On the introduction of progressive taxation. progressive taxation

AT Russian Federation, as in all other countries of the world, there is an extensive system of taxes levied on its own citizens, stateless persons and foreign citizens, named in Russian legislation a generalized term - individuals.

Income tax individuals has always been one of the most important taxes. Not only federal, but also regional and local budgets. The value of personal income tax for the regional treasury is large, since 80% of it is credited to the regional budget and is one of the main sources of income. municipality interested in their sources of replenishment of the budget.

In order, on the one hand, to stimulate the growth of production and consumption, and on the other hand, to simplify tax system and thereby reduce the propensity of taxpayers to underestimate tax liabilities, the state is forced to reduce tax rates on income (meaning the income of all economic agents, regardless of the legal form).

Ideally, the income tax should be a tax on the net aggregate income of individuals who are either resident or deriving certain income in the country.

An income tax is related to consumption (we assume that the income directed to consumption is equal to the difference between net total income and income tax), and it can either stimulate consumption or reduce it. Therefore, the main problem of income taxation is to achieve the optimal balance between economic efficiency and social justice of the tax. In other words, such tax rates are needed that would ensure the most equitable redistribution of income with minimal damage to the interests of taxpayers from taxation.

This problem is compounded by the fact that at different stages economic development priority can be given either economic efficiency, or social justice, in accordance with which the scale of taxation is chosen.

At certain stages of economic development, when household incomes are low, budget revenues from taxes are also insignificant. Moreover, the increase in tax rates in this case is ineffective, since it will lead to a decrease in the level of consumption, which, in turn, will entail an even greater decrease in income.

The presence of benefits and deductions in the legislation of the Russian Federation provides some progressivity of the tax even at a simple rate, since the higher the income level of the taxpayer, the smaller the share in his income is the non-taxable part and the higher the average income tax rate.

In addition, the number of taxpayers at low tax rates will increase, and as their income grows, so will the amount of tax they pay.

It is believed that the progressive scale of taxation contributes to the achievement of greater social equity in income taxation, that is, than more income the greater part of it is withdrawn in the form of tax. Meanwhile, this point of view has opponents who believe that progressive taxation slows down the process of capital accumulation, as well as the growth of investment and the creation of new jobs.

Currently imperfection tax base, the unfair flat rate of interest on income tax, as well as the weak administration of the tax collection are a discouraging factor in the completeness of its collection. Likewise, wages, being essential element in the income structure of the population, is the basis not only for income tax, but also for a number of other taxes that individuals are required to pay, which greatly increases the tax burden.

The practice of recent years has shown the futility and inefficiency of attempts to eliminate the shortcomings of the tax system by introducing "point" changes in tax law. Problems can only be solved through a full-scale tax reform aimed primarily at achieving a balance between the interests of the state and taxpayers.

Personal income tax is one of the main sources of formation of the budgets of countries, as well as an effective regulator in the social sphere. Consideration of evolution income tax from individuals in Russia reveals the inefficiency of currently applied tax forms, and, moreover, their negative impact on the socio-economic situation in the country.

The main income tax rate in Russia is currently 13%. This tax rate is fixed, and the tax scale with such a rate is called flat. One of the alternative taxation options is the progressive income tax scale, which is in force in many developed countries West.

The peculiarity of the progressive scale is that the income tax rate here is differentiated and increases as the income of the taxpayer grows.

Since 2001, when the current tax rate was introduced in Russia, and to the present, among economists, legislators and analysts, disputes have not subsided about which income tax scale is optimal for our state - flat or progressive.

The main argument of the supporters of the progressive income tax scale is the too great social stratification of society in Russia and the too small part of the middle class, on which all the modern developed economies of the world are built.

Global problem for the economy of our country - the lack of consumer demand. Simply put, most Russians have no money, and many only have enough for food. But this problem is caused by the irrational and inefficient allocation of resources, and not their absence. By optimizing the distribution of income, one can significantly reduce social stratification, increase budget revenues, reduce the number of the poor, and increase consumer demand. The problem can be solved, including by improving the collection of income tax.

The introduction of a progressive income tax would redistribute tax burden, practically free from taxes people who are on the verge of survival, and at the same time to place the main emphasis on the taxation of excess income.

