For the term "Salary", see also other meanings.
For the term Poll tax, see also other meanings.
Poll tax(also capitation salary, poll tax) - a form of tax, tax, when the tax is levied in the same or approximately the same amount from each taxable person, according to the results of the census. Existed in ancient Rome under the name "capitatio". In most countries, it lost distribution by the beginning of the 20th century due to the introduction of income tax.
In Russia, the poll tax was introduced by Peter I in 1724. At the same time, a general census of the taxable population was started and a tax per soul was determined (excluding nobles and clergy). Everyone was taxed men taxable estates, regardless of age: both newborns and the elderly. Different rates were also established for various categories of the taxable class: state peasants paid more than serfs.
In the Russian Empire
To raise money for the maintenance of the regular army, the decree of Peter I of November 26, 1718 demanded that a census of the male population be carried out within a year (collect "tales"), and "paint how many souls of a soldier an ordinary with a share of a company and regimental headquarters on him, putting the average salary ". The census was completed only by the beginning of 1722, it was possible to count about five million "souls".
The first tax rate was 80 kopecks per capita per year, later it decreased to 74 kopecks, then to 70 kopecks per year due to the improvement in population coverage by censuses. The schismatics paid double taxation (until 1782), hence their popular name "dvoedane". Initially, merchants were also taxed, but already in 1775 it was replaced by a percentage fee from the declared capital.
Subsequently, inflation and increased government spending led to an increase in taxes to 1 ruble in 1794. By 1867, the amount of the tax depended on the locality and ranged from 1 ruble 15 kopecks to 2 rubles 61 kopecks.
In the 18th century, the poll tax accounted for 50% of state revenues, later this share decreased as indirect taxation developed.
In 1866, with the exception of Bessarabia and Siberia, taxes were no longer collected from the philistines and guilds.
Difficulties with tax collection and huge arrears led to the fact that from January 1, 1887, the poll tax, as an all-Russian tax, ceased to exist and after this period continued to be collected only in Siberia (until 1897).
Notes
Links
Literature
- Rukovsky I.P., Historical and statistical information about poll taxes, in the collection: Tr. Commission for the revision of the system of taxes and fees, v. 1, St. Petersburg, 1866.
- Troitsky S. M., The financial policy of Russian absolutism in the 18th century, M., 1966.
- P. Milyukov, "The State Economy of Russia in the First Quarter of the 18th Century."
- V. Klyuchevsky, “The soul tax and the abolition of servility in Russia” (“Russian Thought”, 1886).
- M. Alekseenko, "The current legislation on direct taxes" (St. Petersburg, 1879)
- I. Rukovsky, “Historical and statistical information about poll taxes” (in “Proceedings of the Commission for the revision of the system of taxes and fees”, vol. I.
- V. Yarotsky, “Abolition of the poll tax and related reforms” (“Proceedings of the Free Economic Society”, 1886, No. 6 and 7.
see also
Links
Poll tax
The poll tax is a tax introduced by Peter 1, replacing it with a tax on taxable yards. The filing significantly expanded the number of people who had to pay it, as a result of which the main objective king - to increase the flow of money to the treasury. The poll tax was paid by about 5.8 million people, and its value was 74 and 120 kopecks (depending on the class to which the person belonged).
Prerequisites for the reform
Peter 1 is known for creating taxes on literally everything. You can often hear a joke that in the era of Peter the Great they did not pay, except perhaps only for air. It really is.
Poll tax: the history of this phenomenon in Russia
The favorite brainchild of the king (the army and navy) was eaten by gigantic money, which at the beginning of the reign there was nothing to compensate. For example, in 1710, taxes were collected for 3.1 million rubles, but the total expenditure of the treasury was 3.8 million, of which 2.7-2.8 million (in different sources the numbers are slightly different) went to the army and navy.
There was not enough money, and Peter even introduced a special position - the profit-maker. Profit-makers are people who performed only 1 function - they were looking for means of enriching the treasury. Speaking more in simple words- they came up with new taxes as the easiest way to get money.
The essence of the tax
Until 1724 in Russia according to tax yards. They are based on the availability of land and peasants, as a result of which the amount of the tax was calculated. Peter 1, who was looking for all sorts of ways to replenish the treasury, replaced this tax head tax. That is, now the tax was paid from each person. For these purposes, a census was conducted in 1718, which recorded about 5.8 million inhabitants in the country. In reality, this figure was higher, since many were hidden from census takers in order to pay less money later. During the census, for the first time, they recorded not only residents who were taxed, but also classes that used to be free (free people, walking people, serfs).
Starting from 1724, the following poll tax rates were established:
- 70 kopecks from each person, regardless of his age.
- 1.2 rubles from those who were not dependent on peasants.
In fact, the price of freedom was set (unofficially, of course) - 40 kopecks.
The poll tax significantly increased budget revenues. In 1725, only about 9 million rubles of taxes were collected, while in the middle of Peter's reign, they collected about 3 million rubles.
LECTURE XXXVIII
Emperor Alexander III. - The attitude of society towards him before his accession to the throne. — His real views. - The first steps of Emperor Alexander III. - The struggle of two directions in the highest ruling spheres. - Meeting March 8, 1881 - Fluctuations. - Katkov and Aksakov. - Agitation of Pobedonostsev. - Manifesto April 29, 1881 - Resignation of Loris-Melikov and some other ministers. - Ministry of N. P. Ignatiev. - His program. – Measures for improvement economic situation people. - Mandatory redemption. - Noble propaganda. - Knowledgeable people. - Reduced redemption payments. - The politics of Bunge. - Abolition of the poll tax. - Introduction of tax inspection.
