The principle of fair taxation means that. Principles of taxation. The principle of universality of taxation

The principle of taxation- the fundamental, basic provision underlying the tax system of the state. Some of these principles are fixed normatively, others are derived by interpretation of tax legislation by the court or scientific doctrine. Some principles are sector-wide or cross-sector in nature, others regulate legal institutions, sub-institutions or even certain aspects of taxation.

The principle of fair taxation. Taxation must be fair. The idea of ​​justice is embodied in the entire system of principles of taxation. Justice is manifested both in universality, and in equality, and in proportionality, and in certainty, and in other legal bases of taxation. Taxation is initially unfair to the taxpayer, since it involves the seizure of part of his property. Fairness in relation to the taxpayer is manifested in the strict observance by the state of the general and special principles of taxation in the establishment, introduction and collection of taxes.

The principle of the legality of taxation. It implies the rule of law, the strict implementation by each subject of acts of tax legislation.

The principle of universality and equality of taxation. Legal norms are general models of lawful behavior of participants in social interactions. No one is exempt from the law. All entities, without exception, must comply with legal requirements.

From the requirement of universality and equality of taxation follows enshrined in Art. 56 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation prohibits the establishment of tax benefits of an individual nature.

Principle of equal tax burden does not allow the establishment of discriminatory rules of taxation, depending on both the legal form and the nature (content) of entrepreneurial activity of taxpayers.

Equity taxation does not mean a capitation tax system, where all taxpayers pay the same taxes. The principle of equality in relation to the obligation to pay legally established taxes and fees suggests that equality should be achieved through a fair redistribution of income and differentiation of taxes and fees.

The principle of proportionality of taxation. Proportionality of taxation includes the requirements of: 1) proportionality: when establishing taxes, the actual ability of the taxpayer to pay tax is taken into account (clause 1, article 3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation); 2) validity: taxes and fees must have an economic basis and cannot be arbitrary (clause 3, article 3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation); 3) admissibility: taxes and fees that prevent citizens from exercising their constitutional rights are unacceptable (clause 3, article 3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The requirement of proportionality complements the principle of universality of taxation: everyone participates in the formation of centralized budgetary and extrabudgetary funds in proportion to their actual ability to pay tax payments. A differentiated approach to objects of taxation of various sizes is assumed. The larger the tax base (the size of the land plot, the value of the property, the engine power, the amount of income or profit), the more tax the taxpayer must pay.

RUSSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF TRADE AND ECONOMICS

COURSE WORK

in the discipline "Taxes and taxation"

Theme "Taxation Fairness as an Economic Factor"

Executor:

____________________

Scientific adviser:

Ave. Lukashevich A.B.

Moscow 2009

Introduction

1. The concept of tax fairness

2. Income tax as a tool for implementing the principle of tax fairness

3. Single turnover tax as an instrument of tax fairness

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The formation of a new statehood and civil society in Russia largely depends on raising the level of social justice in economic relations. The reform methods used in the transition period in the form of "shock therapy", serious violations and mistakes in the privatization of state property have undermined the country's population's confidence in market institutions. Therefore, the solution of the problem of social justice in the economic sphere (including the issue of fair taxation) becomes a decisive condition for the success of the reforms being carried out in Russia, a condition for the very existence of Russia as an independent, unified social state.

Since the emergence of taxes in the 17th century BC. Until now, the problem of justice has been one of the main problems in the practice and theory of taxation. An important contribution to the understanding and formulation of the principle of justice in taxation was made by such prominent economists and practitioners as J. Boden, T. Hobbes, J. Locke. A brilliant generalization of these works was the formulation of the principle of universality and justice in taxation, given by A. Smith in his work "A Study on the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". Further development of the content of this principle and ways of its practical implementation was reflected in the works of J.-J. Rousseau, A. Wagner, K. Marx, J. Keynes, A. Marshall.

A great contribution to identifying the content of the problem and finding ways to its practical solution was made by Russian scientists-economists and practitioners: I.T. Pososhkov, N.I. Turgenev, S.Yu. Witte, P.A. Stolypin, V.I. Lenin .

In recent years, in connection with the tax reform in Russia, many works have appeared that attempt to scientifically comprehend the ongoing reforms, including from the standpoint of implementing the basic principles of taxation and the functions of taxes. Such leading Russian economists and practitioners as Yu. G. Volkova, V. A. Kashin, V. M. Pushkareva, D. G. Chernik, Shatalov S.D. and others.

Despite the large number of works on the general theoretical aspects of the problem of implementing the principle of justice, as well as the analysis of the problem in relation to individual taxes, many theoretical and practical issues remain relevant.

The relevance and significance of these problems is determined by the close relationship of the tax system of Russia with the economic and social development of the country, the evolution of views on the degree of importance and methods for solving emerging problems, the emergence of financial resources and political will to solve them.

All of the above served as the basis for choosing the topic of the study, its goals and objectives.

Purpose of the work: to identify the main characteristics of the fairness of taxation as an economic factor and possible ways to implement the principle of fairness in practice.

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were solved in the process of research:

To characterize the concept of "fairness of taxation";

To characterize the income tax as a tool for implementing the principle of tax fairness;
- to analyze the essence of the unified turnover tax as an instrument of tax fairness.

The object of the study is the tax system of the Russian Federation, its compliance with the principle of fairness in taxation.

The subject of research is a set of theoretical and practical problems of implementing the principle of fair taxation.

Research methods. The method of system analysis and synthesis of tasks determined by the purpose of the research was used. The comparison method was used in the work.

The theoretical basis of the research was the works of domestic and foreign economists devoted to the problems of determining the principles of formation of tax systems, the mechanisms of their practical implementation.

The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion and a bibliography. The volume of work is 35 pages. The list of references consists of 25 titles.

The concept of tax fairness

Fairness is one of the most important principles of taxation1. There is also such a point of view, according to which the principle of fairness of taxation is generally recognized as the main one in a number of tax principles formulated by A. Smith2. In any case, the triumph of the principle of justice is one of the priority goals of building modern taxation. Of course, it is quite possible to agree with the opinion that a fair system of taxation is the ideal dream of any state and society, which has not yet been achieved by any state in the world. Human civilization has been moving towards this goal for centuries, and it still has a very long way ahead of it.

The imperfection of the taxation system invariably causes and will cause criticism of any fiscal institutions of society. However, regardless of this, the search for ways of rational, efficient and fair taxation must continue3.

This category is difficult to define. The content of the term "justice" can be disclosed from legal, economic, social, moral and other positions. For example, some authors attribute the fairness of taxation to the generally accepted principles of economic theory4. This is explained by the fact that the category of justice as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, being universal, is in fact a universal criterion of values.

The task of categorization in this case is also complicated by the fact that the understanding of justice may differ, depending on the ideas about it that have developed in a particular historical period, which, in turn, are adjusted under the influence of various objective and subjective factors. In this regard, it is appropriate to cite the opinion of the well-known Russian scientist M.M. Alekseenko, who believed that the pursuit of justice should accompany the establishment of taxes, but "human justice" is relative and depends on the socio-political structure5. According to some modern authors, the problem of fairness in taxation is primarily a political problem6. The understanding of tax fairness may vary depending on the taxpayer's belonging to a particular social group. This circumstance was noticed by A.A. Sokolov, who wrote that “the concept of taxable justice is, as it were, a general form into which a special concrete content is poured by each class”7.