The purpose of introducing such changes in tax legislation is to solve the following most important tasks of the socio-economic development of Russia:

Increasing the incomes of the poor and middle-income segments of the population;

Eliminating a huge wealth inequality population;

Increasing the revenue side of regional budgets.

The personal income tax rate of 13%, as conceived by the authors, was supposed to simplify the collection of taxes and legalize salaries issued in envelopes. It should be noted that all further most fundamental changes tax code related to the introduction of a regressive rate of deductions in off-budget funds and a flat 9% tax rate on dividends, with the abolition of inheritance and gift taxes for relatives, met the liberal doctrine of reduction tax burden on the richest segments of the population, in order to increase their hypothetical investments in the Russian economy.

Currently, the general rate of contributions to off-budget funds is 30% of the fund wages: 22% goes to Pension Fund RF, 5.1% to Federal and Territorial Funds health insurance RF and 2.9% to the Fund social insurance RF. At the same time, there are thresholds for contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (PFR) and the Social Insurance Fund (FSS). AT PFR insurance a contribution of 22% is paid from annual earnings not exceeding 796 thousand rubles in 2016, 10% is paid from exceeding this threshold, in the Social Insurance Fund a contribution of 2.9% is paid from an annual salary up to 718 thousand rubles, above this level of earnings fee is not paid. Thus, as income increases, deductions to off-budget funds decrease, which, in our opinion, is economically inexpedient and contributes to an increase in social inequality.

Real results, according to the conclusion Accounts Chamber RF in 2015 are such that as a result of the introduction of a unified reduced rate tax on personal income, there was no increase in legalized income, on the contrary, according to a number of experts, “shadow” and corruption incomes in the Russian Federation amount to about 15-20% of the total GDP.

The social stratification of the population is all last years is also growing rapidly. For example, according to the official data of Rosstat for 2015, the ratio cash income 10% of the richest citizens of Russia to the income of 10% of the poorest citizens was 14.5. Even this gap is huge, although official data tends to be a more optimistic view of the situation. The reality is much harsher. Even the fact that Russia is the leader in the number of dollar millionaires in Europe, although more than a third of the country's population cannot make ends meet, indicates that official statistics are nothing more than figures far from the truth.

In terms of the ratio of incomes distributed between the richest and the poorest, Russia has long passed the threshold of social security, which, according to international experts, should not exceed 8-9. For comparison, in Germany, Austria and France, Kd varies from 5 to 7, and in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Japan and South Korea - from 3.5 to 5.

It is also alarming that in the latest Rosstat data, sociologists and economists have noted a fundamental change in the structure of the richest stratum: wealthy officials are ousting entrepreneurs and businessmen from it. Back in 2004, a study was published, according to which among the owners and buyers of real estate on Rublyovka, only 30% are businessmen, and 70% are federal and regional officials. That is why it is unprofitable for the top bureaucracy to change anything in the existing taxation system.

As for investments, they have indeed increased, but not in Russian economy, but to the economies of the EEC countries and the USA. At the same time, the share of investments in the real economy of our country even decreased; today, according to this indicator, Russia is far behind most developing countries.

It should also be noted that the use of flat 13% personal income tax rates led to a decrease in its share to 3.9% of GDP in 2014 (in the US, the share of income tax is about 10% of GDP, and in the EEC countries - from 8 to 10%), which has a sharply negative impact on the efficiency of the economy for the following reasons.

First, low taxation personal income leads to an increase in the level of taxation of profits and value added, which has a sharply destimulating effect on economic development.

Secondly, the low level of personal income tax contributes to the fact that profits from entrepreneurial activity to a greater extent goes to consumption, and not to production accumulation and reinvestment in production. The existing nature of taxation encourages the "eating" of profits.

Thirdly, the low level of tax on personal income with their flat scale does not provide the state with sufficient funds to carry out an active social policy.

Fourthly, a single rate of personal income tax with a high level of income differentiation of the population creates a mass belief in the injustice of the existing distribution system. And thus leads to the destimulation of labor activity of the population and undermining the economic efficiency of Russia's development.