Personality of Alexander III
Emperor Alexander III was, as you know, the second son of Emperor Alexander II. His eldest son was Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, who died of consumption in 1865, already an adult young man. Alexander Alexandrovich, therefore, was not intended to reign and was brought up as an ordinary grand duke, who would mainly have a military career. Therefore, until 1865, no measures were taken to prepare him for the cause of ruling a great country, and only when his elder brother died did they begin to take care of expanding the education he had received until then. A more or less satisfactory set of professors was invited, among whom one of the important places was occupied by our famous historian S. M. Solovyov, and even earlier that K. P. Pobedonostsev was also invited, who later, in the reign of Alexander III, played such a prominent reactionary role. Then Pobedonostsev was not considered a reactionary; he, on the contrary, in his time took an intimate part in the development of judicial reform, and, undoubtedly, was one of the most brilliant Russian professors-civilists; his course civil law for a very long time was recognized - and still is recognized - as one of the classic benefits of this kind. Other professors of a more or less progressive direction were also invited, but, nevertheless, the young crown prince did not develop any liberal mood, liberal precepts and principles from this teaching. In his personal and family life, he seemed to be a rather original person in court spheres. He married very early on the bride of his late brother, the Danish princess Dagmar, and, having married, led the life of a private person; very soon he gained a reputation as a good family man, modest and not fond of the magnificent court environment; in his spare time he was engaged in music and Russian history in his close circle. He was especially fond of Russian history, and, by the way, the current Imperial Russian Historical Society, of which he was the first chairman, owes its existence to him.
Partly due to this situation in the life of Tsarevich Alexander, and even more due to the fact that society had very little information about him, a legend was created about him as a very liberal person.
But, as we have already seen, a few months before his accession, Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich, on the contrary, showed himself to be a definite conservative and did not promise any sympathy for any reforms in a liberal spirit. It was with this attitude that he ascended the throne.
The first acts of the reign of Alexander III
On March 2, 1881, while receiving members of the State Council and the highest officials of the court who took the oath, Emperor Alexander III declared, however, that, entering the throne of his father at a difficult moment, he hopes to follow in all his precepts and policies. Thus, this first step promised a seemingly liberal and humane reign. Then, in a circular dispatch dated March 4, sent to the representatives of Russia to foreign powers, it was announced that the Sovereign Emperor, entering the ancestral throne at such a difficult time, wishes to maintain peace with all powers and especially concentrate his attention on internal affairs and on those socio-economic tasks that are put forward by the new time. And this dispatch also made a favorable impression on society.
Meanwhile, the question arose of what to do with the report on the proposed reforms, which were to be initiated by the opening of the commissions designed by Loris-Melikov. This report was approved by the late Emperor Alexander II on the morning of March 1, the very day he was assassinated. Emperor Alexander III knew that the late sovereign ordered a special meeting to be held in the Winter Palace on March 4 in order to discuss whether to publish the government message on the opening of commissions or not to publish, and the very question of opening commissions was considered in any case already decided.
Loris-Melikov, in his report, naturally presented this issue to the new sovereign as a kind of testament left from the late emperor, and Emperor Alexander III looked at it in the first minute, taking the earlier decision to convene commissions as a will of his father, and moreover testament, which undoubtedly lays the last line on the general character of his reign, a reign in which the most important transformations of modern times were carried out, affecting the life of all classes of Russia and its entire social and civil system.
However, on the question of whether or not to publish this decision in a special government message, Emperor Alexander III decided to convene a special meeting, in fact, a meeting of the Council of Ministers, supplemented only by Count S. G. Stroganov, who had long been recognized as the head of the court conservative party. On March 8, this meeting took place in the Winter Palace, and immediately a struggle was revealed between two opposite, hostile, mutually exclusive directions - one progressive one, headed by Loris-Melikov and to which the Minister of Finance A. A. Abaza belonged from among the ministers and in particular the Minister of War D. A. Milyutin, as well as the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, at that time the head of the naval department and chairman of the State Council. The opposite direction - a clearly reactionary direction - was presented primarily by K.P. Pobedonostsev, who, not long before this, was a member of that supreme administrative commission, which was led by Loris-Melikov in 1880. On the proposal of Loris-Melikov, Pobedonostsev was also appointed chief prosecutor Holy Synod instead of gr. D. A. Tolstoy in April of the same 1880. Pobedonostsev, who had previously lectured to Alexander Alexandrovich and his older brother, enjoyed his special confidence. Before the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander III, he was not considered, however, as already mentioned, a representative of a clearly reactionary trend, because he was one of the drafters of the Judicial Charters of Alexander II. Nevertheless, in 1881 it was he who was the head of the reactionary trend in the meeting described, and at his suggestion Count Stroganov was also invited there, who in this case was his main support.
These two persons were joined by the former Minister of the Interior Makov, a completely insignificant person, and the other two Grand Dukes who participated in the meeting, Vladimir Alexandrovich and Mikhail Nikolaevich, and from the ministers, Minister of Justice D.N. Nabokov, who was inclined towards a liberal course, but hesitantly supported Loris-Melikov; Prince Konstantin Nikolaevich and Loris-Melikov, and since now the project was being discussed not by him, Valuev, but by Loris-Melikov, he supported him very weakly.
At this conference, it was again revealed, in fact, quite clearly, that Emperor Alexander III completely sympathized with the speeches of the reactionaries that were delivered here, and was very unsympathetic to those statements that were made by the liberal part of the conference, this was especially pronounced on about the statement made by D. A. Milyutin, who very strongly supported the speech of Loris-Melikov, insisting on the need to meet the public opinion of the country, pointing out that the publication of the proposed government message would immediately give a tone of progressiveness to the new reign that was pleasant for society, and at that arguing at the same time that the report under discussion by Loris-Melikov does not contain any elements of a constitution and restrictions on autocracy, and it was precisely on this point that the attacks of representatives of the opposite direction, reactionaries, who tried to prove that this whole measure was directed towards a constitution, were mainly concentrated, pernicious d for Russia. Stroganov assured that with the introduction of such a system, such a "parliament", "varmints" would go into action, who would seize power in their own hands, and Pobedonostsev said that this would be the final completion of the regime of those "talking talks", as he put it, that had already been carried out into life in the previous reign in the form of zemstvo institutions, new courts and organs of unbridled press, which, in his opinion, were worthless, the commission proposed by Loris-Melikov would be the “supreme talking shop” that would prepare the death of Russia. Pobedonostsev began his speech in an extremely excited tone, arguing that, just as the Poles shouted at one time finis Poloniae [the end of Poland], so here it is necessary to say finis Russiae [the end of Russia]. Emperor Alexander III immediately, by the way, referred to certain advice of Emperor Wilhelm I, with which he addressed his late father on this occasion, and stated that Wilhelm pointed out the danger of the constitutional regime in Russia, because he had heard vague rumors about that something is being prepared, and that, if there is still a possibility, he advised to retreat, and if this possibility is no longer there, then give the constitution as truncated as possible. In addition, Emperor Alexander III also referred to the Danish ministers, who pointed out to him the bad influence of constitutional institutions in Denmark.