We believe that it is permissible to talk about the observance of the principle of fair taxation only if there are a number of conditions declared by other principles, which primarily include the universality of tax obligations, tax equality and proportionality of taxation. At least in theory, it is reasonably noted that these principles are a necessary condition for the existence of tax relations8.

It seems that the principle of interest to us is so general that its implementation depends entirely on the implementation of not only these, but also some other, less general in relation to it, principles of taxation. Nevertheless, it is universality, equality and proportionality that are the main components of fair taxation.

It seems that the principles of universality and tax equality are among the most important ideas that form a general idea of ​​a proper, and therefore a fair system of taxes and fees. The significance of these principles is great, and in modern reality they are perceived as self-evident immutable truths. However, until relatively recently, their implementation was faced with numerous exceptions and exemptions regarding the tax composition, including those of an individual nature.

At present, there is no doubt about the need for the participation of all citizens of a particular state in the common cause of the formation of public finances. This is the essence of the principle of universality of taxation. The extension of this principle to every citizen, to every organization without any exceptions, of course, serves to establish a fair taxation. On the contrary, the existence of any exceptions to this rule is regarded in the public mind as an injustice. Despite the obviousness of this truth, there have been numerous examples in the history of taxation when individuals, as well as entire classes and estates, got rid of the need to pay taxes.

So, in antiquity, Roman citizens were exempted from any duties in general, in the Middle Ages various tax privileges were granted to the clergy and feudal lords, and later in a number of countries persons of royal families enjoyed tax immunity. In his Fundamental Principles of Financial Science, F. Nitti wrote that in the old days, it was the rich and powerful of this world that were often exempt from tax. At the same time, the scientist referred to the well-known saying: “According to the old custom, the people pay taxes with their property, the nobility with their blood, and the clergy with their prayers”9. In this regard, it is appropriate to cite the remark of P.A. Holbach, who considered it necessary to make sure that “... the tax was universal, this burden must be borne by all subjects; tax exemption creates between citizens an inequality as unfair as it is insulting, which usually favors only those who are more than others in a position to help the country”10.

Of course, the principle of universality should not be absolutized, since, of course, they have the right to exist when the obligation to pay taxes and fees is imposed on low-income people in need of social support, which traditionally include the disabled, pensioners, the unemployed, large families, etc. . In this case, equality is not violated, since there is a redistribution of income and differentiation of taxes and fees, taking into account the property status of taxpayers.

It seems that in any case, such exemptions from the general tax regime fully meet the requirements of social justice. At least the modern concepts of taxation in countries with developed market economies, in order to comply with the principle of social justice, proceed from the need for full or partial tax exemption for low-income groups of the population11.

From the desire to achieve tax justice also, in turn, follows the principle of proportionality of taxation, which requires a certain limitation of the financial claims of the state. It seems that, in accordance with its main idea, actions to ensure the necessary financing of public authorities, including through the establishment of taxes and fees, should be consistent with the need to ensure the exercise by taxpayers of their most important rights and freedoms. In any case, taxes and fees should not interfere with the exercise of these rights and freedoms, acquire a prohibitive or confiscatory nature.

The theoretical basis for the proportionality of taxation is largely associated with the works of A. Laffer, who established the dependence of tax revenues of the budget on the equivalent rate of total tax withdrawals, defining it in the form of a curve (Laffer curve). The starting point of the theory developed by him in the most general form is that since the amount of tax revenues to the budget is the product of the tax rate and the value of the tax base, then at a zero rate, tax revenues are also equal to zero. As the tax rate increases, tax revenues of the budget also increase, however, the dynamics of this growth is gradually slowing down as a result of the reduction in the tax potential of taxpayers, due to the negative impact of a large volume of tax exemptions on the economy. Further, the rate of reduction of the tax base increases so much that the rate of its reduction begins to outstrip the ever-increasing taxation. After passing the maximum value, tax revenues of the budget begin to gradually decrease and eventually fall to zero12.

In economic terms, the principle of equity means that government taxes and spending should influence the distribution of income, placing a burden on some people and benefiting others. Moreover, in foreign economic science, two main aspects of this principle are distinguished: horizontal and vertical13.

The principle of horizontal fairness implies that payers who are in an equal economic position must also be in an equal tax position, i.e. everyone must pay the same amount of tax (the principle of ability to pay). This principle is based on the following idea that the amount of taxes levied should be determined depending on the amount of income of the payer. According to N. Turgenev: “Taxes should be distributed among all citizens in equal proportion; the donations of each for the benefit of the common must correspond to his strength, i.e. his income."

However, in this case, the ethical problem of defining equality arises, since equality cannot always be achieved by comparing current incomes. Take, for example, two people working in the same factory doing the same job and getting the same salary. One of them has one child and the other has five dependent children. Can they be considered equal? Apparently not.

According to the principle of vertical justice, persons who are in an unequal position should be in an unequal tax position, in other words, whoever receives more certain benefits from the state should pay more in taxes (principle of benefits). However, the extent to which the benefits principle is justified depends on how public funds received through taxes are spent. Thus, it is well known that older people, on the one hand, have lower incomes compared to the young able-bodied population, and on the other hand, they more often resort to public health services. The principle of ability to pay says that older people should pay lower taxes.

Whereas according to the benefit principle, older people should pay more taxes, as they benefit more from public funding of hospitals and clinics. Obviously, in this case, the application of the benefit principle to pensioners and the elderly will be unfair.

If we consider the issue of financing the construction and repair of highways, then many will agree that road users and vehicle owners should give more than others for the maintenance of roads. This is how it is done - a system of federal tax payments to road funds the tax on the sale of fuels and lubricants, the tax on vehicle owners, etc.) is the main source of financing for the country's road sector.

It should be noted that the separation of "vertical" and "horizontal" equity still does not solve one of the main problems that exist in the tax sphere today - how to determine the degree of taxation equity.

Important for this study is the fact that the proportionality of taxation is closely related to the implementation of the more specific principle of economic justification of taxation in relation to it. This is explained by the fact that taxation should be correlated not only with the need for taxpayers to exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms, but should also take into account their economic situation. In particular, the principle of economic justification excludes the arbitrary establishment of taxes and fees and requires that the taxation of certain persons be carried out solely on the basis of their tax capacity. Ignoring this principle can lead to taxation becoming an unbearable burden for taxpayers, an insurmountable obstacle to normal existence and development.

Considering the principle of economic justification of taxes and fees, some experts note as obvious that the totality of taxes and fees, which constitutes the tax burden of each individual taxpayer, should allow the latter to exercise his constitutional rights, including the right to private property. This implies the assumption that the legally established elements of taxation for each specific tax should have sufficient justification to clearly determine which specific part of the taxpayer's property is claimed by the state and why15.

The economic feasibility of taxes and fees is based on an assessment of the property status of taxpayers, since it proceeds from the need to take into account their tax capacity when determining the conditions of taxation. Such an assessment can be carried out using two main criteria, one of which includes an assessment of the benefits received by the taxpayer (the criterion of individual utility), and the second - its ability to pay (the criterion of public utility).

In the first case, we are talking about assessing the subjective willingness of a particular taxpayer to pay a particular tax, which, in turn, is directly dependent on the individual usefulness for this individual of state activities financed through the collection of tax payments. This dependence actually means that the more benefits the taxpayer receives, the higher the level of his taxation can be, and, conversely, with a low quality of services provided by the state, taxation should tend to decrease.