Thus, the proposed progressive taxation of income creates conditions conducive to the growth of the efficiency of entrepreneurial activity and investment, and prevents unproductive waste of income. And if, simultaneously with the introduction of a progressive taxation scale, taxes on luxury (on luxury real estate, expensive cars, yachts, jewelry, etc.) are introduced, as in the EEC countries, the effect will be even higher.

It is no coincidence that the progressive taxation of personal income of citizens is widely used in the vast majority of countries around the world. At the same time, citizens with low incomes in economically developed countries are most often completely exempt from personal income tax: for example, in the USA, a zero rate is applied with incomes up to $ 8,450 per year, in Sweden - up to 306,000 Swedish kronor, in Switzerland - up to 16,100 francs, in Austria - up to 10,000 euros, in Ireland - up to 5,210 euros, in Spain - up to 2,400 euros, in Norway - 36,000 Norwegian kroner, and in Australia - up to 6000 Australian dollars, etc.

It should be noted that under the influence economic crisis The maximum personal income tax rates in 2014 were raised in the USA to 40%, in England to 50%, and in a number of developed countries the maximum level of personal income taxation, taking into account insurance premiums, local and social taxes reaches 70%.

As a result, in the USA 80% federal budget provided by taxes levied on the top 20% of citizens with the highest incomes.

Table 1 shows the values ​​of the minimum and maximum rates taxation of personal income for a number of the largest and most developed economies in the world (as of the beginning of 2015) .

Table 1

The size of the personal income tax rate in the most economically developed countries of the world

As can be seen from the table, in most countries there is a non-taxable minimum annual income.

As for the flat personal income tax scale, in addition to Russia, it is used in Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Kazakhstan.

The flat personal income tax scale does make it easier to collect taxes, but the alleged extreme difficulties in tax collection at progressive personal income tax rates seem far-fetched. An illustrative example is China, in which, with a population that is an order of magnitude greater than the population of Russia, a 7-stage progressive personal income tax system with a minimum rate of 3% and a maximum rate of 45% is successfully applied, which ensured sustainable economic growth even in the context of the global economic crisis.

As for the high collection of personal income tax in developed countries, it is provided by a system of 100% computer accounting of income and tax calculation. If we return to the world experience of using progressive taxation income of individuals, it should be noted that not only the countries of the economically developed West effectively use such a personal income tax scale, but also countries with a similar economic situation, as in Russia (specifically the BRICS countries), apply a differentiated rate to their taxpayers: in China - up to 45%, in Brazil - up to 27.5%, in India - up to 30%.

Russia, in the current situation, resembles a family with irrational parents. Here, the funds earned by the joint labor of all family members are given to one "most beloved" child, who selfishly spends them on his own amusements. But for all the other children, and for the parents themselves, there is nothing left even for the most important needs. And then the problems begin: parents can no longer work for one thing, they do not have enough to eat, they are weakening and will soon lose their jobs. And, in the end, the whole family will suffer from this, even that “most beloved” child, in whose name the distribution of the family budget is unbalanced.

Progressive taxation could help rationalize the distribution of income among the population and, perhaps, a progressive personal income tax scale is currently a necessary condition for a balanced and stable economy and social justice for Russia.

This assumption can be proved by mathematical calculations. For example, you can propose certain changes in the tax legislation of Russia and calculate the changes that they will entail.

According to Rosstat, in 2015, the labor force employed in the economy, excluding unemployed citizens, amounted to 65,015 thousand people. Specific gravity wages of employees in GDP in 2015 amounted to 37.8% of GDP or 29443.55 billion rubles. Using data from Rosstat on the distribution total amount accrued wages and average wages for 10 percent groups of employees of organizations, as well as data on the distribution of the number of employees of organizations by size of accrued wages, we calculate the distribution of taxpayers by income groups and the distribution of income by groups of taxpayers depending on certain amounts of total annual income. The results are shown in tables 2 and 3. As can be seen from table 2, 11.9% of the population have incomes close to the level living wage, and 4.9% of the population have super incomes. Table 3 shows that approximately 10 percent of the population receives only 2.2 percent total income, and approximately 5 percent of the population receive approximately 30% of total income. The difference in income is more than significant.

table 2

Distribution of taxpayers by income groups

Table 3

Distribution of income by groups of taxpayers

Table 4 shows the proposed progressive personal income tax scale. During its development, the benchmark was the average annual income per person from each group of the gradation of the total annual income. At the same time, the difference in the average annual income per person from the group with the highest income and the group with the lowest income is more than 33 times.

