Media reports are replaced by new headlines about the detention or trial of another corrupt official. Some of the civil servants get off with multimillion-dollar fines, someone is expected in a colony-settlement, and a number of officials receive a suspended sentence, and sometimes the case is closed due to lack of evidence. However, the question always arises, is the “servant of sovereigns” himself to blame for taking bribes? Either the system that has developed over the centuries-old history of Russia is to blame.

It is generally accepted that "corruption" began its march across Russia from the moment when the apparatus of state power and the command system of government began to take shape. The governors and governors became representatives of the Grand Duke in the localities. It was they who were the full masters of the subject territories.

Viceroyalty and voivodeship were based on feeding- the system of maintenance and material incentives for the state bureaucracy employed in local governments during the formation of the Russian state. The boyars-governors, sent by the central government to serve in the districts of the country, did not receive salaries from the state, but had the right to take money from the local population subject to them, i.e. feed on him.

When the governor took office, people paid him "incoming food"(in modern terms, lifting), and were forced to keep the feeder during the entire period of his service. In addition, the boyars could demand the appropriate "food" for their servants, entourage, horses. Usually, "food" was brought 3 times a year: at Christmas, Easter and the Day of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

The lengthy "Russian Truth"(known in the lists of the XIII - XV centuries) establishes the following natural content of the virnik (executor of the decisions of the princely court): 2 chickens a day, and on Wednesday and Friday for cheese, 7 breads a week, millet and peas for 7 cleanings, 7 salt and 7 buckets of malt.

In other cases, the same monument defines: “and bread and millet because they can eat”, or " what the hell will take", or in even more general terms: " and feed them imati for themselves and the horse is enough". Since ancient times, such food has been paid by the population as a duty, regardless of whether the judge is hungry or not.

The American historian D. Blum explains this phenomenon by the economic difficulties experienced by Russia in the 13th-15th centuries. Due to the decline in population, there were a lot of abandoned lands that did not provide any income. But even those lands that were cultivated were used mainly as part of a subsistence economy that produced products for domestic consumption, and not for the purpose of selling them. Under these conditions, the collection of monetary taxes was either impossible or played a limited role. The main thing was the collection of natural products by the feeder, and it was quite natural that he kept some of these products for himself for his labors in managing the territory entrusted to him.

This system was created in order to create a centralized state, however, everything led to the fact that the feeders began to consider themselves "kings" in their small territory.

In the future, "natural" feeding gradually began to be replaced by "assistance" in monetary terms. Often, feeders took advantage of their position and tried to "earn" as much as possible. As the Austrian ambassador Herberstein, who was in Moscow for a long time (the first third of the 16th century), wrote, the source of income for the feeder was also "extortions that are extorted from the poor if they are guilty of something." As can be seen from this description, even despite the fixed rates of basic taxes paid by the population in the 15th-16th centuries, the feeding system was a frequent source of arbitrariness of governors.

The local population did not skimp on gifts - there was no other way out. Having collected a bribe, the governors returned to the capital, where the surplus of accumulated wealth was taken away from them in favor of the treasury. This is how the mutual responsibility of metropolitan and provincial bribe-takers was formed.

However, the Muscovite state began to come into force, which led to an increase in the number of service people, boyars and boyar children. But feeders, although there are more, but the proportions are not at all the same.

From the end of the 15th century, the grand dukes sought to limit the power and income of the "commercials". First of all, the feeding period is set - 1-3 years. Moreover, two governors began to be appointed to one city, and two volosts to each volost. Feeders had to share the income, as well as the territory under their jurisdiction.

Also, feeders began to limit their functions. The fact is that the feeder, as a representative of the state, was also a judge: he had a whole judicial and police apparatus under his command. And very often, or almost always, court decisions were made by him taking into account how many “promises” (bribes) each litigating party paid. In the law, adopted the day after the speech of Ivan the Terrible, on February 27, 1549, it was said: “in all cities of Moscow land, governors of boyar children should not be judged for anything, besides murder and torture and red-handed robbery.”

The vices of the Russian bureaucracy have already become proverbial; ironic literary characters and critical statements about civil servants are widespread in the literature. All this was inherited by modern officials from the civil servants of the Russian Empire, who, in turn, have direct succession from the “servants of the sovereign” of Russia. Although feeding was officially abolished in 1556, the tradition of living and getting rich at the expense of the subjects has been preserved in our mentality, unfortunately, to this day.

Olga Ilyina

1. Revenue sources and financial costs of the Russian state in the X-XVII centuries. 2. The financial economy of the Russian Empire in the period from the beginning of the 18th century to 1861. 3. Legislative regulation of state revenues and expenditures at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. 4. The system of state revenues and expenditures in the period of years. 5. Features of the formation of the modern financial system of the Russian Federation.

The main sources of state revenue in the 4th century, as well as over the following centuries, were taxes. Tribute was also levied during the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in favor of the Horde khans, but several other types: from artisans and merchants - tamga, from landowners - kadlan. Tribute was also levied during the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in favor of the Horde khans, but several other types: from artisans and merchants - tamga, from landowners - kadlan. Tribute was levied in two ways: by cart, when it was brought to Kyiv, and by people, when the prince or his squads themselves served for her. From the 11th century, princes instead of themselves sent special batmen to collect tribute. The units of taxation were smoke (yard) and ralo (plow), but both of these units mean essentially the same thing: a piece of land cultivated by the forces of one householder. The items that were levied tribute in the Old Russian state were raw products: honey, skins of fur-bearing animals, grain bread, flax, domestic animals, etc. Tribute was levied in two ways: by cart, when it was brought to Kiev, and polyudem, when the prince or his squads themselves harassed her. From the 11th century, princes instead of themselves sent special batmen to collect tribute. The units of taxation were smoke (yard) and ralo (plow), but both of these units mean essentially the same thing: a piece of land cultivated by the forces of one householder. The items that were levied tribute in the Old Russian state were raw products: honey, skins of fur-bearing animals, grain bread, flax, domestic animals, etc.

Duties - indirect taxes, were originally established for the purpose of improvement. Thus, weight and measure were levied to cover the costs of weighing and measuring goods in the interests of trade, washing and transportation - for providing funds or assistance from the state in transporting goods across the river and portage, feed chita - a duty from the keepers of the tavern, living room tribute and trade - duty for providing merchants with places to store goods and for organizing markets. Fines (viras) were levied for committing criminal offences. For example, Russkaya Pravda contains rules on the basis of which, when considering criminal cases for all types of crimes, 12 hryvnias went to the treasury, and when the court passed a verdict of not guilty, the plaintiff and the defendant paid 1 hryvnia each. Duties were established mainly for the purposes of military administration, namely: to provide means of transportation for military squads, for princely batmen and messengers; urban development - construction and amendment of fortifications throughout the parish, construction and repair of bridges, etc.

In the XIII century, as a result of strengthening the power of the Moscow prince, tribute takes the form of a tax. The plow became the unit of taxation, which meant not a land measure, but a conventional unit of measurement for any property. During this period, a system of land taxation began to take shape in Russia. The field tax included land, yard and trade taxes. So, in relation to the land, the plow included: good land 800 quarters, medium 1000, thin In the cities, the plow included a certain number of yards: “best” 40, “average” 80, “youngster” 160, “bobyl” 960. With regard to crafts, for example, “from” (fishing partition in the river) was equated with a plow, etc.

In 1480, Ivan III actually began to re-create the financial system of Russia. The entire population was divided into taxable and non-taxable. The non-taxable population, that is, those who had tax immunity, originally included the clergy, service people of all ranks and merchants, both Russians and foreigners. Monasteries and churches fell into this category in the case of the purchase or receipt of black lands as a gift. Black lands and people were those that were listed in tax books - blackened.

The development of local governments leads to the emergence of an additional system of payments. State administration in the localities was carried out by governors and volosts from among hereditary boyars, whose rights were regulated by charters. When they took office, the local population had to pay "entry" and regularly, three times a year - "feed". The viceroy retained the right to demand monetary support instead of natural “feed”. The governor also received court fees from the population for the production of the court.

From the end of the 14th century, arbitrariness in setting the amount of requisitions from the population begins to be limited by charter letters - "the feeder receives a profitable list from books, how he can collect food and all sorts of duties, and the population is given the right to petition for abuses of governors." In general, payments from the population under the feeding system were made in addition to centralized taxes. The main expenditure items of the royal treasury of the X-XVII centuries, as well as the following centuries, should be called the costs of maintaining the army, the state apparatus, and the royal court.