As for the second criterion, based on an assessment of the taxpayer's solvency, it is based on the actual ability of individual taxpayers to fulfill their tax obligations, i.e. bear the tax burden. Data on the sources and amount of income of the taxpayer, on the property belonging to him, on the level and structure of consumption, and some other economic indicators can serve directly as indicators of solvency. On the basis of these data, in general, an economically justified determination of the conditions of taxation for certain groups of taxpayers is carried out.

Indicators that are relevant to the economic justification of a particular tax are primarily attributed to its object. This is explained by the fact that the very obligation to pay taxes is associated with certain objects, which include the taxpayer's income, real estate, transport and other property. At one time, M.N. Sobolev rightly noted that “binding the collection of a tax with any object is not a matter for the discretion of the state. It follows from the idea that the presence of this object gives the right to conclude that a person is a certain taxable person, which allows him to be taxed”17.

It seems that economically justified taxation in any case should proceed from the need to preserve for the taxpayer such a part of the object belonging to him, which would allow him to safely fulfill the corresponding tax obligation in the future, i.e. retain tax capacity, coupled with the least possible restriction of his property rights. For the same purposes, other economic indicators should be taken into account that characterize the solvency of the taxpayer, for example, the amount of expenses incurred by him in connection with the receipt of income.

Ultimately, all of the above leads to the conclusion that fair taxation should be based on a harmonious combination of the financial interests of the state, society and taxpayers. A necessary condition for this is the consistent implementation of the principles of universality of equality and proportionality of taxation.

Income tax as a tool for implementing the principle of tax fairness

The problem of using income tax as a tool for implementing the principle of justice and the social function of taxes is a key one for any modern tax system, including the Russian one.

In the dissertation work of Yu.D. Shmelev18 analyzed the possibilities of using personal income tax as a tool for the practical implementation of the principle of fairness in taxation and the social (distributive) function of taxes. Let us briefly characterize the results of the research of the scientist.

The study shows that during the years of reforms (2001-2006) associated with the introduction of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation19 and in particular Chapter 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the differentiation of incomes of the population increased by more than 3 times. The fund ratio, which characterizes the ratio of the incomes of the richest 10% to the poorest 10%, has increased from 3.3 in 1989 to to 15.1 in 2005 Taking into account hidden incomes, this differentiation is even more intensified and, according to experts, reaches 40:1 or more. The Gini coefficient during the reform period increased from 0.26 (in 1991) to 0.41 (in 2005), i.e. almost 1.6 times. Such differentiation creates serious social tension in society and requires appropriate action on the part of the state.

The most important goal of introducing the new Tax Code of the Russian Federation was to stimulate the legalization of shadow incomes by refusing progressive taxation of personal income, introducing a single social tax (UST), reducing its rates and using a regressive scale.

Such a radical change in the entire ideology of income taxation, the actual abandonment of the most important duties of the state to redistribute the income of the population, was argued by the need to sacrifice justice in taxation in favor of tax efficiency. It was assumed that as a result of the rejection of progressiveness and the transition to proportional taxation, incentives for entrepreneurial activity and higher incomes would increase, tax evasion would decrease, and the level of legally paid wages would increase.

In the dissertation work, based on the data of the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation, the Federal Tax Service for Moscow and Rosstat data, the consequences of reforming income taxation in Moscow and the Russian Federation in terms of reducing shadow payments and implementing the social (distributive) function of taxes are analyzed. The paper shows that at the first stage, reforming the taxation of wages in 2001-2002. led to a slight decrease in the share of shadow wages in the total amount of wages from 32% in 2000 to up to 27% in 2002 The reduction in rates during this period served as a certain stimulus for accelerating the growth of legal wages and slowing down the growth of shadow payments. In subsequent years, the initial stimulus effect of the cut diminished, while the general incentives for tax evasion (such as corruption, criminalization of the economy, general unfairness of the tax system) only increased. As a result, the growth rate of shadow wages exceeded the growth rate of legal wages in 2005. the level of shadow payments returned to the level of 2000. According to the author's estimate, it was about 32%. At the same time, the sharp decline in the UST in 2005 did not practically affect the growth of shadow wages. It should be noted that despite a slight decrease in shadow payments in 2001-2002, during the reform years of 2001-2005. the absolute values ​​of shadow payments were constantly growing, which indicates the immutability of the behavior of employers in relation to shadow payments. At the same time, the share of income attributable to the richest strata of the population increased from 45.8% in 2000 to up to 46.7% in 2005, and taking into account hidden income up to 54%. According to official data, the coefficient of funds in the Russian Federation was 15.1 in 2005, and taking into account hidden income, it was almost 40, and increased in comparison with 1989. even according to official data, more than 4.5 times.

Thus, the dissertation shows that as a result of the reform of taxation of wages in 2001-2006. By reducing the rates of personal income tax and UST, it was not possible to achieve a reduction in tax evasion, the legalization of shadow wage payments and other incomes of the population. At the same time, the reform led to an increase in the level of taxation of the bulk of the population with low and medium incomes and a significant decrease in the taxation of the population with a high level of income. At the same time, the reform contributed to a further increase in the already high differentiation of incomes of the population, a decrease in the level of fairness in taxation, an increase in social tension in society, and a decrease in the level of law-abiding taxpayers belonging to the poorest and middle strata of the population. The paper shows that the state's rejection of the principle of justice in taxation in favor of the principle of efficiency did not give the desired result, did not lead to the legalization of shadow incomes, but only increased the already excessive social stratification.

The paper analyzes the role and place of the mechanism of tax benefits for personal income tax in the implementation of the principle of justice and the social function of taxes. The dissertation examines the practice of applying tax incentives in the developed countries of the world and compares the mechanism and capabilities of the system of tax incentives for income tax in the period 1991-2006. As the analysis of the practice of applying tax incentives in the Russian Federation, carried out on the basis of statistical data from the Federal Tax Service for Moscow and the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation for 2001-2004, shows, the existing system of tax incentives for personal income tax and the mechanism for their provision as a whole takes into account the experience of developed countries with market economies and gives opportunities for the implementation of the fiscal, regulatory and social functions of taxes. At the same time, in the practical application of the legislation in its current form, many problems, contradictions and deviations from the generally recognized principles of taxation arise.

The amounts and mechanism for granting standard tax deductions do not fully realize the social orientation of the tax benefit. The standard deductions for each taxpayer and minor children are well below even the official subsistence level and are in no way protected from inflation. Since their establishment in 2001. the real value of all standard tax deductions decreased by more than 2 times. With the introduction of Chapter 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, a change in the mechanism and a decrease in the number of standard tax benefits, the situation of dependents, disabled people, war veterans, and a number of categories of low-paid segments of the population worsened. The standard deduction for minor children, due to its smallness, has practically no effect on the financial situation of low-paid families with children, does not solve the problem of their social protection. The current mechanism of tax benefits for children does not even include the goal of stimulating the birth rate and family development.

The most demanded of the non-standard tax deductions in the whole Russian Federation are the social deduction for education (about 40% of the number of applications submitted), the property deduction for the purchase of property (about 35%), the property deduction for the sale of property (about 10%), professional deductions ( about 6%). However, social deductions for charitable purposes account for less than 0.02% of the total number of applications.

For social deductions for education and treatment apply mainly to people with low and middle incomes, as evidenced by the use of the deduction amount on average by 60-65% in Moscow, and by 40-43% in Russia as a whole (according to the data for 2004). In general, there is a general trend towards an increase in the total percentage of the use of these deductions, however, even for the city of Moscow, the amount of deductions did not exceed in 2006. values ​​of 70-75% of the maximum possible value.