However, no matter how obvious Alexander's ultra-conservative views and the tendency to heed the advice of Russian and foreign reactionaries were again manifested here, nevertheless, no definite decision was made on the merits of the case, just as it was not decided to publish the message under discussion, and it was never published. although the idea of it has not yet been formally rejected.
Resignation of Loris-Melikov
The fluctuations continued. On the one hand, they depended on the fact that Emperor Alexander III was embarrassed by the thought that there was involved, as it were, the will of his late father, his dying will, which the emperor did not dare to directly oppose; on the other hand, he was embarrassed by the rumors that reached him about the mood of society and even the people. He was told by persons close to him that the common people were confused by rumors that after the death of the Tsar-Liberator serfdom could be restored; he was told by court liberals, such as the adjutant wing, Count P. P. Shuvalov, who sought to direct matters towards the constitution, that public opinion in the country was extremely elevated and that the only measure to calm the excited society was to declare a liberal course by the new government. Despite his own conservative convictions, Emperor Alexander III was so embarrassed by this statement that he continued to hesitate and even seemed to sometimes show an inclination to follow this liberal advice. Pobedonostsev, for his part, tried in every possible way to dissuade Emperor Alexander of the existence and strength of the progressive mood of society, which the liberals of court circles pointed out to him.
In this regard, Pobedonostsev found support in the Moscow publicists, Katkov and, to some extent, Aksakov, whom he could point out to the tsar as highly influential representatives of the country's public opinion, not unknown even to Emperor Alexander himself. Katkov at that time was already a completely definite representative of extreme reaction and then wrote in his Moskovskiye Vedomosti that the revolutionary movement undoubtedly does not come from outside or from within the country, but that it “has built its nest on the eve of power”, aiming at bureaucratic spheres - in gr. Loris-Melikov and other representatives of the liberal trend in the government and at court.
Iv. Aksakov at this time, not being, in essence, a reactionary, was, however, extremely shocked by the act of March 1 itself. Soon after this event, he appeared in St. Petersburg and delivered a thunderous speech in Slavic society not only against the revolutionaries, but in general against any Western liberalism, in the spirit not only of the Slavophiles, but also to a large extent reactionary. In this mood of his, he was also a good support for Pobedonostsev, who was in a hurry to point out to Emperor Alexander that the main representatives of the Moscow press, who in the eyes of the sovereign were spokesmen for the public opinion of the country, show that there is no desire for a constitutional order among the well-minded, at least part no society at all. With this, Pobedonostsev hit the target the more easily, since Emperor Alexander III himself was very inclined to such a conclusion, since it coincided with his own sympathies.
As a result, Pobedonostsev managed to receive an order from the emperor to draw up a manifesto in the appropriate spirit, in secret from the rest of the ministers, and the sovereign decided on April 28 to sign it. Thus, on April 29, 1881, this significant act, which was supposed to put an end to the fluctuations that had continued up to that time, came as a complete surprise to Loris-Melikov and other ministers.
The manifesto said, among other things:
“In the midst of our great sorrow, the voice of God commands us to stand up cheerfully for the work of government, in the hope of Divine Providence, with faith in the strength and truth of autocratic power, which we are called upon to assert and protect for the good of the people from any encroachments on it.
These words in the manifesto of April 29, 1881, of course, were regarded as a definite indication from above that no constitution should be thought of and that the principle of autocracy was definitely placed at the forefront of the government regime in the future.
As soon as this manifesto became known, just before its publication, to Loris-Melikov, he immediately decided to resign, and together with Loris-Melikov, Minister of Finance A.A. Abaza and Minister of War D.A. resigned. Milyutin, who played such a prominent role in government spheres under the late Emperor Alexander II. When Emperor Alexander III asked Milyutin what he intended to do now, Milyutin, as they said at that time, allegedly answered that he would leave Petersburg and write the history of his sovereign ...
The beginning of the ministry of Nikolai Ignatiev
From the next course of all these circumstances, we can conclude that by April 29 the reactionary trend had won a decisive victory over the progressive one. However, in reality this was not yet entirely true: although the representatives of the progressive trend had suffered an undeniable defeat, in essence, power had not yet passed into the hands of the reactionaries. This can be seen from the choice that was made by the sovereign to replace the departed ministers and from the program that was outlined in the manifesto immediately after the phrase I have just quoted.
It was not reactionaries who were appointed to the places of the departed ministers: N. P. Ignatiev, who at that time declared himself a champion of Slavophile ideas and, together with I. S. Aksakov, dreamed, as he later quite definitely expressed it, of convening a Zemsky cathedral, deliberative, of course, character. Then, instead of Abaza, his comrade N. Kh. Bunge was appointed to the post of Minister of Finance, who was a man, although, in general sense words, perhaps, of a conservative way of thinking, but at the same time a sincere supporter and participant in the reforms of the 60s, who declared himself a person with certain democratic views, striving, in any case, to possibly alleviate the lot of the masses, so in general he also far from being a reactionary.
Finally, instead of the Minister of Public Education A. A. Saburov, who had resigned a little earlier in connection with the scandal that the revolutionaries had thrown at him at the university act on February 8, a person who was not at all reactionary, Baron Nikolai, was appointed, who immediately became very definitely pursue Golovnin's policy, renewed by his predecessor Saburov, and actively fought against Pobedonostsev.