Initially, military expenses, as well as expenses of the central authorities, were carried out in kind, since the main incomes went to the state treasury also in the form of furs, food, livestock, etc. After the liberation from the Tatar yoke, the formation of a centralized state, and the creation of a relatively stable monetary system, military and other state expenditures gradually began to acquire a monetary form. A coherent system of financial management in the Russian state was absent for quite a long time, and the existing one was very complex and confusing. The collection of taxes and duties was carried out by the Printed, Streltsy, Yamskoy and Posolsky orders. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich tried to somewhat simplify this system. In 1655, the Counting Order was created, which was in charge of collecting taxes. He began checking the financial activities of other orders, analyzing income and expenditure books, which made it possible to fairly accurately determine the structure of the budget of the Russian state of that period.

The state budget (salary) of the 17th century was formed from direct and indirect fees, in other words from "salary and non-salary income." Direct fees, amounting to 40% of all income of the state treasury, included the streltsy tax (for the maintenance of archers), salaries, quitrent money, etc. “Extra income” accounted for about 60% of the funds received by the state treasury, and mainly consisted of from various government and court fees. The revenues of the state budget in 1680 amounted to rubles, 5 rubles were received from direct taxes. (44%), due to indirect, 6 rubles. (53.3%). The remaining 2.7% provided emergency fees and other income. Budget expenditures amounted to roubles.

In order to simplify the complex system of taxation, a tax reform was carried out in the years. As a result of the transformations carried out, the system of direct taxes is changing - land taxation is replaced by household taxation, fees are determined not “from the plow”, as was customary before, but “from the yard number”.

Stamp duty, head tax on cab drivers, taxes on inns, stoves, floating ships, watermelons, nuts, food sales, icebreaking tax, the famous tax on mustaches and beards, as well as on church beliefs - schismatic Old Believers were required to pay a double tax.

Of paramount importance in expanding the number of profitable sources was the reform of the monetary business, carried out by Peter I in 1700. As a result of the reforms carried out, the minting of coins again becomes a state monopoly and one of the main sources of income for the treasury.

From the foregoing, it can be seen that the tax system - the main source of income - at the beginning of the 18th century was complex and required streamlining. For this purpose, as well as to control the entire financial system, Peter I created central government bodies - boards.

Thus, the cumbersome and expensive tax system that had developed by the 18th century was replaced by a relatively simple system of poll taxation. Like the previous per-shed and yard-based systems, the new system of direct taxation did not take into account property status (which is a common property of all personal taxes).

“According to some estimates, over the 34 years of the reign of Catherine II, expenses for internal administration increased 5.8 times, for the army - 2.6 times, maintenance of the court - 5.3 times.” The total amount of state budget expenditures increased by more than 4.5 times and amounted to more than 78 million rubles.

"88% ... for the army and the state apparatus, 11% for the maintenance of the court, and only 1% was sent to education, health care and charity." As a result, in 1796 the state budget contained the following expenditure items: During the first decade of the 19th century, the state of the financial system of Tsarist Russia became even more deplorable. The budget was executed with a deficit. From 1801 to 1809, 390 million rubles were spent in excess of the estimate.

The beginning of the 19th century is closely connected with the state transformations of the era of the reign of Alexander I () and with the name of an outstanding scientist, a true reformer of the Russian state system, Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky.

The difficult financial situation in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century prompted Emperor Alexander I to involve M.M. Speransky, who was well aware of the state of finance in Russia. Providing for a radical change in the entire tax system of Russia, M.M. Speransky proposed replacing the quitrent tax with a land tax, all city taxes, except for poll taxes, "to be established according to the assessment of real estate."

In 1810, Speransky prepared a note to Alexander I called "Finance Plan", in which he gave priority to changing the legislative framework. In the “Finance Plan”, he clearly formulated financial and legal problems, as well as ways to solve them. He proposed: - to ensure transparency in the approval and execution of the budget; - grant the force of law to the budget; - to establish the principle of rational spending of public funds and establish expenditures on "revenues"; - increase revenues by streamlining existing and establishing new taxes; -to carry out a reform of the state's monetary system by withdrawing banknotes from circulation with the simultaneous liquidation of banknote banks, instead of paying back banks that would issue only credit money. In the “Finance Plan”, he clearly formulated financial and legal problems, as well as ways to solve them. He proposed: - to ensure transparency in the approval and execution of the budget; - grant the force of law to the budget; - to establish the principle of rational spending of public funds and establish expenditures on "revenues"; - increase revenues by streamlining existing and establishing new taxes; -to carry out a reform of the state's monetary system by withdrawing banknotes from circulation with the simultaneous liquidation of banknote banks, instead of paying back banks that would issue only credit money.

In the Plan of Finance, M. M. Speransky proposed to classify state revenues on two grounds. According to the sources of their receipt, it was proposed to divide state revenues into three types: 1. Feats and taxes. 2. Income from government capital, which in turn included: - income from capital used to process ore, salt, fishing and hunting; - income from capital, which was used for the maintenance of public institutions; - incomes from capitals which were used in the industry and trade. 3. Income from the use of state property. According to the sources of their receipt, it was proposed to divide state revenues into three types: 1. Feats and taxes. 2. Income from government capital, which in turn included: - income from capital used to process ore, salt, fishing and hunting; - income from capital, which was used for the maintenance of public institutions; - incomes from capitals which were used in the industry and trade. 3. Income from the use of state property.

The second reason is “the space of their use”. In accordance with this, they were divided into: 1. total revenues - established for general government spending (for example, poll tax); 2. private income - attributed to certain sources of expenditure (for example, a fee from shipping for the maintenance of canals); 3. ordinary income - among them, M. M. Speransky attributed income, “whose action is not interrupted by any random incidents and whose use is a permanent need”; 4. Extraordinary income - sources of income that enter the state treasury for a short time and in case of emergency. M. M. Speransky called banknotes an example of extraordinary income. The second reason is “the space of their use”. In accordance with this, they were divided into: 1. total revenues - established for general government spending (for example, poll tax); 2. private income - attributed to certain sources of expenditure (for example, a fee from shipping for the maintenance of canals); 3. ordinary income - among them, M. M. Speransky attributed income, “whose action is not interrupted by any random incidents and whose use is a permanent need”; 4. Extraordinary income - sources of income that enter the state treasury for a short time and in case of emergency. M. M. Speransky called banknotes an example of extraordinary income. M. M. Speransky was one of the first who formulated the principles of introducing income items into the state budget that have remained unchanged at the present time.

In the history of the 19th century, the most important event was the abolition of serfdom. The development of commodity-money relations dictated the need to replace natural taxes and duties with monetary taxes. The abolition of serfdom led not only to the emergence of "non-tax" redemption payments, but also to changes in the tax system. In the general series of reforms in the 6080s of the 19th century, carried out under Alexander II, financial reform played a significant role. In the general series of reforms in the 6080s of the 19th century, carried out under Alexander II, financial reform played a significant role.

One of the expected results of the reform was the streamlining of public finances. The existing procedure for accounting for expenses and incomes, namely the absence of a unified national budget, did not ensure the accumulation of funds in the hands of the government, as a result of which there was practically no control over the spending of funds.

In 1862, a budget reform was carried out, which served as the basis for tightening control over the spending of state budget funds. From that time on, the breakdown of state revenues and expenditures began to be published in the press, that is, the budget becomes public, and all state revenues are concentrated in the accounts of the State Treasury.

At the end of the 19th century, taxes remained the main source of revenue for the tsarist budget, the proceeds from which accounted for 75% of budget revenues. At the end of the 19th century, in tsarist Russia, “in addition to the “ordinary” budget, there was also an “extraordinary” budget, which provided for extraordinary military expenses, expenses for the construction and reconstruction of railways.” However, the revenue sources of both budgets were not enough to finance the state's military spending, so the deficit was covered by internal and external loans. As a result, the payment of interest on public debts was added to the expenditure items of the state budget, which steadily increased.

The tax system of Russia in the late XIX - early XX century is characterized by the prevalence of the role of indirect taxation in the formation of the revenue side of the budget. The state budget of Russia was built on principles common with European countries, that is, it did not include local budgets, but was divided into ordinary and emergency budgets. The ordinary budget revenues were divided into the following groups: - direct taxes; - indirect taxes; - duties; - government regalia; - state property and capital; - redemption payments (cancelled in 1905); - reimbursement of expenses of the state treasury (this included receipts on account of previously issued loans) and other income.