Based on the data in Table 4 on the number of taxpayers, their income and the amount of income tax collected in 2015, we can propose the following changes to Art. 217 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 224:

persons receiving income below 120 thousand rubles. per year, are exempted from paying tax, for other taxpayers a progressive scale of personal income tax (PIT) rates from 13 to 35 percent is introduced.

The dependence of the personal income tax rate on the total taxable annual income may be as follows: annual income up to 120 thousand rubles. - not taxed, from 120 to 600 thousand rubles. - taxed at a rate of 13%, from 600 to 1200 thousand rubles. - at a rate of 20% and income over 1200 thousand rubles. will be taxed at a rate of 35%.

To calculate the economic effect from the application of the proposed changes in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation to the personal income tax rate, it is necessary to know the total number of taxpayers, their distribution by income groups and the amount of the total annual income for each group.

Table 4

Proposed progressive personal income tax scale

The results of calculating the economic effect when using the proposed progressive taxation of income are shown in Table 5. They show that with the application of the proposed progressive income tax, the amount of tax collected increases. The economic effect is 2223.87 billion rubles.

Table 5

Calculation of the economic effect from the introduction of a progressive taxation scale for personal income (billion rubles)

The results of calculating the economic effect when using the proposed progressive taxation of income showed the following:

Budget revenues from personal income tax will increase 1.6 times and amount to 6051.53 billion rubles.

The amount of personal income tax collected from a group of taxpayers whose income is more than 1200 thousand rubles. per year will increase by 2.7 times and amount to 3091.57 billion rubles.

An analysis of the data for calculating the economic effect allows us to conclude (Table 5) that the introduction of a progressive taxation scale for personal income will entail the following changes:

• · reducing the tax burden for almost 7.4 million taxpayers in Russia with low incomes, which is 11.9% of all taxpayers, redistributing it to the richer segments of the population;
• · the main economic effect of the introduction of progressive taxation in 2.22 trillion. rub. is achieved from additional taxation for the 3.2 million wealthiest taxpayers, representing 4.9% of all taxpayers.

Thus, the introduction of a progressive scale of taxation of personal income is really relevant for the Russian economy in present stage, and allows solving a number of important socio-economic problems.

Progressive taxation refers to an increase effective rate tax with an increase in the taxable base. Progressive taxation is mainly used for taxing individuals (income tax).

In Russia, the first original attempt to introduce progressive income taxation dates back to 1810. When the war with Napoleon exhausted the state budget and caused a sharp drop in the exchange rate of the paper ruble, the landlords were taxed; taxation began with 500 rubles. income and progressively increased to 10% of net income. After the end of the war with Napoleon, when the danger had passed and the military enthusiasm of the landlord class cooled down, revenues began to decline rapidly and in 1820 the tax was abolished.

By the beginning of the 20th century, a progressive income tax was introduced in many European countries Oh. In the United States of America, progressive taxation was introduced in 1913.

In Russia, the income tax (according to the Prussian model) was established by the tsarist government on April 6, 1916, and was to come into force from 1917. But first the February Revolution and then the October Revolution intervened in the government's plans, and the income tax law did not actually come into effect.

Proportional (constant, flat tax rate) - everyone pays the same share of their income. At a tax rate of 10%, earning 20,000 rubles pays 2,000 rubles of tax, earning 40,000 rubles pays 4,000 rubles of tax. Flat-rate taxation is called proportional taxation because the tax is directly proportional to taxable income.

Progressive (that is, with an increasing tax rate) - higher incomes are taxed more high stake tax.

It should be noted that taxation is not only a financial and economic phenomenon, but also a political one, therefore, one or another class interest is always reflected in the views on it. Proportional taxation much easier to tolerate by the wealthy classes, as it eases the tax pressure as the object of taxation (taxable amounts) increases. Progressive taxation, on the other hand, affects the propertied classes much more sensitively and the more, the stronger the progression of taxation increases. That is why the propertied classes always oppose this method of taxation, and the financiers who defend their interests always find arguments against progressive taxation.