In the manifesto of April 29, along with the phrase about unlimited autocracy, full respect was definitely expressed for the great reforms of the past reign and it was said that these reforms would not only be strengthened and supported, but also developed further. Consequently, in general, this manifesto, again, did not yet signify an unconditionally reactionary trend. And this was even more clearly emphasized by the circular of the new Minister of the Interior on the very day of his appointment - May 6, 1881. Here Ignatiev indicated that the government would take measures to establish live communication between the government and the country, the live participation of local figures in state affairs in fulfillment of the highest plans. This again marked the intention to find a well-known, albeit very modest, form of participation of representatives of society in central state activity, that is, approximately the same thing that Loris-Melikov wanted to do in this respect.
Then the circular stated that the rights of zemstvo and city institutions would remain inviolable and would even be restored to the same extent, on the basis of the Regulations of 1864. special attention on the part of the government, and the peasants will not only be guaranteed all the rights and freedoms previously granted, but measures will also be taken to alleviate the hardships that the peasants had, mainly tax, to meet their needs, land in particular, and to improve rural public devices and controls.
Thus, you see that in this circular of Ignatiev, all the intentions of Loris-Melikov, all those measures to improve the economic situation of the people that he promised to carry out, were perceived and planned for execution. At the same time, those senators who were sent to audit the provinces were now expected to make the results of their audits the basis of the proposed changes. Indeed, we see that very soon, just a month after the publication of this circular, Count Ignatiev seemed to begin to carry out the live participation of representatives of the local society in government affairs that he had promised, because in June 1881 the first session of the so-called then "knowledgeable people" from the localities, and although these knowledgeable people were not elected by the zemstvos, but invited by the government itself, it must be said that they were elected by him from among the progressive elements of the zemstvos, and many outstanding zemstvos, like Prince. Vasilchikov, Kolyupanova and others were invited to be part of this session. They were offered for discussion not some empty questions, but questions that were really put on the agenda of the then life and were of very serious importance for the broad masses of the people. Thus, the question of lowering redemption payments was proposed to the first session of knowledgeable people; the second session, the question of regulating resettlement was proposed, which was one of the main palliative means for improving the situation of peasants in land-poor areas, and, in addition, the drinking question, which was also very important, since, firstly, it seemed to be a question of reducing drunkenness on the other hand, it was a significant question state budget, since the treasury received a huge part of its income from the drinking business.
Measures of Alexander III to alleviate the situation of the peasants
The issue of compulsory redemption of peasant allotments
At the same time, the issues of improving the condition of the masses of the people, put forward by the press in the 1970s and recognized as subject to urgent resolution in the era of the "dictatorship of the heart", received movement and further development in the government offices themselves and in general. Among them, first of all, was the question of compulsory redemption, that is, the question of replacing the quitrents of "temporarily liable" peasants that still existed until then with a mandatory redemption for landowners. At that time, six-sevenths of all the estates were already on redemption, and one-seventh, which was expressed in 1,400 thousand souls of peasants, paid dues to the landowners, and their payment could continue without a deadline. In the Regulations of February 19, as you remember, there was an article that indicated that in 20 years the question of the amount of dues for "temporarily liable" peasants could be revised and, of course, not in the sense of reducing them, since it was assumed that dues depend on profitability land, which was supposed to rise over time. Meanwhile, the government, which was already aware, after investigations of the 70s, of the disproportion between these dues and incomes and the extraordinary burden of all kinds of taxes on the masses of the people, finally decided to provide some relief to the peasants in this regard.
Under Loris-Melikov, the issue of compulsory redemption quickly came into play; in January 1881, a meeting of the State Council was held, in which this issue was resolved in principle in a positive sense; Namely, first, in the united departments of economy and laws, it was decided to establish an obligatory redemption of peasant dues on those estates that had not yet begun voluntary redemption, and then in general meeting State Council the same issue was resolved positively.
Here it should be noted that it was on this issue that for the first time in the early 80s we are confronted with the beginning of reactionary agitation of the nobility, which, as soon as the essential material interests of the nobility were affected, immediately awakened. The first voice from this reaction, heard in the general meeting of the State Council, was the voice former minister Timashev, who was still an ardent serf-owner in the era of the peasant reform, and who here made a statement that he sees in this obligatory redemption a violation of the sacred rights of property, especially since the landlords were supposed to issue a redemption loan in the amount of only 80% of the amount that should have been issued if the ransom had been by voluntary agreement. Timashev ended his speech with these words:
“Let there be no reproach later that there was not a single voice in the State Council in defense of property, in defense of the right, which is protected by the current Regulations of February 19 and which will be shaken by the measure proposed by the Minister of Finance!”
However, at the same time, the Minister of Finance Abaza very successfully answered this trick, pointing out that Adjutant General Timashev had probably forgotten his former position when twenty years ago he was an enemy of the Regulations of February 19, until it became law, and when he was precisely among those who saw in the very Regulations of February 19 a measure that shakes property. Now he, Timashev, obviously having abandoned his previous delusion, points out that this Regulation protects the interests of property; apparently he still makes the same mistake when he asserts that the prestige of property will be shaken by the introduction of compulsory redemption.
But, despite the unanimous decision of the State Council, of course, approved by Emperor Alexander III, nevertheless, noble agitation began, and very soon it was expressed in the decisions of some noble assemblies (Tambov, Moscow, etc.), which indicated injustice in relation to landlords of this measure. They asserted that, as it were, one-fifth of the redemption sum, which should be due to them in the capitalization of peasant quitrent payments, would be taken from the landowners quite arbitrarily. These statements of the nobility had an effect on Emperor Alexander III, and although Ignatiev very staunchly supported the decision of the State Council in this case, arguing that, in fact, there is no rationality in what the nobility declares, and that those landowners who have already transferred their peasants to redemption almost everywhere without voluntary transactions with the peasants, and at the unilateral demand of the owners and, therefore, also without peasant additional payments, they also lost a fifth of the redemption sum due to them; the same landowners, who have not yet entered into a voluntary deal with the peasants, just enjoyed high dues longer than others and, therefore, deserve less support from the government than others, but Emperor Alexander III, who agreed to the issuance of the law, which was issued on December 28 1881, nevertheless continued after its publication to listen to the complaints heard among the reactionary nobility. By the way, he was delivered a lengthy letter from Count A. A. Bobrinsky, the provincial marshal of the St. Petersburg nobility, who directly stated that the nobility, in essence, was robbed and that the government, if it wants to restore justice, should not only issue state funds to the nobility the law of December 28, 1881, a fifth of the redemption sum, which, by the way, according to Reitern’s calculation, represented about 44 million rubles, but that it should also give remuneration to those landowners who even earlier transferred their peasants to redemption of their own free will with deprivation of one-fifth or one-fourth of the redemption fee. However, after a new consideration of the issue, this letter remained without consequences, and that agitation of the nobility, which at that time was just beginning, this time did not lead to the goal.