The most numerous group consisted of direct taxes, which were divided into five groups: 1. Taxes and fees on real estate: state land tax; real estate tax in cities and towns; collection from real estate in the suburban areas of St. Petersburg for the maintenance of the police; land tax from the colonists; state quitrent tax in the provinces of Siberia; collection of money from the yasak Voguls of the Perm province, etc. 2. Taxes from trade and industry: state trade tax; special charges from trade and industry. 3. Taxes on money capital: collection from income from money capital; collection from special current accounts. 4. Taxes and personal taxes: per capita and per capita quitrent taxes in some areas of Siberia; poll taxes from Jewish landowners; file from the cattle of the Kirghiz of the Inner Horde; wagon filing; yasak from nomadic and wandering foreigners; fair collection in Nizhny Novgorod, etc. 5. State apartment tax. Having considered the list of direct taxes, we can conclude that there was no single principle on which the system of direct taxes would be built. It involved not only real and personal taxes at the same time; but also such archaic forms as quitrent, yasak.

In 1875, a land tax was introduced, the rates for which were differentiated by provinces and ranged from 0.25 kopecks. (Arkhangelsk province) up to 17 kop. (Podolsk province) from a tithe of convenient land and forests. The provincial zemstvo assemblies distributed the tax between the districts, and the latter - between the payers. The real estate tax was established in 1863 to replace the poll tax from the burghers. It was calculated at a rate of 6% of the average net income. The average income was determined on the basis of cadastres. Urban settlements were divided into 6 groups, for each of which 4-5 types of rates were applied. The object of taxation was income from the rental of premises for housing and commercial and industrial establishments.

Commercial taxation was introduced in Russia in 1824, and in 1885 additional interest and layout fees were introduced depending on the level of profitability. The main trade tax for personal occupations was levied either in fixed amounts or as a percentage of every 100 rubles of income. The application of one or another collection system depended on the type of occupation and position. The collection system was stipulated by law. State trade tax An additional trade tax was levied when trade certificates were issued to joint-stock companies and private enterprises. Both types of enterprises paid a percentage fee on profits, provided that the ratio of net profit to fixed capital exceeded 3%.

The payers of per capita and personal taxes were the peasants of a number of Siberian localities living on state lands. This group included peasants from the exiles and all foreigners. The amount of tax per capita exceeded 3-5 rubles, and it could increase significantly in connection with the stratified principle of collection. The objects of taxation of the indigenous population of Central Asia and the North Caucasus were cattle or their dwellings. The indigenous population of Siberia paid yasak with animal skins or money. Thus, the system of direct taxation was diverse, where, as a rule, the level of profitability of objects of taxation was not taken into account. In the best case, the standard yield was taken as the basis of taxation.

Indirect taxes - drinking income; - tobacco income; - sugar income; - oil income; - match income; - customs duties. One of the main tax sources, the proceeds from which accounted for 40% of the state budget revenue, was the “drinking tax”, or wine farming. In 1863, wine farms were abolished and free trade in vodka was introduced with the payment of excise duty to the treasury. The salt tax was also abolished; The poll tax was replaced by a land tax.

During the Russo-Japanese War () for the armament of the army, the construction of the fleet, the emergency reserves of the military and naval departments, which amounted to more than 2.6 billion rubles, were completely used up. Exorbitant military spending, as well as the cost of "suppression of the revolution" caused the threat of cessation of the exchange of credit notes for gold, which in turn meant the financial bankruptcy of Russia. To get out of this situation, in 1906, Russia was forced to turn to the French government with a request to provide a large external loan of almost 800 million rubles.

Large budget allocations were directed to the maintenance of the imperial court. The emperor and his family were annually allocated 11 million rubles, despite the fact that “only the land holdings of the royal family were estimated at 100 million rubles, at 160 million rubles - the jewelry of the Romanov family, collected by them over 300 years of reign. The tsar also received interest on capital held in a number of English and German banks. The annual income of the emperor exceeded 20 million rubles. Each newborn member of the imperial family, as well as each princess, upon marriage, received an amount of 1 million rubles, each adult Grand Duke received 200 thousand rubles annually.

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the State Duma had no right to discuss this item of expenditure of the state budget, as well as appropriations for payments on the country's public debt and other obligations assumed by the state. An equally significant expenditure item of the state budget should be called the transfer of funds to the church in the form of subsidies, since it was financed by the state. Some funds from the state budget were spent on the so-called "land management".

After the revolution of 1905, in order to avoid an increase in the number of small-land peasants, the government tried to resettle them from the densely populated central regions of Russia to its outskirts. According to the estimates of the Main Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture, the costs of providing financial assistance to the settlers increased, and the actual assistance provided to the peasants was negligible. Even worse living conditions awaited settlers in new areas. The lack of hospitals, schools, any government assistance forced most of the peasants to return to their homeland. In 1911, their number was 61% of all immigrants. As a result, “a new column has appeared in the estimates of the Resettlement Administration - “Expenses for the return relocation of settlers to their old places.”

Thus, the growth of administrative and military spending at the beginning of the 20th century served as the basis for a significant increase in the state debt of Russia, which by 1914 already amounted to 10.5 billion rubles. The World War, which Russia entered on September 1, 1914, had the most disastrous effect on the financial well-being of the state. The issue of paper money rose sharply, the rate of inflation increased accordingly, the purchasing power of the ruble fell, and Russia's gold reserves, which she secured external loans, also decreased.

At the same time, state budget revenues were inexorably reduced. "The ban on the sale of state-owned wine with the start of the war, and then the complete ban on the wine trade, led to the elimination of the largest budget revenue item, accounting for 25%, or up to 1/4, of the entire country's budget." As a result, the revenue part of the state budget in 1916 looked like this: “Taxes and fees -49.9%; Railways - 29.5%; Other state property and enterprises - 11.2%; State wine monopoly -1.6%; Other income - 7.8%.

Volost?l - a representative of the grand ducal (royal) power in the field (as a rule, in volosts and camps).

The volostels, along with the governors, constituted the core structure of the local government of the Russian state at the end of the 15th-16th centuries. The process of appearance on the historical arena of governors and volostels (as governors of certain territories) most likely proceeded in parallel or with a slight time difference. At the beginning of the formation of the local government system, volost administrators, as well as city administrators, acted on the principle of "travel courts". However, over time, the attraction of local authorities to one center and the exercise of control over the territory under their jurisdiction with the help of their apparatus are more and more clearly felt. A study of the biographies of service people who have held the positions of volosts throughout their careers shows that they are found in the sources as clerks, clerks, clerks, mayors, labial elders, and city clerks. That is, the “level” of their official appointments was generally lower than that of the governors. The dynamics of the social composition of the corps of volostels was also different: here there is a steady predominance of representatives of untitled clans, and these are mainly “ordinary” boyar children, who occupied a very modest position at the grand ducal court. The governors and volostels sat on feeding, that is, they received income not from the treasury, but directly from the population they ruled. The fed side of the award by the city or volost was very significant for a service person. In practice, the range of his food and income, due to the receipt of such a position, was quite wide and went far beyond the official regulations, recorded, for example, in special fed letters. Apparently, there was no fundamental difference in the profitability of governorships and volosts. The amount of feed per unit of taxation of those and other awards was the same, and their final sizes depended on the size of the territory under their jurisdiction, and not on whether it was a city or a parish; in the same way, the rights to other incomes (extortions, duties, fines, etc.) were equal. In the economic and administrative sphere of activity (control over various forms of mobilization of landed property, the state of agricultural land and vacant land, the organization of trade, the protection of order, etc.), the competence of volostels and governors generally coincided. However, the volostels, apparently, did not participate in the procedures for registration of servile dependence. In addition, the activity of the volost authorities was directed mainly "inside" the territory under their jurisdiction, in any case, it never rose to the interstate level. In the military-political and diplomatic sphere, a very significant divide passed between the volosts and governors. Despite the equality of position and powers, reflected in almost all legislative provisions, volostels have never been considered as independent political figures. Obviously, to receive a city as a well-fed award was more prestigious, more honorable than a parish, since this very appointment put its owner on a higher rung in the official hierarchy. One of the central places in the activities of volostels was occupied by judicial functions, the duties from the administration of which were also a significant source of their income. The competence of feeders extended to the widest range of cases, both civil and criminal. The powers of volostels and governors here also generally coincided, the difference was rather in the size of the territory under their jurisdiction. The governors and volostels kept their tyuns, closers and righteous men who were their serfs for trial. Volostels gradually disappear by the beginning of the 17th century, thanks to the reforms of Ivan the Terrible and the spread of voivodeship administration from the beginning of the 17th century.

With naleg and Eog, get in harmony / - do not help in trouble /.

Proverb.

Tribute was the main source of income for the princely treasury. It is mainly an irregular, and then more and more systematic, direct tax.