For property deductions for the purchase of housing, mainly a fairly wealthy category of citizens apply. At the same time, the average amount of the declared deduction for the purchase of housing, although it has a general tendency to increase, was still in 2004. in Moscow, only about 21% of the maximum possible, and on average in the Russian Federation - about 17%. In 2005-2006 and with the general trend towards its increase, the amount of the deduction in 2006. even in Moscow it did not exceed 31% of the maximum possible. At the same time, the average value of the declared income of applicants for the deduction in Moscow in 2004 amounted to. 1031.5 thousand rubles, and in the Russian Federation - about 700 thousand rubles. Comparison of the real value of apartments, declared incomes and amounts of declared deductions, raises doubts about the reliability of the information in income declarations.

Income from the sale of personal property, primarily housing, has become the most important source of income for citizens. The total amount of the property deduction for the period 2002-2004. increased in Moscow by almost 2 times, in the Russian Federation as a whole – by 2.2 times. The average size of the property deduction for the sale in 2004. amounted to about 7 million rubles in Moscow, which is almost 35 times higher than the average property deduction when buying a home. On average in Russia, it was about 700 thousand rubles. and exceeded the amount of the deduction when buying a home only four times.

The change in the list of privileged objects and the mechanism for granting a deduction for the purchase of housing, introduced by Chapter 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, led to a serious deterioration in the social orientation of this type of benefits, because. people of low and middle incomes were cut off from it, who could previously take advantage of such a benefit in the construction of a garden house, dacha, country house.

The analysis carried out shows that the system of tax benefits as a whole, as a result of the reform, has shifted in favor of the rich strata of the population. It does not fully realize the possibilities of social regulation and support for low- and middle-income strata of the population.

Based on the analysis, it was concluded that as a result of the introduction of Chapter 23 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the use of a proportional scale of taxation, the reform of tax benefits, the system of income taxation of individuals has become less fair, the redistribution mechanism does not actually work. All this ultimately led to an increase in the already high level of social differentiation of the population and poses a threat to the social stability of society.

The problem of implementing the social function of taxes through the system of social payments and their place in the system of measures to ensure the social policy of the state is one of the most important. During the economic and social reform in the Russian Federation in 1992. in accordance with the chosen liberal model of the market economy in the Russian Federation, the goal of the state social policy was to provide state guarantees of minimum social protection, which was later reflected and consolidated in the Budget Code of the Russian Federation in the form of the concept of minimum state standards for the provision of social services. All this required a radical revision of the entire social security system and its transfer to insurance principles, when the necessary financial resources are formed from the corresponding insurance premiums paid by insurers.

The analysis of the functioning of the system of social protection in the Russian Federation and the system of social payments at the first stage of the reform in 1992-2000. clearly indicates the inefficiency of the whole mechanism.

The introduction of a unified social tax (contribution) in 2001, and then a unified social tax and insurance contributions to pension funds, the transition to a solidarity-accumulative pension system was supposed to solve urgent social and financial problems. In addition to purely tax goals, when reforming the system of social payments, the state wanted to stimulate the legalization of payments to individuals by reducing the UST rates, introducing a regressive taxation scale, in conjunction with the rejection of progressive taxation on personal income tax.

At the first stage of reforming social payments in 2001-2002. despite the reduction in UST rates, revenues of the budget and off-budget funds increased in 2001. by an average of 24.3%, and in 2002. by 35.8%. For the share of legalization of shadow payments in 2001-2002. accounted for no more than 20% of the growth in real wages. At the same time, the decrease in shadow payments from 32% in 2000 to up to 27% in 2002 This is due mainly to higher growth rates of legal wages, and not to a change in the behavior of taxpayers-employers.

In 2003-2004 the rate of growth of receipts to social funds decreased significantly (from 135.8% in 2002 to 117.3% in 2003 and 112.6% in 2004), which is due, among other things, to the growth of shadow payments. At the same time, the gap between the growth rates of nominal wages and social funds began to widen in 2003 as well. amounted to about 10%, and in 2004. - about 14%. In addition, in 2003-2004. the growth rates of receipts from social payments turned out to be less than the general growth rates of all tax receipts (by 2% in 2003 and by almost 35% in 2004). All this testifies to the inefficiency of the decisions taken earlier. However, the Government, believing that such results are caused by insufficient reduction in tax rates, decides on a further sharp reduction in UST rates to 26% and other changes in the mechanism for calculating UST and insurance premiums for mandatory pension insurance. The purpose of these changes, as before with the introduction of the UST, was to reduce the tax burden on the wage fund, stimulate the legalization of paid wages and increase, due to this, revenues to social funds of payment.

The analysis of the consequences of such a reform of the social payment system, carried out in this work, shows that the result of this reform was a sharp reduction in the receipts of social payments. At the same time, as calculations show, the level of shadow payments in 2005 even increased compared to 2004. and reached the value of 2000. (about 32%).

Thus, the author claims that conducted in 20005. changes in the mechanism for calculating and paying UST and contributions to the Pension Fund did not achieve their goals. Losses of revenues of the budget and off-budget funds are estimated in 2005. in 220-230 million rubles, which has already led to a deficit in the PF budget in 2006. 100 billion rubles

Strategic positions of tax policy. Management in the field of taxes and fees. Creation of a perfect system of taxation. The Federal Tax Service. Application of tax laws. An increase in the level of taxation.

The tax period when calculating personal income tax. Standard, professional (author's fees), social and property deductions. Calculation of value added tax (VAT). Determination of the taxable base, taking into account deductions.

Economic nature and functions of income tax as the main tool for the implementation of state priorities. Basic principles of taxation. Comparative assessment of domestic and foreign practice of forming an independent duty system.

Development of taxation in Russia. Principles of construction of the tax system. Participants of tax legal relations. Dual taxation. The study of the tax code of the Russian Federation as a single and complex document that takes into account the system of tax relations.

The concept of taxes and fees. The main functions of taxation. Types of taxes and fees in the Russian Federation. Tax incentives: concept, procedure for establishing and canceling. Tax deductions for individuals. Analysis of the use of tax incentives for individuals.

Value Added Tax. Definition of personal income tax. Calculation of the amount of penalties. Types of regional taxes. Simplified tax system. The system of taxation in the form of a single tax on income for certain types of activities.

The concept and essence of taxes as a source of state budget revenues. Basic principles and methods of taxation: equal, proportional, progressive. Features of regressive taxation with a negative progression coefficient.

Formation of financial resources of the health care system in the process of production and distribution of the gross domestic product. Types of distribution of health resources. Contradiction between fairness and efficiency of resource allocation.

The need to improve the system of state regulation of the market economy. Structure and mechanism of organization of the public sector. Federal, state and local types of taxes. The place of taxation in the economy of the public sector.

Essence of taxes, classification and functions. Tax theories of the 17th-19th centuries. classical theory. Scientific concepts of taxation of the XX century. Keynesianism and neoclassicism. Comparative analysis of the principles of taxation of Russian and Western entrepreneurs.

Essence of tax optimization. Analysis of standard, social and property tax deductions. Methods for minimizing duties on the amount of insurance contributions to the Pension Fund of Russia. Ways to improve the taxation of personal income.

Classical principles of taxation, their characteristics. The main directions of modern principles of the structure of taxation systems: economic, organizational, legal. Objects of VAT taxation, taking into account changes and additions to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

General characteristics of the tax and features of tax calculation in individual cases. Income not subject to taxation. Tax deductions and rates. Features of tax calculation by individual entrepreneurs and persons engaged in private practice.

