local self-government, transferring new functions to it, and providing it with independent financial resources. During her reign, city budgets significantly strengthened.
Early 19th century
In 1802, the Manifesto of Alexander I (1777-1825) “On the Establishment of Ministries” created the Ministry of Finance. In 1809, a program of financial reforms was developed - the “Plan of Finance”. The appearance of this document is associated with the name of a major statesman (1772-1839). The program contained a number of urgent measures aimed at eliminating the budget deficit and increasing treasury revenues, including through increasing taxes and introducing new taxes.
A few years after the “Plan of Finance,” namely in 1818, the first major work in the field of taxation appeared in Russia - the book (1789-1871) “An Experience in the Theory of Taxes.” This book indicates that the work of Western economists was well known in Russia. There was also domestic experience. “All the wealth is the people’s,” believed N.I. Turgenev, - stem from two main sources, which are: the forces of nature and human forces. But to extract wealth from these sources, funds are needed. These means consist of various tools, buildings, money, and so on. The value of these tools, buildings, money is called capital. All taxes generally stem from three sources of public income, namely: income from land, income from capital, and income from work.”
N.I. Turgenev puts forward a new task for that time. It requires studying in advance and predicting the possible consequences of introducing or changing certain taxes. This requirement is still relevant for our economy.
Throughout the 19th century, the main direct tax was capitation tax. The number of payers was determined by audit censuses.
Along with the basic rates of direct taxes, special purpose allowances. These, in particular, were allowances for the construction of state highways, for the establishment of water communications, and temporary allowances to speed up the payment of state debts (valid from 1812 to 1820). Nobles who had an income above a certain amount were levied only the last of the listed taxes - to pay state debts. Moreover, nobles who lived abroad not for work and lived their income outside the fatherland “had to pay double.”
In addition, there were special government fees. For example, in 1834, a toll was introduced on travel along the St. Petersburg-Moscow highway, which had been completed by that time. By 1863, this fee had extended to 23 highways. Fees were collected from passengers of railways, shipping companies, for the transportation of railway cargo at high speed, and fees at seaports.
They also acted duties on property transferred by inheritance or acts of donation. At that time, these duties were collected only from persons who did not have a direct right of inheritance. In addition to state taxes, there were local.
By the mid-50s of the 19th century, Russia's financial position was undermined by the Crimean War. The budget deficit had to be covered by increasing taxes, borrowing and running the printing press. At the same time, to revive industry, customs duties were reduced.
Second half of the 19th century
In 1863, significant changes occurred in the Russian tax system. Instead of a poll tax, they began to collect from the townspeople city property tax. This tax was levied not only on factories, but also on factories, baths, warehouses, gardens, vegetable gardens, greenhouses and other buildings, as well as empty lands.
Reorganization began on the basis of the laws of Catherine II on merchant guilds trade tax. Changes took place in 1863, 1865, 1885 and 1898. The most important part of the fishing tax began to be duties on the right of trade and fishing. In order to engage in commercial and industrial activities, entrepreneurs had to obtain certificates annually and pay the appropriate fee to the budget. Two types of certificates were provided: guild (merchant) and simply commercial.
In 1898, the Regulations on the State Trade Tax appeared. This tax, which was a complex of direct salary and non-salary taxes on commercial and industrial activities, existed in Russia until the 1917 revolution. Basic trade tax consisted of a tax on commercial establishments and warehouses, a tax on industrial enterprises and a tax on fair trade certificates. These taxes were levied at fixed rates, differentiated by Russian provinces, with an annual selection of fishing certificates.
Magnitude additional fishing tax depended on the size of the fixed capital and profit of the enterprise, as well as on whether the enterprise was a guild or joint-stock company.
In 1875 the state system, introduced in 1864, was replaced land tax. The total amount of tax from each province and region was determined by multiplying the territory subject to taxation in tithes by the salary (rate) of tax on a tithe of convenient land or forest. The salary (rate) of the tax ranged from 1/4 kopeck in the Arkhangelsk and Olonets provinces to 17 kopecks in the Kursk province.
As a result of the measures taken, the budget deficit was eliminated. This was greatly facilitated indirect taxes. Among indirect taxes, the largest revenues for the state came from the excise tax on alcoholic beverages or, as it was called in Russia, drinking tax. Honey, beer, and mash have been brewed in the country for a long time. Wine and vodka began to spread only in the 14th century. They were sold by state kissers, who took an oath of conscientious conduct of business and, in confirmation of the oath, kissed the cross, which is where their name comes from. Elected tavern heads controlled the kissers.