Historian A.N. Sakharov in the book “Diplomacy of Ancient Eusi” writes: “Without denying trade contradictions as one of the possible reasons for the military conflict BETWEEN Byzantium and Russia at the beginning of the 10th century, it should still be said that, apparently, they did not predetermine a new attack by Russia on Constantinople. Most likely, the grichina consisted in the refusal of Byzantium to comply with the most burdensome condition for it of the contract of the 60s of the IX century - to pay tribute.

Historians do not have documentary evidence of the violation by the Greeks of their obligations to pay tribute to Kyiv, but they admit that if such obligations existed, then the Greeks could well have violated them, taking advantage of the civil strife in Russia, the fall of the old princely dynasty in Kiev, the appearance of a new ruler on the Kiev throne, protracted wars Sleg with the surrounding tribes and the Khazars. And it is no coincidence that the question of tribute as the basis of a general political agreement arose from the very first stages of Russian-Byzantine negotiations under the walls of Constantinople in 907.

The terms of the peace treaty of 907 assumed the consent of the Greeks to pay tribute - namely, to pay, and not to pay at a time. The idea of ​​tribute as an indispensable condition for further peaceful relations was clearly traced. Sleg demanded to pay him a "tribute" of 12 hryvnia per person for 2,000 ships, "and 40 men per ship."

The treaty of 907 recorded the right of Russians to trade with the Greeks without paying a fee: “I don’t pay more for washing in anything.”

Chronicles are full of messages! about the establishment of tribute in favor of the Kyiv prince from the various Slavic tribes he conquered. Very soon the princes of Kyiv had to make sure that the collection of tribute could not go on arbitrarily, that it was necessary to establish certain organizational forms of taxation of the population. Prince Igor, who had just collected tribute from the Drevlyans and was about to immediately receive it from them a second time, was killed by the indignant Drevlyans. Princess Slgayasha is forced to streamline the collection of tribute. As the chronicler reports, after the pacification of the Drevlyans, Slga traveled around her lands and established “charters and apricots”, “obrkhzhi and tributes”, i.e. determined the amount of taxes, the timing of their payment and the places where they should be collected from the population. Judging by the chronicles, tribute was paid from the plow (rala), from the yard (lady).

For a long time, tribute was the main source of replenishment of income for the princely execution:. It was levied in two ways: by wagon, when tribute was brought to Kiev, and by crowd, when princes or princely squads themselves went for neo.? In the XI century. the princes were already levying trade duties. They also imposed various natural duties on the population, obliged them to work on the construction of fortifications, etc. The Kyiv princes in the IX-K centuries. were sometimes handed over to vassal princes and combatants.

Having adopted Christianity and turned it into the state religion, Vladimir laid on the people the costs of maintaining the ministers of this religion. For the maintenance of the church built in Kiev, he established “tithes for the seats of Eusted and from the reign ... from every prince there is a tenth century, and a tenth allotment, and from dsm for every summer a tenth from every sshsch and st of every Jew .. .".

Later, the exemption of the population of the patrimony from taxes in favor of the prince did not mean exemption from taxes and fees in general. In myugi cases, such as, for example, court fees, etc., they went to the landowner. But even in the case when the taxes continued to go to the benefit of the prince, the gramogi paid off meant a significant fact: the collection of these taxes from the population was carried out not by representatives of the authorities, but by the feudal lord, who then contributed them to the prince's treasury.

Issues of tax policy occupied the most important place in the economic activities of the Kievan princes.

Under Vladimir the Baptist, Svyatopolk the Accursed and Yaroslavl M / drom, the functions of the “tax police” were performed by the princely guard - a team that set on the true path those who did not react with due understanding to the suggestions of tax inspectors.

Indirect taxation existed in the form of trade and judicial duties. Poplin “myt” was levied for the transport of goods through mountain outposts, the “transportation” duty was for transportation across the river, the “living room” duty was for the right to have a warehouse: the “trading” duty was for the right to arrange markets. Duties "weight" and "measure" were established respectively for weighing and measuring goods, which was a rather complicated matter. The court fee "vir" was levied for murder, "sale" - a fine for other crimes. Court fees ranged from 5 to 80 hryvnia.

The main form of exploitation by the Tatar-Mongol conquerors of the Russian people was the imposition of heavy tribute, constant and extraordinary taxes and fees. At first, tribute was collected by otkupshika-md, which consisted mainly of Muslim merchants. People who did not have the opportunity to pay tribute were enslaved by the taxpayers, and then sold into slavery. It is believed that the Baskaks (Khan representatives who controlled local authorities) acted in the punitive ridges, although there is still no evidence of their participation in expeditions. These officials lived on Eusi almost without a break, and the punitive detachments: ran over as needed. And this arose quite often, as the chronicles eloquently testify.

The uprisings in Rostov, Vladimir, Suzdal, Yaroslavl and other cities in 1262 forced Srda to abolish this system of collecting tribute, move on to collecting it by means of tribute sent for this purpose, and then the collection of the Horde tribute was transferred into the hands of the Russian princes.? But here's what is surprising: reporting on the uprisings of the "thinner, impoverished and completely ruined" Russians against the "yasak money" (i.e. tribute), the chronicle does not record any claims to the Horde tax police itself. Popular anger, as our contemporaries write, was directed primarily at those who were directly involved in tax collection. Namely, tax-farmers, as a rule, people from Bukhara and Volga Bulgaria (now the territory of Tatarstan), who in Russia were called Besermen (i.e. Basurmans). For example, in the middle of the XIII century. in Yaroslavl, the “apostate from Christianity and monasticism”, the “drunkard and blasphemer” Zosima, whose body the rebels of Yaroslavna in 1262 “threw the dogs to be devoured” was especially rampant.

After the Tatar-Mongol invasion, the main tax was the “exit”, which was levied first by the Baskaks, authorized by the khan, and then by the Russian princes themselves. "Exit" was charged from every male soul and from cattle.

Each specific prince collected tribute in his own inheritance and transferred it to the Grand Duke for administration in Srda. The amount of the "exit" began to depend on the agreements between the great princes and the khans. The conflict of Dmitry Donskoy (1359-1389) with Temnik Mamai, the de facto ruler of the Golden Srda, according to S. M. Solovyov, began with the fact that Mamai demanded tribute from Dmitry Donskoy, which the ancestors of the latter paid to khans Uzbek and Chanibek, and Dmitry agreed only to such a tribute, which had recently been agreed between himself and Mamai !; the invasion of Tokhtamysh and the detention of the son of the Grand Duke Vasily in the Horde later forced the Donskoy to pay a huge yield ... they took half a ruble from the village, and gave gold to Srda. In his will, Dmitry Donskoy mentions "an exit of 1000 rubles." And already under Prince Vasily Dmitrievich, the “exit” is mentioned, first at 5,000 rubles, and then at 7,000 rubles. The principality of Nizhny Novgorod paid at the same time a tribute of 1,500 rubles.

In addition to the exit, or tribute, there were other Horde hardships. For example, “yam” is the duty to deliver carts to the Horde officials. This was reflected in the Russian folk song of the XIV century:

He took, young P ^ dzhan, Dani-nevkoda; Tsarist non-payments: With the prince a halyard of a hundred rubles, From the boyars to the five-year-olds, From the peasants of the pyag, rubles; The cat has a degog goth, The one has a vez / et date; Whose date is Goth, Take his wife / Tue; Who has no yaena, Togo sayugo totvey veziet. In the XIV century. Baskaks began to appear in Russia in short trips, and after 1480, the year of standing on the Ugra, which is considered the date of the end of the Horde yoke, they generally disappeared from the field of view of the chroniclers. And then a clear and well-functioning tax system of the Golden Srda, built according to the ancient Mongolian and partly Chinese models, was replaced by purely Russian carelessness. If the system of tax collection among the Mzngsdo-Tatars had a rigid vertical structure, then with the end of the yoke, tax collection began to be “supervised” by several departments. For example, in the XVI-XVII centuries. just taxes! was in charge of the order of a large parish, others - the order of a large treasury, the rest - a few dozen more orders. With the end of the yoke, the main responsibility for the receipt of taxes began to be borne not by those who controlled the largest cash flows, but by "little people" - peasants and small merchants.

In the XV century. there were important changes in the field of direct taxation - from the total and household taxation of the quail to the soshnsmu, in which the unit of taxation was the "plough". News about the "plough" as a taxable unit is already found in the 13th century. V.N. Tatishchev wrote that Grand Duke Vasily Yaroslavich in 1275 carried tribute to Srda in terms of psdugrivna from the plow, and in the plow there were two working men. In the XV century. "Sokha" as a taxable unit, apparently, represented its own specific amount of labor: "Sokhos" meant 2 or 3 workers.