Essence of tax relations, principles and methods of taxation in Russia at the present stage. Principles: justice, certainty, universality, equality, proportionality, legality. Methods of taxation: equal, regressive and progressive.

The concept and main elements of the Russian tax system. Legal basis of the tax system. The structure of the Russian tax system. Fundamental principles of taxation. Legislative activity in taxation.

The tax system is one of the main elements of a market economy, an instrument of state influence on the development of the economy, determining the priorities of economic and social development. Adaptation of the tax system to new social relations.

Use of financial resources of the state - the budget and off-budget funds. The economic content and essence of the tax as a mandatory, individual gratuitous payment collected from organizations and individuals. Principles of taxation.

Studying the international experience of reforms in the field of income taxation in the leading countries of the world - the countries of the OECD, the EU and the Eastern European region. Analysis of the subjective prerequisites for the implementation of such reforms and different types of taxation.

Principles of taxation: fairness, efficiency, proportionality, consideration of interests, multiplicity, neutrality, non-retroactivity, priority of tax legislation. Methods of taxation, income tax, taxpayers.

In the economic literature, different principles for constructing a taxation system are considered.

For the first time he formulated the principles of taxation. In his classic essay, he named four basic principles that were detailed and interpreted differently in the later writings of many economists (Fig. 1):

• principle of justice- the tax must be collected from all taxpayers constantly, i.е. “every citizen is obliged to pay taxes according to his wealth”;
• certainty principle- taxation should be strictly fixed, not arbitrary;
• the principle of convenience for the taxpayer - the collection of tax should not cause inconvenience to the payer in terms of place and time;
• the principle of economy of collection- the cost of withdrawing taxes should be less than the amount of the taxes themselves.

Further development of A. Smith's ideas, their adaptation to the current socio-economic situation in Russia and the tasks of the state financial policy will be conceptually consistent with the following basic principles for building an effective taxation system.

Rice. 1. Principles of taxation according to Adam Smith

The principle of obligation. This principle implies the obligation, coercion and inevitability of paying taxes (difficulties for tax evasion, minimizing the shadow economy). The formula “Taxes are not negotiated” should be in effect.

The principle of equality, according to which the distribution of the tax burden should be equal.

There are two approaches to the practical implementation of this principle. First founded for the benefit of taxpayers, those. taxes paid should be in proportion to the benefits that taxpayers receive from government services. Consequently, the equality of taxation is linked to the structure of budget expenditures.

The second approach is based on terms of solvency. At the same time, the taxation system is not tied to the targeted spending of budgetary funds, and each taxpayer must contribute a share depending on their ability to pay.

In practice, advanced economies are built on various combinations of both of these approaches. The combination of these approaches, based on the conditions of benefit and solvency of individuals, in our opinion, should become the norm for building an effective taxation system in Russia. At the same time, the problem of solvency, which is characteristic of the majority of the population of our country, should be taken into account in the first place.

The principle of certainty. This means that before the start of the tax period, normative legal acts should determine the rules for fulfilling the obligations of taxpayers to pay taxes and fees.

The principle of economy. The system of taxation should be economical, or productive. Some studies have shown that the system will be unproductive if the cost of collecting taxes exceeds 7% of the value of tax revenues.

The principle of proportionality. It is planned to establish a limit on the tax burden in relation to GDP.

The principle of mobility (elasticity). This implies the ability of the tax system to rapidly expand in the event of extraordinary additional government spending or, conversely, to reduce if there are state capabilities and the goals of its socio-economic (budgetary and tax) policy.

The principle of stability. This refers to the stability of the current tax system over time, combined with periodic variability, reform (in economically developed countries, three to five years is considered a normal interval).

The principle of optimality. This principle implies the optimal (from the point of view of implementing the fiscal function of taxes, creating preconditions for economic growth, achieving social justice, carrying out environmental measures, etc.) choice of the source and object of taxation.

The principle of unity. Unity implies the operation of the tax system throughout the country and for all legal entities and individuals. At the same time, the implementation of this principle depends on the organizational and legal forms of enterprises, the type of activity, the right to receive legal benefits, the presence of the right of lower authorities to establish, reduce, increase or abolish taxes.

The principle of justice. Currently, Russian tax legislation seriously violates this principle. For example, for non-fulfillment of tax obligations, the taxpayer bears administrative and criminal liability, pays large financial fines. And for the excessive collection of taxes and unreasonable imposition of fines, the tax authorities practically do not bear any responsibility. As a result, there are numerous appeals to the courts, appeals against illegal actions of tax authorities.

One of the main problems of Russian tax legislation is that tax laws do not have direct effect. Along with laws, there are numerous by-laws, instructions, additions and amendments to them, regulatory letters and clarifications from tax authorities.

Insufficient clarity and clarity of regulatory documents and too frequent changes in tax legislation complicate the work of the tax services themselves, make the taxpayer powerless. We need clear, statutory regulations for the introduction of changes and additions to tax legislation, the establishment or abolition of taxes. At the same time, a legislative decision on the introduction of new taxes should come into force no earlier than the next calendar year, and changes that worsen the position of the taxpayer should not have retroactive effect.

The principle of tax convenience. According to this principle, the collection of tax should not cause inconvenience to citizens in terms of place and time. It is not only about the convenience of paying taxes by individuals. The modern interpretation of this principle introduced into economics by A. Smith means finding solutions to the problems of rational distribution of taxes between categories of payers, territorial provision of budgets through the timely receipt of taxes, solving social problems, etc.

The formulated principles characterize, in a certain sense, an ideal tax system, a kind of model, a standard to which one should strive. Reality, the state of the economy and the financial situation, the interests of the existing political forces, the emerging market conditions make certain adjustments to this model. In addition, the above systematization of principles, of course, is not the only possible one. In the educational and methodical literature, their more detailed classifications are also given.