Thus, already under the new ministers Ignatiev and Bunga, this issue was resolved quite successfully. Then a whole series of new legal provisions began, which are known in the literature under the name of Bunge's reforms, although a significant part of them were prepared in the era of the "dictatorship of the heart."
Reduction in redemption payments
In the foreground was the question of alleviating the situation of those peasants who had already switched over to redemption, that is, the question of lowering redemption payments. This question, as has already been said, was left to the decision of those "informed people" who met for the first time in June 1881. It must be said that the government presented a detailed draft on this issue to the meeting of "informed people": it proposed to donate 9 million rubles annually. rub. from the total amount of redemption payments; moreover, this is a total decrease of 9 million rubles. it supposed to be divided among the individual provinces in such a way that the most burdened 23 provinces were put in the foreground, of which a particularly large amount was assigned to the provinces that were not black earth and at the same time non-industrial, where the peasants were in a particularly difficult situation, since there is land was bad, and there were no earnings. The largest amount was supposed, quite rightly, to be allocated to the Smolensk province. In general, of these 9 million rubles. it was planned to allocate about 7.5 million rubles for these 23 provinces, and the remaining 1.5 million rubles. was supposed to be distributed among the rest of the provinces.
"Informed people" all reacted to this proposal sympathetically; the majority, however, did not fully agree with the government, acknowledging that the statistics provided by the government were insufficiently accurate; pointing to the need for a general reduction in payments throughout Russia, the meeting proposed that all redemption payments be reduced everywhere by 1 rub. from each allotment, and then, in addition, to make a special reduction in payments in those areas that were especially overburdened with them, and to allocate an amount of 5 million rubles for this special reduction, thus considering the total amount of the reduction in redemption payments not 9 million ., and 12 million rubles.
The government agreed with this opinion, and in the above-mentioned law on December 28, 1881, on the basis of precisely this conclusion of "knowledgeable people", a decree was also included to reduce all redemption payments by 1 ruble everywhere, and then another 5 million rubles were allocated. for an additional special reduction in those provinces that deserved special attention, and a preliminary discussion of the question of the distribution of these 5 million rubles. between individual provinces was granted to the zemstvos. At the same time, it should be noted that in some provinces, which are very few in number, however, reactionary voices were again heard from the nobility, although the reduction in redemption payments was made not at its expense, but at the expense of the treasury, or, more precisely, due to the redemption operation in previous years, for it was calculated that the redemption operation was generally so successful for the treasury that large profits accumulated, and up to 14 million rubles ended up in the main redemption institution. surplus still on January 1, 1885, to cover all the costs of the operation. It was from these surpluses that it became possible to carry out the lowering of redemption payments, which was recognized as necessary. Despite this, in the Simbirsk provincial zemstvo assembly then for the first time the voice of one nobleman (who later played a major role in the history of Russian reaction) - A.P. Pazukhin, who then tried to convince the Simbirsk zemstvo assembly to say that the Simbirsk peasantry did not need any reduction in payments. However, here, too, it was recognized that a special (insignificant) reduction, which was proposed by the government, should also be accepted for the Simbirsk province.
Abolition of the poll tax
The next reform, which was carried out under Bunga, was the abolition of the poll tax. You remember how important this question was, admittedly, as early as 1870, when it was first brought before the zemstvos, was discussed by them and resolved in one way or another, but did not receive any further movement in government spheres.
Now that Bunge was at the head of the Ministry of Finance, he decided in 1882 to finally set about resolving this issue. It must be said that Bunge was in the sphere financial policy in a close sense, the successor of Reitern; namely, he was his successor in an effort to raise the exchange rate of our ruble and approve the balance of the budget above all. Hence, of course, he importance received both protectionism in customs policy and savings in the costs of individual departments; however, with regard to this latter, it must be admitted that he succeeded in it poorly, because he was not so influential as to curb the appetites of other ministries, and besides, he had to conduct state economy in the difficult years that came after the war, when its results completely upset what Reitern had done to maintain the exchange rate of the credit ruble.
Despite this, and already in direct contrast to Reitern, Bunge tried to meet the needs of the people even when this involved some donations to the treasury. In this regard, he continued the policy of Loris-Melikov and Abaza, dodging with more or less skill in his undoubtedly very difficult position and sometimes taking reluctant and contradictory measures. Thus, in abolishing the poll tax, he had to face great difficulties precisely on the question of balancing the budget at that time. After all, the poll tax gave the budget about 40 million rubles. therefore, it was rather difficult to give up such an amount every year, given the still modest size of the then budget, but meanwhile Bunge was well aware of the injustice of this tax, and all those difficult legal consequences for the population that arose from it. After all, you remember that, precisely because of the existence of the poll tax, there was a mutual guarantee, because otherwise it was impossible to ensure the tax imposed on individuals, and this mutual responsibility entailed both the restriction of the freedom of movement of the peasantry, and the actual restriction of the peasants in the right to choose their occupations.
Nikolai Khristoforovich Bunge. Portrait by I. Tyurin, 1887
Therefore, the question of the abolition of the poll tax was a matter of great importance in relation to legal status people. Bunge understood this very well and actively strove to resolve this issue in one way or another; when he was faced with the task of how to replace the poll tax, how to cover an annual loss in income of 40 million rubles, he decided to cover part of this loss by increasing the tax on alcohol, i.e., the tax, which, in essence, fell on the most drinking sections of the same tax-paying population, the rest of the loss he had to take directly from the same tax-paying population, only dividing it into layers of the peasantry, better off and less burdened with taxes.