The payment of "exit" was stopped by Ivan III (1440-1505) in 1480, after which the creation of the financial system of Eusi began again. As the main direct tax, Ivan III introduced a danny money from the worm peasants and townspeople. Then new taxes followed: yamsky, written - for the production of guns, fees for city and serif business, i.e. for the construction of fortifications on the southern borders of the Moscow state. Ivan the Terrible introduced the Streltsy tax for the creation of a regular army and pseudo-money for the ransom of military people captured and Russians driven into captivity.

The system of local government was archaic and clumsy. In the localities, the power belonged to the governors and volosts. They were feeders: they received counties (governors) or parts of them - volosts and camps (volostels), as they said then, in feeding.

Feeding in the XIII-XVI centuries. - this is a system of remuneration of the boyars, who carry out judicial and administrative functions, by granting them the right to tax the population of the area they rule for their own benefit. Feeding is also an administrative-territorial unit, taxes from which (cash and in kind) ensured the maintenance of sovereign people. A feeder is a person who has received a certain territory for “feeding”, living on the full support of the local population through extortions, collecting taxes for his own benefit. There were special "Fed Book" and a fed seal. The book recorded the issuance of monetary salaries to service people, printing. Documents were fastened giving the right to feed, maintenance, provision. Feeding meant that the feeder was entitled to a certain part of the taxes: from his district or volost. Moreover, in his favor were judicial poplins. But this did not reward the administrative and judicial activities of the governor or volost. After all, the feeding itself was a reward or payment for the former military service. A serviceman received it every few years. That is why the kormlenschiks treated their direct administrative and judicial duties carelessly. Sometimes the governors entrusted their functions to their serfs, while they themselves left de moy and calmly took care of the household. A paradoxical situation arose: in a feudal state, real power in the localities sometimes turned out to be in the hands of serfs.

Yes, and in receiving feeding is not a satisfying order. Most likely, in order to receive food, it was necessary to give a bribe to the deacon who distributed them. If you did not want to give a bribe, a situation could arise in which, already under Ivan IV, there was one serviceman - Saturday Stromilov-Sholokhov. He told why he was in prison: “I beat the brow of the tsar to the sovereign about feeding, and my dokuka was a lot to the sovereign, and about that I was sprinkled with disgraced shit more than once - five and six (five and a dozen times). Yes, I have achieved feeding from the sovereign!

In the mid 1550s. The local government system has been reformed. Feedings have been cancelled. The population now had to pay not to the feeders, but to the state: a new tax was introduced - the “feed payback”. This money was distributed among the feudal lords entering the service. Thus, they compensated for the loss of feeding.

In Russian history of the XVI century. and later the so-called pravez is known. N. Evreinov described this wild custom of extorting debts in The History of Corporal Punishment in Russia: , and beat on the calves! Until they gave the money. Sbychno every day a lot of such victims were recruited. They were gathered together, then the “graves” appeared, divided the guilty, put them in rows and all in turn were beaten with a long cane on the calves, passing along the rows from one edge to the other. So it was every day from sunrise to 10 o'clock in the morning. The gristav watched the execution. According to the law, they could only be beaten for a month (if the debtor did not pay earlier) and for an hour a day. In fact, they stood idle on the "right" sometimes for a year every day from sunrise to sunset. In the XVI-XVII centuries. "pravezh" was common in Russia "emergency". They were beaten not only for money arrears, but also for all sorts of other offenses; they beat secular, spiritual, peasants sometimes with whole villages, volosts. Only in the middle of the XVIII century. Empress Elisabeth changed the law as a barbaric and inappropriate measure. This, however, did not please Russian administrators throughout the 19th century. beat out arrears with rods and sticks. Some officials sometimes invented surprisingly original measures in doing so. During the revision of the K/rsk province by Senator Prince Dolgoruky in 1826, it was discovered, for example, that county officials, collecting illegal fees from peasants, put them in the water in early spring, forced them to walk naked in the snow in winter or locked them up in unheated huts, flogged them in summer nettle. In another place, a certain noble assessor, in order to receive taxes from the peasants, put them in the mud. The local authorities found such a makeup not entirely convenient and brought the zealous administrator to justice. In the Penza province, police officer Ivanov, under the pretext of a search, took the arrears to a separate room, where he severely beat them on the belly, on the neck, on the chest and on the ribs, since beatings are not so noticeable in these places. Ivanov used this method until one of the beaten people died. In the Akhtyrsky volost, the non-simshchlks were so severely beaten on the hands with their hands that the peasants could not work because of the swelling.

To determine the amount of direct taxes, a letter was used. It provided for the measurement of land areas, including those built up with yards in cities, the conversion of the data obtained into conditional taxable units “plows” and the determination of taxes on this basis. "Sokha" was measured in quarters or fours (about 0.5 tithes), its size in different places was not the same. According to the historian V. O. Klyuchevsky, the most normal sizes of an industrial “plow”, posadskaya or sloboda, were “40 yards of the best trading people, 80 middle and 160 young posad people, 320 slobodskaya. In addition to the normal tax-payers among the merchants, there were also those who were low-fat, called bobs; the plow included three times as many bobyl yards, cham yards of young trading people. The variability in the size of the plow, obviously, came from the fact that a certain, uniform salary of tribute fell on the plow, which was consistent with the wealth of the local industrial inhabitants; in another city, the best merchants could pay this salary from 40 households, and in another, a greater number of the best townspeople were credited to the plow.

The rural "plow" included a certain amount of arable land and varied depending on the quality of the soil, as well as the social status of the owner. So, the Moscow plow included: for service people, future nobles - 800 quarters of "good", 1000 quarters of "average" or 1200 quarters of "bad" land; for churches and monasteries - 600, 700 and 800 quarters, respectively; for yard and "black" lands harvested by peasants - 500, 600 and 700 quarters. Novgorod "plow" was significantly smaller.

The "Soshnaya letter" was compiled by a scribe with clerks who were with us. Write-offs of cities and counties with the population!, households, categories of landowners were reduced to scribe books. "Sokha" as a unit of tax measurement was replaced in 1679. By that time, the unit for calculating direct taxation had become dvsr.

Indirect taxes were levied through a system of duties and taxes, the main of which were customs and wine.

Throughout the Slavic world, the so-called honey tributes have been known since ancient times. The widespread abundance of honey and other products used “for making drinks” caused the establishment of duties and myta, which was collected from honey, hops, ssiaod, as well as natural honey and hops. The Drevlyans in 946 paid tribute in honey. In 1125, Mstislav ordered to collect "from a hundred to two lukne honey." Vladimir Prince Mstislav Danilovich in 1289 for the "bark honey" of the inhabitants of the city of Berestye (Eres-Ligovsk) imposed a tribute on them, which included, among other things, "a hundred and two verses of honey." Subsequently, this tribute was called honey tribute, honey, quitrent honey, quitrent honey.? In the book “History of taverns in Russia”, the 19th-century writer Ivan Pryzhov reports that “traces of ancient duties from grodukds, from which drinks were prepared, and natural drinks, remained in some places even in the second half of the 16th century.” In the customs letter to Beloozerya in 1551. a dvorkha duty was established “from honey, from malt 7 to 10 poods”. Taxes of honey and wax were retained in some places even in the 17th century, although tavern okkupy existed alongside them. With the advent of taverns, a ransom appeared. An example of a farming system could have been borrowed from Byzantium, where emperors have long given away drinks for farming, or the Tatars. Having removed the traces of the ransom, we find ace in 1240 in the Gylitsky region, when the boyar Dofoslav, having mastered Ponyzye, gave Kolomya to the mercy of "two lawless people from the smerdya tribe."

Pskov petitioners in 1650 wrote to the ddar that the voivode: they do not give out salaries for the specified periods, “to match the taxpayers, so that the salaries go to the tavern taxotps”.

Each tavern was paid a salary determined by the income of the previous: - per capita years, and the ransom sums ...

Problems of the socio-economic life of Russia in the XVI century. devoted to the work of the outstanding economist Yermolai-Yerasmus "The ruler and land surveying with a fragrant tsar" - the first socio-economic treatise in Russia. (The word "ruler" is used here in the sense of "leadership".)

The peasant, at the suggestion of Ermsdai, should give the landowner only a fifth of the produce he produces, for example, grain, hay, firewood and nothing more.

Why EXACTLY the fifth part? Yermslay refers to the biblical example: Joseph established in Egypt to charge a fifth of the urkhzhai in favor of the pharaoh; Yermslay urges Ivan IV to follow this rule.