• Tax as the most complex economic and legal category
  • Socio-economic essence of taxes in modern society
  • The concepts of "tax" and "collection", their distinction
  • Tax functions
  • Principles of taxation
    • Legal and organizational principles of taxation
  • Tax classification
  • Mandatory and optional elements of the tax
  • The essence and classification of tax benefits
• Tax system and tax policy of the state
  • The concept and theoretical characteristics of the tax system
  • Tax policy of the state: essence, goals and forms
  • Essence and main aspects of tax reforms
• Tax administration as an integral attribute of the tax system
  • The concept and essence of tax administration
    • Tax administration functions
  • Tax authorities as the central link of tax administrations
    • Functions of tax authorities
  • Modernization of tax authorities - a strategic direction for improving tax administration
  • Interaction between customs and tax authorities
  • Interaction between internal affairs bodies and tax authorities
• Implementation by the tax authorities of the main powers of tax control
  • Forms of tax control
  • Registration of taxpayers (payers of fees) and tax agents
  • Organization of cameral tax audits
  • Organization of field tax audits
    • Actions for the implementation of tax control, carried out in the process of an on-site tax audit
    • Completion of the on-site inspection and implementation of its results
  • Collection of arrears on taxes and fees
• Implementation of the rights and obligations of taxpayers, payers of fees and tax agents
  • The concepts of "taxpayer", "payer of the fee" and "tax agent"
  • Characteristics and ensuring the rights of taxpayers
    • Postponement or installment payment of tax
  • Obligations of taxpayers and tax agents
  • Ways to ensure the fulfillment of obligations to pay taxes and fees
• Responsibility for violation of legislation on taxes and fees
  • General characteristics of ways to reduce tax liabilities
  • Responsibility for violations of tax laws
  • Tax offenses and liability for their commission
    • Administrative responsibility in the field of taxation
  • Tax crimes and liability for their commission
• Characteristics of taxes, fees and insurance premiums of the Russian Federation
  • Types of taxes and fees in modern Russia
  • The procedure for establishing, changing and canceling federal, regional and local taxes and fees
• Federal taxes and fees
  • value added tax
    • VAT payers
    • Object of VAT taxation
    • Operations not subject to VAT
    • Tax base for VAT
    • VAT tax agents
    • VAT tax rates
    • VAT calculation procedure
  • excises
  • Personal Income Tax
    • Income not subject to taxation
    • tax deductions
    • tax rates
    • The procedure for calculating and paying personal income tax
  • Unified social tax
  • Corporate income tax
  • Mining tax
    • Tax base for MET
  • water tax
  • Fees for the use of objects of the animal world and objects of aquatic biological resources
  • Government duty
    • Procedure and terms for payment of state duty
• Regional taxes
  • Transport tax
  • Gambling business tax
  • Corporate property tax
• Local taxes
  • Land tax
    • The procedure for calculating land tax
  • Personal property tax
• Special tax regimes
  • Simplified taxation system
    • Objects of taxation under the simplified tax system
    • Tax period under the simplified tax system
    • Features of the application of the simplified tax system by individual entrepreneurs based on a patent
  • The system of taxation in the form of a single tax on imputed income for certain types of activities
    • UTII taxpayers
  • Taxation system for agricultural producers (single agricultural tax)
    • The object of taxation according to the Unified Agricultural Tax
  • The system of taxation in the implementation of production sharing agreements
    • Methods of production sharing in the implementation of production sharing agreements
• Mandatory insurance premiums
  • Conceptual foundations of compulsory social insurance
  • Insurance premiums for mandatory pension, social and medical insurance
  • Insurance premiums for compulsory social insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases
• Tax law of foreign countries
  • General characteristics of the tax law of foreign countries
  • Tax policy and tax law of foreign countries
  • System of sources of tax law of foreign countries
  • Principles of tax law of foreign countries
  • Practice of local taxation abroad
  • Sanctions for tax offenses in foreign countries

Principles of taxation

The implementation of the social purpose of taxes is embodied in the tax system of any country, developed taking into account the basic rules and provisions of the theory of taxation. These rules and regulations form a set of taxation principles that determine the direction of tax policy and form the foundation for building the tax system. Thus, the principles of taxation are the basic ideas, rules and regulations applied in the field of taxation. Therefore, it can be argued that the principles of taxation are the principles of building a tax system.

Despite the diversity of the superstructural (practical) part of the tax systems of different countries, the theoretical platform for their construction is largely similar. For different countries there is a certain set of universal principles. They are based on principles developed by A. Smith and A. Wagner. But it cannot be said that these principles remain unchanged. Social progress determines the evolution of principles: they are supplemented and refined in accordance with the objective needs of socio-economic development. The set of principles that have become classical, and modern principles formulated by the theory and practice of taxation of the 20th century, is now a certain system of principles, although its interpretation by different researchers is somewhat different.

Let us first consider the economic principles of taxation.

The principle of justice involves the establishment of an obligation for each legal entity and individual to participate in the financing of state expenditures in proportion to their income and capabilities. Often, this principle is also characterized as the principle of fairness and equality (the distribution of the tax burden should be equal) or as the principle of fairness and universality (taxation should be universal and evenly distributed among taxpayers). It seems that with the same essence, due to the versatility of this feature, the specification of its universal name is quite acceptable, but not fully correct, primarily in relation to equality, as will be shown below. Traditionally, there are two main aspects of this principle: horizontal and vertical.

The principle of horizontal justice(also called the solvency principle) implies that taxpayers who are in an equal economic position must also be in an equal tax position, i.e. equal income should be taxed at the same tax rate.

The principle of vertical justice(also characterized as the principle of benefits) suggests that taxpayers who are in an unequal economic position should be in an unequal tax position, i.e. who receives more from the state of certain benefits, he must pay more taxes.

At first glance, the provision of horizontal and vertical justice is not contradictory, and the implementation of both approaches in practice is absolutely not mutually exclusive. However, it is not. To a certain extent, the establishment of taxes on the basis of solvency and the size of benefits is an alternative in the practical construction of the tax system.

What is the problem of using these approaches? It is largely due to the conditionality of the very concept of equality (inequality) of the economic status of taxpayers. Ensuring this equality (inequality) will be different when considering it from the standpoint of income (solvency) or from the standpoint of benefits received from the state.

Consider, using a simple example, what problems will arise in determining the economic equality of taxpayers from the standpoint of their income. A medical student studies at a university and works part-time as a nurse in a hospital. At the same time, he receives exactly as much as the nurse of the same hospital, who has a dependent child. Are their incomes the same? Yes, but the economic situation is different: the student is richer than the nurse, because his vital expenses are less. In addition, after graduation, a student will become a doctor and will receive a significantly higher salary, i.e. will have a higher amount of total income received during the period of their economic activity (from 18 to 60 years).

Thus, not always the economic equality of taxpayers can be assessed by comparing: 1) their current income; 2) income excluding objectively necessary expenses. The latter provision is clearly manifested in the inequality of taxation of the same income of individuals and legal entities. Continuing the same example, let's imagine that a student, after graduation, organizes a private clinic. Assume that at the current moment in time, the income of a nurse working for hire is equal to the income of a doctor from his own business.

Based on the principle of horizontal equity, these incomes should be taxed at the same tax rates, but the income of a nurse is taxed at a rate of 13%, and the income (profit) of a business doctor is 24%. However, this doctor is allowed by law to deduct economically justified expenses from the tax base, but the nurse is not allowed: she must pay tax on gross income, although it remains to be seen whether she will have a kind of profit (labor income minus essential expenses). There is a violation of the objectivity and universality of the principle of horizontal justice (solvency).

If, when establishing economic equality (inequality), we use the principle of benefits received by the taxpayer from the state in the form of public goods characterized by the joint nature of consumption, the indivisibility and non-selectivity of their consumption (health care, social protection, education, law enforcement, etc.), then there will be no less, and perhaps even greater problems.

Let's continue the same example with a student and a nurse. As we remember, their current incomes are equal, but the amounts of benefits are not equal. A student studies at a university on a paid basis, is healthy enough, does not enjoy social protection, while a nurse, having a dependent child who is not quite healthy, receives a much larger amount of benefits from the state. Following the principle of vertical equity, the nurse is in a better economic position and will have to pay more taxes. In general, the poorer segments of the population always consume more purely public goods, and it turns out that they should be subject to an increased tax burden. Such an approach, of course, will be contrary to the principle of solvency and the social policy of the state, and therefore is hardly applicable when building a tax system.

However, this principle is quite applicable when comparing the benefits of public services characterized by individual consumption patterns, divisibility and selectivity. For example, not all citizens enjoy judicial protection, so when applying for this service, you must pay a state fee. Highways are used by car owners, so they have to pay more taxes, which is realized through the transport tax, excise taxes on cars, gasoline, and oils.

Thus, the validity of the application of the benefit principle depends on the direction of spending public funds: it is absolutely inapplicable to purely public goods and quite applicable to mixed and private public goods.

It should be noted that in the world practice of taxation, the principles of solvency and benefits, as a rule, are used together, but with a certain dominance of solvency, which ultimately provides a more significant effect than their separate or parity application for the implementation of the basic principle of fairness when building tax systems.