Before Catherine II, farming out the drinking business was a rare case. In 1817, tax farming was temporarily abolished, and Russia returned to the state sale of wine. But after 10 years they were reintroduced in the interests of replenishing the treasury. Since 1863, farm-outs were finally abolished and an excise tax of 4 kopecks per 1 degree of strength of the drink was introduced. In addition to the excise tax, a patent for the sale of alcohol became a form of drinking tax.
In addition, there were various excise taxes: for tobacco, matches, sugar, kerosene, salt, compressed yeast and a number of other goods. The excise tax system, like customs duties, was not only fiscal in nature. It also provided state support to domestic entrepreneurs and protected them in competition with foreigners.
Basic direct tax - poll tax- became increasingly obsolete, not meeting the economic conditions of Russia. Its repeated increase only led to an increase in arrears. Nevertheless, the government for a long time did not dare to completely abolish the poll taxes and replace them with income taxation, limiting itself only to the abolition of the poll tax for certain categories of the population.
The poll tax was only abolished in 1882. This event is associated with the name of the Russian Minister of Finance Nikolai Khristianovich Bunge (1823-1895). Instead of the poll tax, it was necessary to increase the tax on city real estate, land tax, stamp duty, establish an inheritance tax and a tax on income from monetary capital. Four years later, the quitrent tax from the peasants was transformed into.
So, the country's tax system became increasingly more complicated. Therefore, reforms were required in tax administration. Until 1861, clerks were responsible for paying taxes on estates. Taxes were collected from state peasants by elected zemstvo authorities: desiatsky, sotsky, tselovalniki. In 1861, the functions of collecting taxes were transferred to the peace intermediaries, and in 1874, tax supervision was given to the district police. Thus, the collection of taxes began to be supervised by police officers - the heads of police in the district. In the 1880s, provincial and district tax offices were created. They were elected for a term of three years by the provincial zemstvo assembly, the provincial Duma and the merchant society.
In 1885, on the initiative of N.Kh. Bunge established the Institute of Tax Inspectors. Tax inspectors were entrusted with direct work with taxpayers on the ground, which included the assignment and collection of all direct taxes and control over their collection. At the same time, tax inspectors also had the authority to conduct audits in county financial authorities and local government bodies. It is the Tax Inspectorate that can be considered the predecessor of the modern tax service of Russia. Therefore, 2010 marks not only 20 years since the creation of the Russian tax authorities, but also 125 years since the formation of the modern prototype of this department - the Tax Inspectorate within the Ministry of Finance. The tax inspectorate existed until 1917, showing high efficiency
Vira is an Old Russian and Old Scandinavian measure of punishment for murder, expressed in the recovery of monetary compensation from the culprit
Verv - an ancient community organization in Rus' and among the Croats
In addition to exit or tribute, there were other Horde burdens, for example, yam - the obligation to deliver carts to Horde officials
Pogost is an administrative-territorial unit in Rus'
Direct income tax was levied only on eastern foreigners, whose able-bodied man was subject to a fur or fur tribute, known as “yasak”
The income of the Order of the Great Parish consisted of fees from shops, guest houses in cities, cellars, measures for drinking and goods, customs, etc. The collected money was spent on the maintenance of visiting foreign merchants, on issuing allowances to Russian ambassadors sent abroad, on the construction of ships and purchase of goods for the salary of clerks, workers at the courts and at the royal Salt Court
The Manufactory Collegium is a collegial government body responsible for the development of Russian industry, the creation and operation of manufactories
Streletsky taxes - money collected from the urban population
Initially, the guild fee was 1% of the declared capital (regardless of the guild), but subsequently both the size of the guild fee and the minimum amount of declared capital required to enroll in a particular guild increased
MM. Speransky subsequently wrote: “By changing the financial system... we saved the state from bankruptcy.”
On the back of the title page of the book by N.I. Turgenev, the author’s order was published: “The author, taking upon himself all the costs of printing this book, provides the money that will be obtained from the sale of it, in favor of the peasants held in prison for arrears in paying taxes.”
The rapid growth of the urban population led to the introduction of a state apartment tax in Russia in 1894, which was paid by the owner of the apartment (it does not matter whether the apartment was his property or was rented)
In accordance with the rules of 1864, all former zemstvo fees were divided into state, provincial and district, as well as private zemstvo fees
The essence of the redemption operation was as follows: for the lands acquired by the peasants, the government issued special interest-bearing loan obligations (redemption certificates), according to which the peasants were obliged to annually pay interest to the treasury for 49.5 years and repay part of the principal amount.
Loading...