Bunge so frankly wanted to raise the issue by increasing the quitrent tax of the state peasants, but fears were expressed in the State Council that this might cause an unfavorable impression among the people and that it was better, therefore, to somehow cover up the essence of the matter. As a cover, a method was invented that can hardly be considered successful; namely, it was suddenly recognized as necessary to transfer the state peasants from quitrent to obligatory redemption, that is, to force to redeem their land those peasants who, in essence, paid a simple land tax under the name of quitrent tax. In this case, the Council of State suddenly took the view that they should be made “full owners” of their allotments, which, in essence, they did not become even after the redemption; but under this “plausible” pretext, it was recognized that it was possible to increase their taxes for land, and they were increased by a total of 45%, and this increase went to cover the loss from the elimination of the poll tax, which, of course, was a big minus in the implementation of the tax reform . It must also be said that this reform was carried out with some installment plan: it was in two terms - from January 1, 1883 and January 1, 1884, that the poll tax was folded only from the most overburdened peasants, and from the peasants of other areas it was folded only from January 1 1886
Along with this, mention should be made of Bunge's serious attempt to bring about a significant streamlining in the very collection of taxes, which until then was carried out by the police with the use of heavy and ugly forms of collection, and the most necessary property in peasant life was often sold, and often the peasants had to sell before receiving a new crop to bring in give bread on the vine. Thus, the very payment of taxes ruined the population, on which the well-being of the state also depended. Bunge, as a learned financier and economist, well understood the senselessness of this order and therefore insisted that tax inspectors be introduced, who are entrusted with both the collection of taxes and the collection of information about the prosperity and solvency of the population in order to further regulate the tax system.
A report on this meeting, written down in great detail by one of its participants, was published in the journal Byloye for 1906, in No. 1, pp. 189–194, then reprinted in full in V. Ya. Bogucharsky’s book “From the History of the Political Struggle ". M., 1912, p. 259 et seq.
About the role of Shuvalov and other like-minded people at that time, see the same book by Mr. Bogucharsky and a whole series of articles caused by the appearance of this book, a list of which we give in the bibliography of the reign of Alexander III, printed at the end of this part of the "Course".
This whole story is told in detail according to the documents in interesting article G. Kovanko"The Liberation of the Peasants and the Compulsory Ransom" in the June issue of "Russian Thought" for 1912.
This small document completed the whole era of the poll tax in Russia, introduced by Peter I. According to the highest approved opinion of the State Council, from January 1, 1887, the poll tax was canceled for all payers of the Russian Empire, except for Siberia. For the main territory of Siberia (Tomsk, Tobolsk, Yenisei and Irkutsk provinces), the poll tax was abolished by S.Yu. Witte from January 1, 1899 by the law of January 19, 1898. However, the law did not apply to the Altai District of the Tomsk Governorate, the Amur Governor General, the Yakutsk Region, the Kirensky District of the Irkutsk Governorate, the Turukhansk Territory of the Yenisei Governorate, the Narym Territory of the Tomsk Governorate, Berezovsky and Surgut district of the Tobolsk province.
The introduction of the poll tax in Russia by Peter I was caused by an increase in the size of the regular army and the need for sources for its maintenance. In 1718, a national census was taken in order to decompose into the number of male souls the amount needed to provide for the army. Initially, it was ordered to write to the soul tax of peasants, beans, business and backyard people, and single-palace residents. In 1720, yard people and churchmen were recorded in the poll tax. According to the results of the census, there were a little more than 5 million souls, which determined the amount of tax per soul at 74 kopecks. In 1722, the poll tax was also extended to the townspeople in the amount of 1 ruble. 20 kop. from the soul. But the collection of the poll tax began only in 1724.
The poll tax was estate, and not general tax. Already under Peter I, nobility and representatives of the higher clergy were not included in the revision tales. In 1775, merchants were exempted from the poll tax, for whom guild duties were established. In 1863, the philistines stopped paying the poll tax: instead, a tax on real estate in cities, towns and towns was introduced. But this measure was extended to the philistines of Siberia only in 1873. After all classes, except peasants, were exempted from paying the poll tax, this tax turned exclusively into a peasant tax.
Increasing the poll tax from the end of the eighteenth century. was associated with the cost of the device and maintenance of land and waterways. The next round of increasing the poll tax began in 1861. Moreover, the increase took place taking into account regional characteristics. After 1867, until the very abolition, there were no increases in the poll tax.
Under Peter I, the colonels and commissars of the regiments living in the localities collected the poll tax, Catherine I entrusted this matter to the governors and governors, and Anna Ioannovna again transferred the tax collection to the military. Finally, under Catherine II, the collection of the poll tax was entrusted to the landowners, their clerks and elders. With the establishment in 1775 of the Treasury Chambers, it was the latter who were entrusted with directing the distribution and collection of the poll tax. The poll tax was levied on the revision souls, the number of which remained unchanged from revision to revision: those who died in the interval between revisions were not excluded from salaries, and those born were not included in them. The entire peasant society was responsible for the receipt of the poll tax. In turn, the distribution of the per capita tax among individual payers was carried out by the peasant societies themselves, taking into account the size of allotments, the number of souls in the family, and so on.
The more the gap between farms widened as they developed under capitalist conditions, the less acceptable for the state became taxation per capita, which did not take this gap into account. Due to the existence of the poll tax, there was a mutual guarantee, because otherwise it was impossible to ensure the tax imposed on individuals. In turn, mutual responsibility entailed both the restriction of the freedom of movement of the peasantry, and the actual restriction of the peasants in the right to choose their occupations. Therefore, from the beginning of the 1860s. the question of the abolition of the poll tax was repeatedly raised along with the preparations for the abolition of serfdom. This question has received great importance since 1870, when it was first brought before the zemstvos, was discussed by them and somehow resolved, but did not receive any further movement in government spheres.
Finally, in 1879 a commission was formed to discuss the proposed abolition of the poll tax and to seek other sources of income to replace it. The commission, which consisted of officials from various departments and invited experts, drew up a draft on three types of replacement of the poll tax: an income tax of 35 million rubles. from income from commercial and industrial capital, crafts and personal labor; personal tax for 16 million rubles. from persons of working age; estate tax of 18 million rubles. from the estates of all without distinction of estates.