However, even their joint use does not solve the problem: to what extent should the unequal economic position of taxpayers correspond to their unequal tax position? How should tax rates change as inequality increases? Each country solves this problem by forming a progressive, regressive or neutral tax system.

The tax system is:

• progressive if, after paying taxes, the economic inequality of taxpayers, as measured by their income, is reduced;
• regressive, if after taxes the economic inequality of taxpayers, estimated by their income, increases;
• neutral if, after taxes, the economic inequality of taxpayers, as measured by their income, remains unchanged.

In other words, in a progressive tax system, the rich pay a larger share of their income in taxes than the poor do. In a regressive tax system, on the contrary, the rich pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than the poor, while in a neutral system these shares are the same.

It is possible to estimate income inequality using Lorenz curves, which are the cumulative distribution of the share of income before and after tax in various tax systems by households.

So, with an absolutely uniform distribution, 50% of households have 50% of their total income before or after taxation, and the distribution line looks like a straight line - this is the bisector of ABC. The Lorenz curves of the actual distribution of income are further away from this straight line, the greater the inequality. The AGC curve shows the distribution of income before and after tax in a neutral tax system (these curves are the same), and accordingly, inequality remains unchanged. The AFC curve shows the distribution of after-tax income in a regressive tax system, and inequality increases accordingly. And only a progressive tax system reduces after-tax income inequality (ADC curve) and is therefore more fair.

World practice is currently gravitating toward building moderately progressive tax systems, because too high a progression often leads to the transfer of income to the shadow sector. Neutrality, or regressivity, is used in exceptional cases when the stratification of the population by income is insignificant or when it is necessary to stimulate the payment of taxes by better-off categories of citizens. The Russian tax system can now be fully characterized as neutral, largely ignoring the principle of fairness in order to legalize wage payments (reducing the so-called “envelope payments”) and simplify the administration of related taxes.

The Principle of Efficiency(principle of economy) implies the need to establish such taxes so that the revenues from each tax significantly cover the costs of the state for its administration. For the vast majority of Russian, primarily federal, taxes, this principle is implemented. However, for some taxes - regional (transport) and local (on the property of individuals) - this principle is far from being fully implemented. The efforts of the tax authorities to identify objects of taxation, send out notices, and control payment barely cover the proceeds from them, and it is generally difficult to assess the economic feasibility of labor-intensive efforts to recover insignificant amounts in court.

Principle of proportionality is based on the interdependence of the processes of filling budgets and discouragement as a result of taxation of the economic activity of taxpayers. It is often characterized as the principle of economic balance between the interests of taxpayers and the state treasury, i.е. when establishing taxes and determining their elements, it is necessary to measure the consequences in terms of both benefits for the budget and damage to the economy. Moreover, these benefits and losses should be compared not only at the current moment of time, but also in the future, so as not to receive a further reduction in the tax base and, accordingly, a decrease in tax revenues. Theoretically, this principle is well illustrated by the Laffer curve.

A. Laffer demonstrated the relationship between the value of tax rates and the volume of tax revenues, showing that lower rates carry the ability not so much to reduce current revenues as the potential for their future increase. The abscissa axis in the graph of the figure shows the value of the tax rate, but the value of the effective aggregate tax rate or the value of the tax burden on the economy can be given - the general form of dependence will not change from this.

According to this dependence, an increase in the tax rate to the level r max will ensure an increase, albeit at an increasingly slowing pace, of tax revenues up to the maximum possible value of their H max . In the range r fact.

If the upper limit of this rate is exceeded - r max , i.e. when finding the tax rate in the range r fact. > r max , which is called the forbidden zone of the scale, economic agents have less incentives for legal activity. Production is reduced, and the tax base and the volume of tax revenues are accordingly reduced. There is a shift in GDP production to the shadow sector of the economy, free from tax obligations. Finding a tax rate in a restricted area is a "tax trap".

Thus, the same volume of tax revenues (H 2 = H 1) is provided at different tax rates. But at the same time, lower tax rates are preferable. They are oriented to the future, since they do not suppress the entrepreneurial activity of economic agents, they allow them to invest and expand production. Over time, additional output will increase the tax base, which will increase tax revenue.

The principle of consideration of interests is based on the certainty of the tax payment, i.e. all elements of the tax, as well as the convenience of calculating and paying the tax, primarily for the taxpayer. One of the obligatory attributes of this principle is the preliminary awareness of the taxpayer not only about the exhaustive list of taxes that he should pay, but also about all the changes introduced into the tax legislation. Another attribute is to ensure the simplicity of calculating the tax liability and the convenience of the time of payment, which should be combined with the fact of receiving income (for taxes on labor and income) or with the moment of the act of consumption (for taxes on consumption).

One of the clear examples of the implementation of this principle in Russian practice is a certain variability in the choice by the taxpayer of one or another method of calculating and paying for individual taxes, as well as the possibility of small businesses using various taxation systems.

Multiplicity principle taxes synthesizes two aspects.

Firstly, this principle provides for the expediency of building a tax system on a set of differentiated taxes and differing objects of taxation. The plurality of taxes creates the prerequisites for increasing the targeting of taxation, which to a greater extent captures the solvency of taxpayers and the presence of various objects of taxation, makes it possible to more effectively distribute the tax burden among various categories of payers, makes it more invisible to them, thereby forming a more tolerant attitude towards it. Moreover, it is more difficult to avoid various objects of taxation and the payment of many taxes than one object and a single tax.

Secondly, this principle provides for the expediency of forming a plurality of sources for budgets of each level, the inadmissibility of the situation of a “budget of one tax”, since with a plurality of sources, its filling is relatively guaranteed, regardless of possible failures in the receipt of a particular tax. The plurality of budget sources is economically more expedient, especially in times of crisis. In this case, many taxes with low rates and wide tax bases will fill the budget more effectively than a limited number of taxes with high rates.

COURSE WORK

Subject "Theory and history of taxation"

"Methods of practical implementation of the principle of fairness in taxation"

Introduction

1 Principle of social justice

2 Benefit principle

3 Principle of solvency

4 Conclusions on Chapter 2

Chapter 3. The Principle of Equity in Progressive and Proportional Taxation

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

An important place among the economic levers by which the state influences the market economy is occupied by taxes. Formation, formation and development of the tax systems of most countries took place over centuries and was due to various economic, political and social conditions that arose at each stage of the historical development of states. Therefore, it is quite natural that the tax systems of different countries do not differ in uniformity, but, on the contrary, they differ from each other: in terms of types and structure of taxes, tax rates, methods of collection, fiscal powers of authorities at different levels, level, scope, and the number of benefits provided and a number of other important features.

The change in forms of government, as a rule, was accompanied by the transformation of the tax system. The desire of states to comply with the principle of fairness in taxation has been constant in civilized countries. This principle has a complex content and can be considered as an economic, moral and legal principle.

Justice is one of the eternal ideas and desires of mankind. The reforms currently being carried out in Russia in the economic, social and legal spheres set as one of the urgent tasks the complete renewal of legislation, the formation of a free legal state. Achieving significant results in these areas is possible provided that the adopted laws or changes meet the requirements of fairness.

The purpose of the work is a theoretical and legal study of the evolution of the principle of justice, its state in Russia at the present stage. Consideration of the principle of justice in progressive and proportional taxation. To reveal the main directions of modern principles of building taxation systems.

Ø analyze:

ü development of views on justice;

ü changing the content of this principle;

ü the current state of the principle of justice;

Ø determine the role and place of the principle of justice in the Russian state.