Until 1990, polynomial (polynomial) formulas were used to calculate tax rates in Germany.
In 1990, a new combined model was introduced, which greatly facilitated the calculation of taxes.

In this case, the scale of total annual income is divided into 5 zones and looks like this:

Zone 1 (zero zone): Income in this zone is not taxed.
zone 2 (linear): The starting tax rate is 14% and increases linearly to 24%.
zone 3 (linear): The tax rate in this zone increases as linearly as in the previous zone, but not as steeply, from 24% to 42%.
zone 4 (fixed): the tax rate in this zone is constant and fixed at 42%.
zone 5 (fixed): the tax rate in this zone is also constant and equal to 45%.

US income tax. Taxation in the USA
In the US rates federal tax on personal income (personal income tax) are levied according to a multi-stage scheme and, as of 2014, start at 10% and reach a maximum of 39.6%. The limits of the levels of taxation depend on the family status of the taxpayer. There are the following categories: one (single) subject, married couple and single parent. In the case of a married couple, a joint tax return. This category also includes a widow or widower who receives a pension for her husband or wife (pensions are also taxed). In addition to the federal tax, each state levies an additional tax. As a result, the total tax can reach 50%.

Australia 4 steps, non-taxable minimum 18000, Max rate at 180000.
19; 32,5; 37; 45 %.

Often the calculation occurs in steps. That is, the income for the year is taken from it, the non-taxable amount is deducted, then the amount taxable at the first rate is taken, and so on until the entire amount is deducted, if the income is very large, the entire balance is considered at 42-45%.

On the plus side, I see an increase in tax revenues, exemption from taxes for the very poor. Again, if taxes do not suit you, you can go to do business abroad. It turns out that in Russia it is profitable to be rich, but it is difficult to become one)
Of the minuses, I see that Depardieu will leave us (

Perhaps there is not a single person in our country whose problems could not be solved to a large extent by this initiative. And at the same time, it doesn’t matter what you really need and need now: a new car, an apartment, relax in a paradise on the seashore, or just improve and diversify your diet. Or maybe you thought about your health (or your loved ones), which could be in perfect order if this initiative were implemented. Indeed, in this case, Russian medicine would be in no way inferior to the level of advanced European countries, Israel, the USA, and Japan. Perhaps you are concerned about the cost of utility services? Thanks to this initiative, the quality of public services would improve significantly, and the payment of bills for your budget would be invisible. Access to education would be open to everyone and everyone, and you or your child would not think about the question of where to get money to pay for education.

And even if you were in difficult situation and without a job at some point, you wouldn't be left to fend for yourself. Since the state could take care of each of its citizens without exception, as it should be in a fair social society. In which, among other things, it is unacceptable to increase the retirement age (due to the lack of Money etc).

The essence of the reform lies in the introduction of a progressive scale of taxes on excess income, which ensures a fair redistribution of funds in the country. If it seems to someone that this initiative is directed against wealthy people, and also calls for a general equalization of the poor and the rich, then this will be the biggest mistake. Since progressive taxation equally protects the rights of everyone, including the richest people in Russia, since they, deducting a significant percentage of taxes from income from their effective economic activity, guarantee themselves and their descendants a stable future in an economically and politically strong state. That is, progressive taxation makes wealth not an object of envy or condemnation, but a pledge civil liability before the state and society, a reason for respect and recognition.

In addition to the above advantages (and the goals that the authors of the initiative and those who support it adhere to), this proposal also deals a blow to corruption. Giving a bribe becomes simply unprofitable, because in order to bribe someone for 100 million rubles, you must first pay another 100 million from this income to the budget (at a tax rate of 50%). The initiative was also created to combat inflation, which leads to a constant rise in the cost of food. Judge for yourself - the main cause of inflation is an excess of money. Some have barely enough of them, while others do not know where to put them. To stop inflation that destroys the economy, everyone needs to save their finances a little.

Solution

It took us more than 10 years to understand the need to implement the proposed innovations. Since 99% of all other implemented bills, innovations, social initiatives and even protests (including rallies) are aimed at solving narrow and current problems and issues that do not change for the better general position affairs in our country.