Ermslai proposed to the tsar to radically change the procedure for the formation of funds necessary to cover national expenses. Sn spoke in favor of the abolition of any d>: no amount of money taxes and sbskryuv in the tsar's treasury / from the peasantry, since the demand from the peasants for money is burdensome for them. In order to create the funds necessary for the sovereign, a certain amount of land should be allotted in different parts of the country, the peasants who cultivate this land should give the prince a fifth of the harvesting of grain. Animals and honey must be brought in from the forest lands, and from the river and boSra. So ofaesm, the tsar will receive food in kind, part of the harvested bread can be betrayed, and the tsar needs fdut in amu day, “and not a single ratai is tearful and tormented in shortcomings ...”

Yermolai proposed to free the peasants from the Yamskaya service as well. Yamskaya service, he writes, should connect cities with each other. Yes, but this service should be entrusted to city merchants, since they grow rich by buying and selling commodities. On the other hand, the trade ladies: the gerkhds must be exempted from poplin and other payments. He believed that the existing unit of measurement of the zamli - “four” (psyatsiatiny) - was burdensome for the peasants; this small unit causes the long-term work of the kings of the land vryuv-clerks, who, in this case, “have many fatalities among the ratai” and “rath bring much sorrow and drink.” Ermslay proposed to use a much larger unit - "four-sided field" - an area of ​​land one thousand sazhens long and the same width. The four-sided field should be equal to 833 Oz quarters, 250 quarters each! in each of the sin lay and 83 quarters for hayfields and forest. The transition to this circle etziniu izuerani will speed up the work of the zamleuers 10 times; the occasion for zeuel litigation will also be reduced.

When the oprichnina was formed and three streltsy settlements fell into it in Mkhkva itself in the Vorontsov village area (now Sbuha street), the quartering of the arrows IN there, apparently, yours in the oprichnoe vsysko. This special army, which Ivan the Terrible "perpetrated" in the oprichnina, included "1000 heads" of Dvsryans and princes.

Subsequently, its number increased by 5-6 times.

For the cost of creating an oprichnina (“for his own rise”), the tsar took 100 thousand rubles from the zamtsina. To imagine what it meant in the XVI century. this amount, it is easy to remember that a village with several villages was sold for 100-200 rubles. For 5-6 rubles, you could buy a fur coat with marten fur. The annual salary of a person of low rank who served at the court was equal to 5-10 rubles, and 400 rubles is the highest boyar salary. Thus, 100 thousand rubles amounted to a gigantic sum for the lords there. Naturally, the peasants and the Pesad waiters paid the money; these funds literally schooled out of them.

In the 17th century in Muscovite Russia, for service, the nobles received, depending on the nature of the service, land and salaries. The land received for service remained with the nobles only as long as they served, and then was taken to the treasury; but gradually, just as the feudal lords did, this chamois leather turned into hereditary property. As for the "salary", it was not always monetary. Part of him was slain in "feeding", i.e. in the fact that a nobleman could turn to his own benefit / income from those cities and villages where he served. The nobles did not pay any tribute or taxes.

In the middle of the 17th century, when B.I. Me roses, there have been major changes in the field of taxation. The taxable unit that existed earlier - "land tax" - was replaced by "live fourth", which took into account not only suede, but also working hands. Vueste with there Morozov tightened control over the collection of taxes, using extremely cruel measures against non-payers.

The increase in taxes was carried out by withdrawing privileges - "tarkhans", which were used by monasteries, "guests" and foreign merchants, as well as by taxing the population of liquidated "white settlements".

The German diplomat Sigismund Herberstein (1486-1566), who visited Russia twice (in 1516-1517 and 1525-1526), ​​wrote in Notes on Moscow Affairs: “Tax or poplin on all goods, which are either imported or shipped, deposited in the treasury. With every thing worth one ruble, they pay this amount of money, except for the wax, from which poplin is bobbed not only by cut, but also by yus. And for every m^y yusa, which is filled with buzzing on their boat, they pay four denyi. At that vreun money was equal to one second penny. In the middle of the XVII century. a single duty was established for trading people - 10 money (5 kopecks per ruble turnover).? During the time of the Moscow Grand Duchy (XIV-XV centuries), a system of "feeding" was formed. The trustees of the grand duke or sovereign, who held managerial positions, did not then receive salaries from the treasury. Instead, they were sent to cities and volosts, where the local population was obliged to support ("feed") state envoys for the entire period of service.

“Feeders” collected offerings both in kind (bread, meat, syrsm, ovey and sensm for horses, etc.) and in money. Court fees, fees for the right to trade and other payments went into their pocket. Judging by chronicle sources, arbitrariness and abuse were widespread.

In the middle of the XVI century. Ivan the Terrible abolished the "feeding" system. It was replaced by a tax in favor of the treasury, from which officials were now to receive maintenance. However, as A. Bokhanov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, writes, the purposeful administrative hierarchy, the cruel control over all spheres of life, the legal insecurity of the "lower classes" that gave rise to the practice of offerings, were unaffected by the reforms.

Most of the direct taxes were collected by the Order of the Grand Parish. At the same time, territorial orders were engaged in taxation of the population. First of all, the Novgorod, 1st Shich, Ustyug, Vladimir, Kostroma couples, who served as cash registers; Kazan and Siberian Grikaz, who collected "yasak" from the population of the Volga region and Siberia; An order from a large palace that taxed the royal lands; The order of a large treasury, a scanty collection was sent from city crafts; A printed order, which charged a fee for affixing acts with the sovereign's seal; A government patriarchal order in charge of taxation of church and monastery lands. In addition to the taxes listed above, the Streletsky, Posolsky, Yamsky grikazy collected. Because of this, the financial system of Russia in the XV-XVII centuries. was extremely complex and confusing.

In the first years of the Romanov dynasty, about 20 former central institutions began to function. The new government had to solve serious socio-economic and political problems. First of all, it was necessary to replenish the devastated state treasury, to establish the flow of state taxes. Therefore, in the first years of the reign of the new dynasty, the fiscal activity of orders intensifies. The quarterly gricas were finally formed and a number of new permanent and temporary central institutions were created that were in charge of the collection! taxes (New quarter in 1619, order of the Great Treasury - in 1621-1622).

It was somewhat streamlined during the reign of Alexei M! Khailovich (1629-1676), who created the Count Order in 1655. Checking the financial activities of the orders, analyzing the income and expense books made it possible to de voluntarily accurately determine the state budget. In 1680, income amounted to 1203,367 rubles. Of these, 529,481.5 rubles, or 44% of all income, were provided through direct taxes, 641,394.6 rubles, or 53.3%, through indirect taxes. The rest (2.7%) came from emergency fees and other income!. expense! amounted to 1125 323 rubles.? At the same time, the lack of a theory of taxation and the thoughtlessness of practical steps sometimes led to grave consequences. An example of an unsuccessful tax policy is the measures taken at the beginning of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. He fought with the Swedes and Poles, who demanded huge expenses. On the subject of Russia in the second form after the 40s. 17th century suffered several unexpected children and livestock deaths due to epidemic diseases. The government resorted to emergency levies. First, the twentieth was charged from the population, then the tenth, then a fifth of the money, i.e. straight cash "from the bellies and crafts" rose to 20%. It became necessary to increase direct taxes. And then an attempt was made to improve the financial situation with the help of indirect taxes.

In 1646, the government of B.I. Morozov introduced heavy taxes on basic necessities. The excise tax on salt was raised from 5 to 20 kopecks per pood. By the way, this measure was applied in other countries. The calculation was that salt is consumed by all segments of the population and the tax will spread evenly for everyone.

However, in reality, the poorest people suffered. It fed mainly on the river from the Volga, Oka and other rivers. The caught rya was immediately salted with grandfather's sslyu. After the introduction of the said excise tax, it turned out to be unprofitable to exile ryu. Rya shook her head in great numbers. There was a shortage of the main food product.

When, however, the treasury dried up and YES / In the air / breathlessly, Nazariy the Pure, a dumny Dayak, tried to save Russia.

Qi suggested replacing the tax on ssi with a reliable tax. Tsosekt approved. Syvoi! But so as not to fool.

The economic maneuver has become a godsend. Eh among the people, shshgP, yerv El to greded excited.

Terva pumezh grssto so, krtage what you want. Nazariy Pure, a dumny Dayak, figured out what he was doing.

Qi hid in the attic in a huge pile of brooms and on the peoples tongue through the teeth! dug the beedeans.? He was found by honest people. I was looking for a good one, vg^ochem, And not far from the gates, Nazarius spent his century.

The people are active and rechist. Executed and became happy. Wet so got an eco-consygot with an inmdaative.

In Russia, the salt tax was temporarily abolished after the popular (salt) riots, and work began to streamline finances.