First of all, the authorities tried to ease the social tension in the countryside. In 1881, redemption payments were lowered, since peasants freed from serfdom were charged more than was paid under the obligations of the redemption operation. With the help of the Peasant Land Bank, established in 1882, which assisted the peasants in acquiring former landowners' lands, the authorities tried to solve the problem of peasant land shortages. Thanks to the support of this bank, the peasants acquired in 1883-1900. 5 million acres of land.
When Bunge became head of the Ministry of Finance, he decided in 1882 to finally take up the solution of this issue. In May 1882, the Supreme Decree of Alexander III followed, which was ordered to abolish: the poll tax in favor of the treasury from the townspeople; a poll tax from landless peasants and householders assigned to the volosts; a poll tax from the peasants who received an allotment from the landowner on the basis of Article 123 of the General Regulations and Article 116 of the Little Russian local situation. Also, Minister of Finance N.Kh. Bunge was ordered to develop considerations for the gradual (within 8 years, starting from January 1, 1883) the abolition of the poll tax from the rest of the categories of the population.
By the coronation manifesto of May 15, 1883, all arrears in the poll tax were forgiven. In the same month, landless, factory and factory peasants were exempted from the poll tax. For the former landlord peasants (in some localities and for other payers), the poll tax was reduced by half. Finally, on May 28, 1885, the emperor approved the opinion of the State Council on the termination of the collection of the poll tax from January 1, 1886: from all peasants who were subject to the provisions of February 19, 1861 and June 21, 1863; from the Baltic peasants, with the exception of those settled on state land; from the Little Russian Cossacks and other categories of the population, consisting of both special and general salaries, with the exception of those paying quitrent tax. And from January 1, l887, it was ordered to abolish the collection of the poll tax from all categories of the population of the empire, except for Siberia.
Bunge tried to meet the needs of the people even when this involved some sacrifices for the treasury. With the abolition of the poll tax, he had to meet with great difficulties precisely on the question of balancing the budget, in which the poll tax annually gave about 40 million rubles. It was supposed to partially compensate for this by increasing the tax on alcohol and the quitrent tax from state peasants, from which the government in 1886 refused to increase for 20 years. A compromise was found in the transfer of state peasants from dues to compulsory redemption, during which their taxes for land were increased by an average of 45%. That is, the transfer of state peasants for redemption turned out to be nothing more than an increase in dues. However, this reform was carried out with some installment plan: from January 1, 1883 and from January 1, 1884, the poll tax was levied from the most overburdened peasants, and from the peasants of other areas - from January 1, 1886.
In addition to the tax on alcohol, taxes on sugar and tobacco were increased, stamp duty and customs rates on many imported items were increased, and a tax on the gold industry was introduced. Also increased the tax on real estate in cities and land tax, introduced a tax on income from money capital and tax on gifts and inheritances, increased taxes on foreign passports, etc.
The activities of the Minister of Finance included the creation of the institution of tax inspectors, who were entrusted with both the collection of taxes and the collection of information about the prosperity and solvency of the population in order to further regulate the tax system. Prior to this, the collection of taxes was carried out by the police using harsh forms of collection, up to the sale of property necessary in peasant life and even bread on the vine.
As a result of the transformations, the state quitrent tax became the main peasant tax in the state budget, in which the income principle began to manifest itself more clearly. The binding to the allotment was preserved: only users of state lands were subject to the payment of quitrent. At the same time, the main criterion for determining the tax salary was the cost or profitability of land. But auxiliary signs were also taken into account, which made it possible to assess the economic viability of a given village: the amount of outstanding arrears, the number of inhabitants, etc. Although the reformed peasant taxation remained far from a full-fledged embodiment of the income principle, the most obvious anachronism in the tax system was eliminated.
The highest approved opinion of the State Council (Sobr. Uzak. June 14, 1885, art. 551a) - On the abolition of the poll tax and the transformation of the quitrent tax
The Council of State, in the United Departments of State Economy and Laws and in the General Assembly, having considered the proposal of the Minister of Finance on the abolition of the poll tax and the transformation of the quitrent tax, decided by opinion:
1. Stop collecting the poll tax from January 1, 1886:
a) from all peasants, former landowners, appanage and others, to whom the Regulations of February 19, 1861 and June 26, 1863 apply (36657, 39792);
b) from the peasants of the Baltic provinces who are in a special position, with the exception of those settled on state lands and
c) from the Little Russian Cossacks and other villagers, consisting of both special and general salaries, with the exception of those paying quitrent tax.
2. From January 1, 1887, the poll tax is finally abolished for all payers in the Empire, with the exception of Siberia.
3. From the same January 1, 1887, in view of the end by that time of the period for which a constant amount of quitrent tax from state peasants was assigned [Vys. uk. November 24, 1866 (43888)], to transform this tax on the grounds necessary for its final redemption within a 44-year period.
4. To provide the Minister of Finance to proceed without delay to preparatory actions and drawing up assumptions: a) on the transformation of the quitrent tax from state peasants, so that the total amount of redemption payments that replace it exceeds by no more than 45 percent the current total amount of this tax, and that the distribution of the said payments among the villages be, as far as possible, commensurate with the value and profitability of the allotments at their disposal, and b) about the changes that should be made in the laws based on the account of the population by revision souls, about the order of responsibility for paying in the treasury of salaries and the passport system. Assumptions on the mentioned subjects, in communication with the relevant departments, to submit for consideration, established order, with such a calculation of time that their activation could follow from January 1, 1887.
Resolution. His Imperial Majesty, following the opinion in the General Assembly of the State Council, on the abolition of the poll tax and the transformation of quitrent taxes, deigned to approve the Highest and ordered to fulfill it.
Barabanov O.N. Reforms and counter-reforms in Russia XIX-XX centuries: International "round table" of the association of graduates ist. fak. Moscow State University // Vestnik Mosk. university Series 8. History. 1995. No. 5. S. 64-65.
Bokhanov A.N. Emperor Alexander III. M., 1998.