We, the undersigned and/or the citizens who sent this initiative, ask the deputies of the State Duma, members of the Federation Council, the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation and the bodies controlled by them to develop and put into effect a progressive system of taxation in the Russian Federation, to adopt the relevant regulatory legal acts(laws, by-laws), in accordance with the following principles:

Expected Result

1. The income difference between the richest 10% of the population and the poorest 10% of the population of the country should not be more than 10 times. In the USSR, the difference in such incomes was only about 4 times, but the wealthy segments of the population compensated for the “inequality deficit” due to free privileged access to housing, medicine, etc. AT modern Russia this difference reaches more than 15-17 times.

2. General principles taxation.

1) The application of a progressive scale of taxation is subject to income from entrepreneurial, economic, etc. activities, wages, other systematic income of individuals and legal entities. Progressive taxation is also subject to application in relation to winnings at a casino, lottery, in relation to the withdrawal of any amount of funds outside the Russian Federation for any purpose (in order to counter laundering, legalization, tax evasion and / or transfer of income to offshore).

2) When selling (alienating) movable and real estate the tax rate should be 10-15% and 0% (if the property has been owned for more than 3-5 years).

3) For legal entities and individual entrepreneurs on a progressive scale, only income minus expenses (the necessary costs of production and doing business) are taxed.

4) Progressive taxation scale:

a) income up to 150,000 rubles / year (12,500 rubles / month) - not subject to taxation (rate 0%);

b) income from 150,000 to 650,000 rubles / year (500,000 rubles / year or 41,666 rubles / month) - tax 10%

c) income from 650,000 to 5,150,000 rubles/year (4,500,000 rubles/year or 375,000 rubles/month) – 25% tax

d) income from 5.150.000 rubles. and more per year - 50% tax

e) for incomes over 50-100 million rubles. per year possible introduction interest rate above 50%

5) Sample tax calculation.

That is, with an income of 15,000,000 rubles. per year you have to pay:

a) with an income of 15,000,000 rubles. – 5.150.000 rub. = 9,850,000 rubles. at a rate of 50% (tax 4.925.000 rubles)

b) 5.150.000 rub. – 650.000 rub. = 4.500.000 rub. at a rate of 25% (tax 1.125.000 rubles - the maximum amount);

c) 650,000 rubles. – 150.000 rub. = 500.000 rub. at a rate of 10% (tax 50,000 rubles - the maximum amount);

d) 150,000 rubles. not subject to taxation.

"Taxes" (newspaper), 2007, N 17

The problem of progressive taxation is of considerable interest from the point of view of theory and practice. With the introduction of a flat income tax since 2001, disputes about its rationality and adequate reflection of social reality do not stop, including proposals for the introduction of a progressive tax. Attention is drawn to the fact that progressive taxation exists in many developed countries. Therefore, it is required to conceptually substantiate progressive taxation, its compliance with the basic principles of taxation, as well as to determine the dynamics of progression and the tax scale.

The theoretical question of the conformity of progressive taxation with the principle of equality is the most controversial in the literature. Some authors believe that progressive taxation will allow shifting the tax burden to the wealthiest citizens. However, a number of researchers emphasize that theories developed to justify progressive taxation do not justify its compliance with the principle of equality. Therefore, the economic and social concepts of progressive taxation are insufficient for its legal justification.

The legislation provides a justification for the compliance of progressive taxation with the principle of equality. The confiscation nature of taxation is prohibited. Therefore, not the amount of tax paid or encumbered income, but the amount of funds remaining at the disposal of the taxpayer, should be taken as a criterion for the progressiveness of taxation. The principles of equality and fairness in this approach will be revealed through the marginal sufficiency of the funds available to the taxpayer in comparison with the funds remaining after paying the tax on more or less income.

A certain difficulty is the solution of the practical issue of the progressive tax scale. The old approach called for stepwise tax increases across income groups. It is proposed to replace a simple progressive scale with a complex one, with an increase in the tax rate for an amount exceeding the established one. That is, the amount of funds remaining at the disposal will increase in proportion to income. The disadvantage of this system is that the progression will only exist between groups, not within groups. Thus, there is a need to create a new smooth scale of progressive taxation.