Direct taxes were uneven. Residents of quite numerous "whitewashed" courtyards and entire "white settlements" that were listed as boyars! and monasteries, as well as serving people and the clergy, were free from tax and could freely engage in trade and crafts. The tax burden fell mainly on the least well-to-do part of the payers.

Particularly difficult for the population were all kinds of fees that were in the nature of indirect taxes; among them was the salt tax, which served as a direct cause for the uprising of 1648. Starting in Moscow, the uprising (“salt riot”) swept a number of cities in the north, south, Siberia and, finally, in 1650 spread to Novgorod and Pskov.

A major Danish merchant and industrialist Peter Marselis, who lived in Russia and had enterprises here, sought less shy and virtually duty-free trade for foreigners, in particular, the abolition of the New Trade Charter of 1667 on the mandatory surrender of gold and efimki brought by foreign merchants! to Russia in exchange for Russian and foreign coins at a bridging rate.

Having discussed Marselis's proposal, submitted by him to the Posolsky Prikaz in 1669, the council expressed its intent as follows: “... And he wants tamg with inosamiy from all Russian people by bidding! take over." Moreover, the amount of duties levied on foreigners has increased! sale and transportation of goods. Thus, for example, the size of travel duty increased by 10%, and the amount of duty charged by the sale of goods was 6% per ruble.

While foreigners had to pay duties in gold or efimka coins, Russian merchants were allowed to “near the city of Arkhangelsk and in all frontier cities ...” to pay duties in small Russian silver coins.

The new trade charter confirmed the provision of the Trade charter of 1654 on the replacement of petty taxes: poll, zhipny, hundredth, thirtieth, tenth, dump, article, bridge, living room and others with a single duty in the amount of 10 money per ruble. Traveling poplins for Russian merchants were canceled altogether. Russian merchants who bought goods in the city where they live were also exempted from paying duties on the grounds that “... merchants from those auctions serve the great sovereign in those cities and pay ANY taxes.” The charter also allowed "guests" and merchants! for the living room and the cloth shop for hundreds of duty-free purchases of groceries and go! for own consumption.? A significant part of the articles of the Novotrade Charter, concerning internal trade, was incited to combat the abuses of customs officials and local authorities.

The era of Peter I (1672-1725) is characterized by a constant lack of financial resources due to numerous wars, large-scale construction, and large-scale state reforms.

In contrast to the 17th century, when indirect taxes occupied the leading place in the budget, in 1680 direct taxes accounted for 33.7%, and indirect taxes - 44.4% of the total state income. In the first quarter of the XVIII century. dominated by direct taxes.

The active policy and wars of Peter I, the transformation of the army, administration and culture, the creation of a fleet, the construction of factories, canals, shipyards and cities required huge amounts of money. The tax burden has increased, and the tax system has changed significantly. In contrast to the 17th century, when indirect taxes occupied the leading place in the budget, in the first quarter of the 18th century. dominated by direct taxes.

Peter introduced a new taxable unit - the "revision soul". The entire population of the state was divided into two parts - taxable (peasants of all categories, petty bourgeois, guild artisans and merchants) and non-taxable (nobles, clergy). To determine the number of "souls" of the tax-paying population, censuses of the male population of the tax-paying estates were carried out, called poll audits. The materials of these audits were used by financial authorities, as well as for recruitment kits.

The decree on the first per capita audit was issued on November 28, 1718. The audit was carried out from 1719 to 1724. Diligence, fugitives and unauthorized persons who moved to other places were not excluded from the audit "tales" until the next revision (1744-1747). Not included in the number of audit souls and lidda, born after giving "fairy tales". Revision "tales" were statements with information about males of taxable estates, submitted by landowners to serfs, clerks to palace, starostami and state peasants and sent to St. Petersburg to the Office of Brigadier V. Zotov, who supervised the collection and development of audit materials. The Senate oversaw the audit.

In addition to the household tax, and then the poll tax, there were many other direct taxes, most often of an emergency nature: dragoon, ship, recruit, etc.

At the same time, the number of indirect taxes increased sharply. Headed by the former serf B.P. Sheremetev A. Kurbatov, "sovereign profit-makers" were supposed to "sit and repair the sovereign's income", i.e. invent new, mostly indirect taxes. In addition to the already well-known and traditional wine and customs fees, new fees appeared, up to the anecdotal - for a beard: and a mustache. Stamp duty has been introduced, a per capita tax on cab drivers is a tenth of the income from their hiring, taxes on inns, peched, floating ships, water carts, srehs, sales of food, renting houses, icebreaking and other taxes and fees. Obsra appeared from collars, shots, transportation, watering places, dumps and grails (for ships departing from the gristans and approaching them), from royaing, trading in salt and tobacco!, for making clothes: old tailoring ...? Even church beliefs were taxed. For example, schismatics were required to pay a double tax.

Most of the collections went to the Chancellery established in 1706 by Izhorskuo; other fees went to special offices: Bannaya, Einuo, Nolnichnuo, Postoya, Yasachnaya, and others. These fees were called office fees. By the end of the reign of Peter I in Russia, there were 40 types of various indirect taxes and stationery fees.

At the same time, Peter I took a number of measures to ensure, as we would say now, the fairness of taxation, the even distribution of tax burdens. Some taxes have been reduced, primarily for the poor. To eliminate abuses in the census of households, a poll tax was introduced. The author of "History of Peter the Great" A.S. Chistyakov writes: “The capitation allowance was small: from the peasants of the palace and synod departments and from the serfs they took 74 kopecks each, and from the state peasants, except for 74 kopecks, they charged 40 kopecks each, instead of dues, which the palace, synod and serfs peasants paid their departments or landlords. Having paid these 74 or 114 kopecks, the peasant did not know any cash and grain requisitions. Polls were collected in three terms: in winter, spring and autumn. They took 120 kopecks from merchants and workshops. from the soul."

In order for Russia's foreign trade to cease to depend on Holland and England, Peter decided to create a domestic fleet. “It is necessary to multiply your commerce ... and in order to carry on your ships a taxi to Gispaniya Portugal, which Commerce can bring great profits,” the decree of November 8, 1723 says. To encourage domestic merchant shipping, a preferential customs tariff was established (below by one third) for those goods that were exported from Russia and imported on Russian merchant ships.

In the second half of the reign of Peter I, despite the huge costs, the state managed with its own income and, according to S.M. Solovyov, "did not do a penny of debt."

The tax system of Russia gri Petre, like its predecessors, included direct and indirect taxes, ordinary and extraordinary, caused by urgent need. The so-called salaries or allotment taxes predominated: the state established the total amount of tax and collection that would go to the treasury, and in the tax community this amount was then risked between payers in accordance with the property status of each and other signs. A smaller part of the state income was received in the form of non-salary income, i.e. dokhedov, the amount of which could not be predetermined by the treasury.

Looking at the tax policy of Peter I, historians cannot say for sure which taxes he preferred - dry or indirect. Both of these forms of taxation were widely used under NMD. As a result of the introduction of the poll tax and the increase in the size of this tax in comparison with the amount of direct taxes replaced by it, the share of direct taxes in poverty increased in 1724 to 55.5%. Since then in the state! For a long time, the poor people of Russia were dominated by filthy people. Peter's decrees emphasized the need to speed up the growth of state revenues "without the burden of the people." The basic principles of Peter's tax policy are formulated in the "Regulations of the state Kymerm Pososhkov, for the first time in Russian literature, raised the question of replacing the feudal form of tax in the form of a poll tax with a more prepressive form of land tax.

Pososhkov considered it unfair that the nobility did not pay taxes to the state, and grandpa planned to tax the Dvsryans as well, although he foresaw a sharp protest on their part: “... so they love to give, as they love to take for themselves.

Pososhkov’s contemporary Fyodor Stepanovich Saltykov, who also took an active part in the reforms of Peter I, without raising both the question of taxes from “gentlemen and nobles”, emphasized the inexpediency of the existence of such an order, in which the population of many people and small estate owners paid the state equally from their estates, and the gredpagal to establish different amounts of their taxation in accordance with the titles that should be assigned to "lords and nobles."

V.N. Tatishchev in his essay “Short Economic Notes to the Village” (1742), in particular, advised: when a resident lives in a city, apply the quitrent system with the distribution of all the land for processing in the allotment of the peasants!, For this is “more useful than in absentia to contain orders shzha or headman.

Mikhail Dmitrievich Chulkov (1743-1793), in matters of tax policy, was of the opinion that taxes should not be imposed on persons, but "on the estate and income of each subject." Chupkov gredpagal not only property, but also income tax.