Korelin A.P. S.Yu. Witte and budgetary and financial reforms in Russia at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century // Otechestvennaya istoriya. 1999. No. 3. S. 42-64
Russian reformers, XIX - early XX centuries. / Ed. A.P. Korelin. M., 1995.
Stepanov V.L. N.Kh. Bunge: The fate of a reformer. M., 1998.
Which region of the Russian Empire was not covered by the abolition of the poll tax from January 1, 1887?
When was the poll tax introduced and how was it calculated?
Who is responsible for the abolition of the poll tax?
What are the consequences of abolishing the poll tax?
The introduction of the poll tax in Russia is associated with the name of Peter the Great. However, this form of tax existed long before its appearance in our country, on the territory of Ancient Rome, later in many European countries, and was abolished at the end of the 19th century after the introduction of a new income tax form.
In 1724, a total census of the population was completed in Russia, which did not include clergy and nobles. Based on the results of this event, a tax was determined, which from now on had to be paid by all men in the country, including newborns and the elderly. The poll tax is a special form of tax levied on certain residents of a country in favor of the state treasury. It should be recalled that such a tax (to file or tax) existed in Russia already from the 15th century, ministers of churches and the highest privileged classes were also exempted from paying it.
In the autumn of 1718, the emperor demanded to collect revision "tales", that is, to conduct a census of the entire male population of the country. "Tales" at that time were called special documents, which reflected the results of the census. This document indicated the owner of a certain yard and members of his family, patronymic, age). Representatives of the city council were involved in compiling revision "tales" in urban areas, in rural areas - elders, landowners or their managers. Revision "tales" were subject to mandatory clarification, in the periods between their collection, the absence or presence of a person at his place of residence was recorded. If a person was absent, the reason was indicated (death, escape, military service). All clarifications related to the year following the collection of "fairy tales". talking plain language, a person could die, and his family was obliged to pay a tax for him the next year after death. Such a census system allowed the state to increase tax collection and profit well from the so-called "dead souls."
The census, begun in 1718, was completed only by 1724, as a result of which about five million people (souls) were counted. Some historians believe that the poll tax, introduced by Peter the Great, had only one purpose - to collect money from the population for the maintenance of the active Russian army. The first rate of this tax was 80 kopecks per year per family member (male), in subsequent years it decreased to 74 kopecks. The Old Believers paid double rate poll tax until 1782, due to which the common population dubbed them “double-dwellers”. Until 1775, the merchant class was obliged to pay tax on an equal footing with the rest, then, specifically for them, interest charges were introduced from the capital they owned.
The gradual increase in state spending could not but affect the amount of tax levied on the country's ordinary population. By 1794, the poll tax increased to one ruble. From the middle of the 19th century, the size of the tax began to depend entirely on the place of residence of its payer. Residents of cities were required to pay annually to the state file in the amount of 2 rubles 61 kopecks. The poll tax of the villagers by this time amounted to 1 ruble 15 kopecks.
For several decades, this type of tax was the main source of state revenue. With the introduction (surcharge on the price for a product or service), its importance for maintaining the state treasury has decreased significantly. In 1863, the collection of the poll tax from the philistines (lower urban class) and guilds (artisans, craftsmen, their students and assistants) was stopped in almost the entire territory Russian Empire(with the exception of Siberia and Bessarabia).
Large debts population before the state, the difficulty with tax collection led to the fact that in 1887 the poll tax in Russia ceased to exist. The exception was Siberia, where this tax was levied on the population until the beginning of the twentieth century.
Taxes in Russia
In order to understand what a poll tax is, it is necessary to make an excursion into the history of taxation in Russia. No state can exist without taxes. Therefore, in Russia, from the time of the formation of the early feudal state, the prince collected tribute from subject territories, first by crowd, and then by cart. At the same time, tribute was collected from the smoke, that is, from each house, as an economic unit. The household tax remained the main one until the Mongol-Tatar yoke, when the Baskaks conducted a population census and each male resident was taxed. In addition to this direct tax, there were a large number of indirect ones. The formation of a single centralized state led to the establishment of a coherent tax system land was the unit of taxation. Under Ivan the Terrible, the reform of the big plow set the size of the tax depending on the owner and the amount of land. Fedor Alekseevich, half-brother of Peter the Great, returned to household taxation.
The introduction of the collection of tax from each man (capita) was the result of financial crisis in the country under Peter I, in the conditions of an active foreign policy that required large investments. The Northern War, which lasted 21 years, created modern Russia. The army, navy, European education, St. Petersburg and many other achievements of the Petrine era would not have been possible without the huge funds invested by the state. Initially, the sovereign used the traditional tax system of land taxation, but there was not enough money. Profitable people were attracted, who came up with numerous indirect taxes, ranging from official seals to beards. But that didn't solve the problem either. Then a poll tax was proposed, that is, a personal tax, from each man. It is worth noting that the population census conducted did not establish the exact number of the male population of the peasantry, the figures ranged from 5 to 6 million. The poll tax spread to all ages of the male population, regardless of their ability to work. The size of the tax was formed depending on the needs of the state for the maintenance of the army and other expenses.
The total required amount was divided by the number of the population, and the amount of the tax was obtained. This innovation brought the peasantry to the brink of survival. Soon this type of tax was extended to the urban population, and even to merchants.
Abolition of the poll tax
It so happened that over time, the poll tax ceased to be collected from the merchants, then from the philistines, and only the peasants continued to pull this tax. Together with the question of the abolition of serfdom, the problem arose of the abolition of the poll tax, as discriminatory in relation to the peasantry. Alexander the Liberator created committees to consider this issue, but did not manage to decide anything. Already his son and heir, Alexander III, in 1885-1887 replaced poll taxation with various indirect taxes.
Results
So, the poll tax is a tax levied on every person, regardless of his income or property. Introduced in Russia in 1724. It did not exist in its pure form for long. Starting with Catherine the Great, each peasant community received the amount of tax for the whole world, and the society itself determined who should pay and how much, taking into account the state of the economy, the size of the land, and so on. This saved from unfair equalization in the taxation of large families and the poor with the wealthy, landed. For a long time this tax showed the unequal position of the peasantry in relation to other classes. Canceled by Alexander III.