To determine the scale of progressive taxation, it is possible
using a function graph. The tax paid should
n
calculate according to the formula f (x) \u003d kx, (where f (x) is the tax rate, and
the abscissa axis has double numbering - the main one for calculations according to
formula and parallel to it, corresponding to the tax rate itself;
x - income; k and n- economic indicators more than 1
characterizing the progressiveness of the scale and determined depending on
from the social situation). The proposed method should be used for
tax calculation tax agents and using complex
progressions for incomes below and above certain
depending on the situation and the quantity formula.

It is important to make a reservation that in the Russian Federation there are elements of progressiveness of taxation: the mechanism of deductions and benefits, as well as different tax rates for certain incomes. The proposed combined system of a power function with a complex progression for excess profits will make it possible to tax income evenly different size taking into account the funds remaining at the disposal of the taxpayer, which would be consistent with the principles of fairness and equality of taxation.

D.V. Morozov

Saratov State

University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky

Why the government stubbornly refuses to introduce a progressive taxation scale

The press conference (a kind of report) of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in front of federal TV channels was not particularly novel in its plot. And the content, if we correct some figures, was very close to what the head of government said a year, two or three years ago.

Medvedev voiced a lot of reasons for optimism. At the end of the outgoing year, the prime minister assures us, we are waiting for a record low inflation - less than 3%. This is the lowest figure in the entire post-Soviet history, he stressed.

Against the background of the announced successes, the statement about one of the most “flashy problems” sounded somewhat dissonant. “Poverty is, of course, one of the most glaring problems of our modern economy Naturally, poverty itself is the reverse side of the underdevelopment of the economy,” Medvedev said, answering a question about 12 million working poor citizens in the country.

It would seem that one of the recipes for eliminating or alleviating the problem of poverty, used in many countries, is the introduction of a progressive income tax (PIT), which increases depending on the degree of income of a person. However, for more than a decade, the Russian government has been making vague hints that “changes are possible in this area”, but changes have not come. Both the poor and the rich pay the same in Russia - 13% of their income.

Moreover, according to the head of government, the flat scale of the tax on the income of individuals turned out to be a very successful solution that contributed to the withdrawal of citizens' incomes from the shadows. Medvedev forgot to say (or perhaps out of ignorance) that huge amounts equal to several budgets of the country go offshore, not subject to taxation. That is, in the same shadow. And this is with the most "democratic" 13 percent!

This is how one lie is superimposed on another, and poverty grows and grows...

So, the proposal to introduce a progressive tax on income, which is applied in all developed countries and was in the USSR, is stubbornly rejected by the Russian authorities.

Why a tax that will give trillions of rubles additional income to the budget, meets such resistance from the authorities?

It is very important to understand that a differentiated tax has a lot to do with fairness in society.

We do not go into the history of the emergence of the philosophical concept from Plato and Aristotle to the present day, we do not consider the types of justice, everyone can see it on the Internet. We are now interested in only one type - social justice in society, which is a prerequisite for the possibility of building a prosperous society.

Now we have wild injustice in Russia. We have created a system where any young singer, any showman, official in the raw material industries has incomes that significantly exceed the incomes of academicians, creators of spaceships, "calibers", any military and civilian equipment. Show business is generally a solid shadow and cash, all this is periodically on TV screens. It's the same in business. When the accident occurred at the Krasnoyarsk hydroelectric power station, Putin was very indignant that the two resigning station deputies should have been paid amounts of more than 10 million dollars, at the exchange rate at that time. How is it possible, exclaimed Putin. And no system outputs! And Stalin would have put the whole system in order within a month - he would have immediately introduced a tariff scale of salaries throughout the country and a differentiated tax on millions of incomes would have been brought up to 75%. Hollande offered this even now, because Depardieu came to us.

Therefore, people are increasingly turning to the name of Stalin with a desire to restore order and justice. For the majority of the population, this is so, no matter how controversial it may seem. The population now does not consider the negative aspects of that time, it is not so important for them what the political system will be called. The population wants justice and effective action now. The name of Stalin has become a symbol of the effectiveness of management and the inevitability of punishment for criminals. This is what the people want.

Why, then, rejecting the differentiated tax, the government gives untenable and frivolous arguments - not our way, they will go into the shadows, they will pay in envelopes and other nonsense? I once again remind you that several country budgets, at just 13 percent of income tax for the rich, go into the shadows, namely, into tax-free offshores! After all, this means that the authorities do not know how to manage or do not want to. Why?