The study and criticism of the tax policy of the second half of the XVIII century. Alexander Nikolaevich Radishchev dedicated special works “On the poll tax”, “On taxes” (published under the general title “Note on taxes of the Petersburg province”). Such a detailed and comprehensive study of taxes was undertaken by Radishchev for the first time in the history of Russian economic thought.? Empress Catherine II figuratively described the importance of taxation: “Taxes for the state are the same as sails for a ship. Dreams will condense the topic that it’s more likely to bring him into the sea, and not to overwhelm him with your burden or keep him always on the high seas and finally sink him.

However, Catherine II wrote that Radishchev gave only "... philosophizing, however, taken from various half-wisdoms of this century, such as Eusoo, Abbe Reynal and similar hypochondriacs." The statement that Radishchev borrowed ideas from the West was repeated by British and American researchers! Grekova, S.V. Bakhrushina, V.I. Lebedev.

During the time of Peter I, bribery flourished, generated by the “feeding” system. In relation to bribe-takers, as well as embezzlers of public funds, Peter was particularly ferocious. Even the tsar's favorite, A. Menshikov, miraculously escaped being sent to Siberia when it was revealed that he had taken bribes for the trade of placing military contracts.

Catherine II by a special decree forbade any kind of "accidents" (as offerings were called at that time).

Until the middle of the XVIII century. in Russian, the word "submit" was used to designate state fees. For the first time in Russian economic literature, the term "tax" was used in 1765 by the historian A.Ya. Pelenov (1738-1816) in his work "On the serfdom of the peasants in Russia". Since the 19th century the term "tax" has become the main one in Russia when describing the process of withdrawing funds to the state.

A.B. Ignatieva, M.M. Maksimtsov. Research of control systems: textbook. manual for university students studying in the specialties "State and municipal administration" and "Management". - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA: Law and Law, - 167 p., 2012

At the head of the Moscow Grand Duchy was Ivan III Vasilyevich, in 1492 for the first time named "Sovereign and Autocrat of All Russia."

Since the time of Kievan Rus, the word "sovereign" denoted a powerful person, but extended to all sectors of society, including the head of the family, a strong owner, ruler, landowner. From the middle of the XIV century, the word "sovereign" began to be used to title the bearers of supreme power. The Grand Dukes have always been large landowners and zealous owners, and therefore sovereigns. With this title, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe unlimited power of the Grand Duke - the Sovereign was gradually connected. From the time of Ivan III, the great Moscow princes began to consider themselves autocratic rulers, rulers by God's permission. The Russian tsars also called themselves sovereigns, and from 1724 "sovereign" became the short title of the emperor of Russia.

Under Ivan III Vasilievich, one of the leading roles in the state began to be played by the nobles, who quickly turned into a large estate.

"People of the Court" were mentioned in historical sources from the beginning of the XIII century. This word denoted people who were in the maintenance of the princes at the princely, sovereign's court and were obliged to serve the lord. A little later, servants of large patrimonial boyars began to be called nobles.

"Otchiny" arose in the 10th century as the hereditary family property of princes, boyars, and churches. Estates were divided into patrimonial, served and purchased, increased due to the development or annexation of new territories, awards, exchange, purchase. The owners of the patrimony possessed tarkhan, "non-judgmental" letters, according to which they judged, collected taxes, and ensured order without the right to interfere with the princely power.

For their service with the prince or the boyars-patrimonials, the nobles received estates - land for life use. As state property, the estates could not be sold, but were usually left to the relatives of the deceased or deceased landowner - subject to the continuation of the service "horse, crowded and armed." Soon there were three estates per patrimony. The distinction between estates and estates gradually blurred. Estates were bought, estates were given as estates. The decree of Peter the Great of March 23, 1714 legally formalized the merger of the patrimony and the estate into the estate, as "real estate - patrimony."

Since the 15th century, the manor house had a special watchtower - a tumbler, a wooden three-story frame. The bottom of the tower was used as living and utility rooms. The upper floors, connected to the lower ones through trap hatches, were adapted for combat. There was no legal procedure for awarding the nobility with documentary evidence.

The army of Ivan III consisted of irregular noble cavalry, detachments of service princes and boyars, service Cossacks, gunners and pishchalniks, called the "outfit" and the "road rati" - a militia of peasants and townspeople. The main part of the army was the local militia of nobles and boyar children. The army was divided into five regiments - large, right hand, left hand, advanced and sentry. Three regiments went on small campaigns - a large, advanced and sentry.

Local government in the Moscow principality was carried out by governors appointed by the Grand Duke. The governors ruled, judged, collected taxes, had their own administration and garrisons. Viceroyal service was usually a reward, a pension for military service to the prince. The main duty of the governors was the collection of tributes and taxes, the implementation of various princely assignments. The governors kept order, investigated crimes - "murder, robbery and tatba." The court was one of the main sources of income for the prince and the governor, tiuns subordinate to him, clerks, closers.

There were numerous complaints about the abuses of the governors. In 1497, the Sudebnik of Ivan III limited the judicial powers of the governors, transferring some of their powers to representatives of the local population. For all types of judicial activities, specific amounts of fees were established. From the middle of the 16th century, governors began to be replaced by governors.

On November 12, 1472, Ivan III married for the second time. The wife of the Grand Duke of Moscow was the twenty-five-year-old Byzantine princess Sophia Paleolog, the niece of the last emperor of Byzantium, Constantine, who died in 1453 during the capture of Constantinople by the Turks.

Sophia Palaiologos has never been to Constantinople. She lived all her life under the auspices of the Pope in Rome. Marrying a relative of the Paleologs significantly strengthened the position of Ivan III both at home and abroad. The thirty-year-old Grand Duke and Sovereign of All Russia, still under the rule of the Golden Horde, became the successor of the Byzantine emperors and the only remaining Orthodox ruler. The Byzantine card in the political game of the Moscow state for sovereignty became one of the main trump cards of the brilliant Ivan III, who created a huge centralized state for the first time in North-Eastern Russia. From Rome, via Lubeck, Ravel, Pskov and Novgorod, the Byzantine princess arrived in Moscow.

The opinion of many researchers that it was with Sophia Paleolog that Byzantine treachery, intrigues, sophisticated duplicitous politics came to Russia is wrong. The policy of the princes of the Moscow House has never been simple and primitive. The most terrible khan of the Golden Horde, Uzbek, declared to Ivan Kalita that a very cunning and intelligent prince created a powerful state in order to gain independence from the Mongol supreme power. The fate of Moscow and Russia often hung in the balance - a thread in the life of its grand dukes. If the Tver principality had won in the dispute for power in the Russian lands, then it would have brought Russia to the Kulikovo field much ahead of time. The unborn Russian state would have been immediately destroyed by the merciless blow of the then powerful Golden Horde. Moscow waited, gathered all its strength and struck to death. If Ivan Kalita had been sitting behind the walls of Constantinople in 1453, it would have been simply useless for the Turkish sultan to besiege them. From the middle of the XIV century, many sovereigns tried to study the methods and forms of power in the Moscow principality - in order to adopt new talented ideas and then the usual stab in the back. It didn't turn out very well. The outstanding Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky once rashly called the Moscow princes gray mediocrities, indistinguishable from each other, however, immediately refuting himself. The princes of the Moscow House, who went down in history with the ringing names Proud, Red, Brave, worked desperately to create Russian statehood, often from overwork before they reached the age of forty. It was their work that allowed Russia to survive Ivan the Terrible, who broke the Russian national character, and the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. It was on the basis of their achievements that Peter the Great, the brilliant successor and heir to the deeds of Alexander Nevsky, Ivan Kalita and Ivan the Third, created a great state.

Ivan III knew very well the mechanism of power of the two disappeared empires - Byzantium and the Golden Horde. In 1474 he bought the second half of the Rostov Principality. It was the turn of Veliky Novgorod.

The Yazhelbitsky treaty of 1456 almost established new legal norms in the relationship between Moscow and Novgorod, the boyars of which were no longer able to simply pay off the Muscovites. For several years now, a princely court had been operating in Novgorod, accepting complaints from offended Novgorodians. Veche was deprived of the status of the highest judicial instance. In city documents, the Grand Duke's seal was already often put.

Ivan III had been preparing for a decisive battle with the boyar republic for several years. The reason for its defeat was the Novgorod-Lithuanian Treaty of 1471, which became an attempt by Novgorod to come under the authority of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The war lasted less than two months. After the defeat of the Novgorod troops in the Battle of Shelon, it became completely clear that the Novgorod colossus rests on clay feet. The people have long ceased to support the presumptuous Novgorod oligarchy. Ivan III executed the leaders of the "Lithuanian party" and Novgorod was almost annexed to Moscow by the Treaty of Korostyn in 1471. At the same time, Great Perm was also annexed to the state of Ivan III.