Yes, because:

1. The authorities in Russia do not bear any responsibility to the people, so they calmly allow themselves to despise them. It explains everything.

2. The government in Russia is pursuing a liberal economic policy, beneficial only to the oligarchs and 10% of the population who are its backbone. She does not give a damn about the rest of the uncomplaining population; “Chubaisism” continues - a cynical, contemptuous attitude towards the population.

3. Almost all government reforms are aimed at reducing (optimizing) spending on the population, shifting them onto the shoulders of the population itself. This is the destruction of rural education and medicine, in fact the destruction of the province, growth of housing and communal services, rising tariffs for energy resources, rising prices for medicines and food, etc. The authorities, it seems, are too literally guided by the expression - bread and circuses. He believes that the population should have enough money only for bread and circuses on TV (zomboyaschiku).

In fact, the government is relinquishing all the duties of taking care of the population, for which it generally exists.

4. The introduction of a differentiated tax will hit, first of all, the owners of high and ultra-high incomes, that is, the power itself and those on whom it relies. Therefore, the authorities are already against it.

5. The introduction of a differentiated tax will force the entire legislative system in this area, enter completely new system control and responsibility for tax evasion, for shadow incomes. Measures will have to be taken to combat the shadow economy.

6. This will definitely entail the need for a more effective and systematic fight against corruption, offshore companies, changes in legislation in this area as well. And this is what the authorities need? This is how much work and all to your detriment.

7. It goes without saying that the tax system and tax legislation will have to be restructured, sharply tightening the responsibility for tax evasion. After all, taxes must be collected and collected effectively. Here you can borrow the experience of the United States and others. You can China and Belarus.

What does the absence of a differentiated income tax lead to?

The absence of a differentiated tax leads to a sharp stratification of society into the poor and the very rich and a decrease in revenues to the country's budget.

Statements by the authorities will go into the shadows, they will pay in envelopes, they are not serious. At the same time, they are stupidly silent about offshore companies!

This is a recognition of power in its impotence or unwillingness to do something. Enter an adequate punishment, its inevitability and 99.9% of going into the shadows will stop. An effective measure for tax evasion is a family restricted to travel abroad for 5 years.

The bottom line here is that tax evasion is an indirect theft from the pocket of every citizen. Taxes do not fall into the budget, the poor budget is impoverished pensioners, doctors, teachers, the military, culture, etc. When theft from an apartment is a criminal offense, and the state (each of us) has millions and billions - as it should be. Only the president can change something in Russia, if the situation is not brought to the point of absurdity, as in the 90s.

Here is such a seemingly simple tax, but how much it requires changes, how much strength and meaning it contains for a fair structure of society.

That is why developed countries have achieved high level the life of the population and tranquility in society, which introduced fair social relations, adopting socialist ideas of social justice in the 50s and 60s. They introduced the principle of J. J. Rousseau - in order to build a prosperous society, it is necessary that the rich share with the poor. There should not be too rich and poor in society, tyrants grow out of the rich, slaves out of the poor.

Conclusions.

1. There is no differentiated tax, which means that there are no fair social relations. Budget revenues are decreasing, the stratification of society is increasing, and protest is growing. This means that we will not be able to build a prosperous state where the population is socially protected.

2. The big question is the professionalism of the government, that it is generally able to cope with solving large-scale practical problems. It's much more difficult simple accounting expense natural resources, where there is no need to strain, everything has been done a long time ago and relative accounting has been established.

And in general, with a virtual economy - banks, stock exchanges, futures, it's easier to deal with, there is no responsibility and it's easier to fool others.

Napoleon said that in order for a proposal not to be accepted, it must be ridiculed. And vice versa - if it is necessary to be accepted, it is necessary to ridicule the arguments of the opposite side. If our party leaders speak their proposals in the tone of a good grandfather - let's live together, then such proposals will be easily brushed aside. And if the government's arguments are ridiculed publicly and conclusively presented as anti-people, this is a different picture. In other words, vote with your brain, not with other parts of your body. And if you don’t know how, then you don’t need to deal with this nonsense ...