Chapter 1 examines the understanding of the principle of fairness in the taxation system from the points of view of various economists.

Chapter 2 is devoted to the disclosure of the criteria for the fairness of taxation through the principles of social justice, benefits received, solvency.

Chapter 3 attempts to describe the implementation of the principle of equity in progressive and proportional taxation.

Chapter 1. The principle of fairness of the taxation system

The principle of fairness of the taxation system is perhaps the most difficult not only in practical implementation, but also in its interpretation.

A.V. Bryzgalin notes that “a fair system of taxation is the ideal dream of any state and society, which has not yet been achieved by any country in the world. Human civilization has been moving towards this goal for centuries, and it still has a very long way ahead of it. The imperfection of the taxation system inevitably causes and will cause criticism of any fiscal institutions of society. However, regardless of this, the search for rational, efficient and fair taxation must continue.”

A. Smith considered proportional taxation of income fair: “Citizens of the state must make contributions in order to maintain the activities of the government, which are as accurately as possible proportional to the economic capabilities of the taxpayers, i.e. proportional to the income they receive due to the state structure of society. In contrast to this, V. Petty considered the most fair indirect taxation of consumption. In the XX century. most countries recognized the fair progressive scale of income taxation. In some countries, progressive income taxation is even enshrined as a constitutional principle (eg Spain, Portugal, Liechtenstein). However, there is no consensus on this issue at present.

A. Smith's "fairness" of the tax meant strict uniformity in the distribution of the burden of the tax among all its payers. Before him, such uniformity was sometimes interpreted as arithmetic equality in terms of the amount of tax levied on each citizen (for example, “per capita tax layout”). A. Smith's merit lies in the fact that he proposed to consider "tax justice" the proportionality of the tax levied on each citizen to the amount of his income (property), i.e. introduced proportional taxation as a rule. “The one who receives (having) more should pay more.” This was a big step forward then, because with the then prevailing taxes on basic commodities (salt, sugar, bread, beer, etc.), low-income recipients paid a disproportionate share of their income in these taxes - in comparison with more affluent citizens, in whose incomes the expenditure on these taxable products occupied a relatively small place. At the same time, A. Smith has not yet reached the equality of all citizens before taxes - his ideas of "tax justice" were limited to equality in the payment of taxes within certain classes of independent citizens; other class or property "insufficient" sections of the population had no right to such equality.

In modern times, this condition of A. Smith has acquired a new meaning.

Firstly, in modern democratic states, all citizens are already absolutely equal before taxes - both in paying and in the right to participate - directly and through representatives - in the establishment of laws on the introduction or change in the size and procedure of taxation.

Secondly, the very "fairness" of taxation began to be understood as the withdrawal of a larger share of tax from more income (capital), which became the ideological justification for the transition from proportional to progressive taxation rates. The principle of "equal participation in the general expenses" of the state has given way to the principle of "equal sacrifice" (it is easier for the rich to pay a larger share of the tax than the same amount to the poor). The newspapers of that time wrote that "with the introduction of progressive tax rates, the authorities embarked on the road leading to socialism."

Now progressive taxation of income (sometimes from capital) has become an established element of any modern taxation system. However, in a number of countries such “fairness” is already recognized as excessive (indeed, in many Western countries, marginal tax rates sometimes rose to 55-70%) - and acting not so much in favor of a more equitable distribution of income, but in favor of encouraging idleness and high the unemployment rate. Therefore, in recent years, many countries have been adjusting their tax rates towards a greater “flatness” of their rise (although the principle of tax progression itself is still not rejected by anyone).

Views on the concept of justice and its interpretation by economists of different countries differ from each other. But all of them are unanimous in the need to ensure fairness in matters of taxation.

Chapter 2. Criteria of fairness in the distribution of the tax burden

The implementation of the principle of fairness in the distribution of the tax burden in practice is far from being an easy task and, as a rule, is impossible in absolute terms. This is due to two circumstances.

First, the criteria for justice are highly subjective and differ for individual individuals. The criteria of justice generally accepted in a given society are purely qualitative. They are rather vague and cannot be formulated in the form of any definite quantitative ratios. In addition, one can speak with relative confidence about generally accepted criteria only in relation to a given specific society at a given specific stage of its socio-economic development. The principles of levying the same tax, acceptable for one country, may be unacceptable for another.

Secondly, the consistent implementation in taxation of even the criteria of justice recognized by all can lead, and in some cases even leads to a contradiction with other fundamental principles of taxation, sometimes depriving the corresponding tax of any meaning. The resolution of emerging contradictions and the choice in favor of one or another principle usually goes beyond the framework of the purely economic approach and is determined by political, social and other motives. Nevertheless, some undeniable general approaches to the implementation of the principle of justice do exist.

1 Principle of social justice of taxation

tax burden justice social

The principle of social justice of taxation in relation to tax subjects means that organizations and citizens with high incomes should bear a greater tax burden than organizations and citizens with low incomes, including taking into account tax benefits, which will improve the overall well-being of the least well-to-do part of the population states. The criterion of the principle is the solvency of the subject of the tax, i.e. proportionality of the collected payments to real incomes, taking into account the development of the organization or the family subsistence level and the ability to bear the tax burden of payments to the state fund.

As applied to taxation, the principle of fairness is transformed into the principle of relative equality of tax liabilities or even distribution of the tax burden. We are talking about relative equality, since in this case, as in many others, absolute equality in itself contradicts generally accepted ideas about justice. To levy equal taxes on both the millionaire and the beggar is clearly unfair from the point of view of any society. Therefore, what is meant is not the equality of the amounts of taxes paid, but the equality of all in relation to certain criteria for the distribution of the tax burden, corresponding to the ideas of this society about social justice.

Relative equality of tax liabilities is achieved by observing horizontal equality and vertical equality.

Horizontal equality implies that taxpayers in the same position should bear equal tax liabilities.

According to the principle of vertical equality, the tax liabilities of taxpayers who are in different positions cannot be equal and are subject to differentiation in accordance with the position of taxpayers.

In essence, the principle of relative equality of tax liabilities, taken in its most general form, only postulates the absence of any discrimination and implies the distribution of taxes based on criteria that are clearly expressed and approved by society. In such a formulation, it can hardly arouse objections from anyone. Problems will begin from the moment when we try to formulate criteria for a comparative assessment of the position of taxpayers, according to which tax liabilities should be differentiated. Here, only one thing is indisputable: the criteria used should be related to the results of the activities of individuals, and not to their innate unchanging qualities.

As a result of historical development, two main approaches to assessing the state of taxpayers have been developed. On the basis of which their tax liabilities can be differentiated: the principle of benefits received and the principle of solvency (Fig. 1).

2 Benefit principle

The principle of received benefits proceeds from the subjective willingness of a particular taxpayer to pay this tax, which, in turn, is determined by the individual utility for this individual of the state's activities financed by taxes. According to this principle, the taxpayer who receives more benefits from such activities should pay more tax. The advantage of this principle is that for the taxpayer, the relationship between the taxes paid and the volume and quality of services provided by the state is clearly visible. The approach underlying this principle aims to ensure a fair match between the amounts of taxes paid and the goods consumed, in contrast to the principle of tax solvency discussed below, which is focused on a fair distribution of the total tax burden among all taxpayers. From this point of view, the implementation of the distribution of the tax burden according to the principle of benefits received makes it possible to assess the effectiveness of state activity, but for a number of reasons it is difficult to implement in practice.

Rice. 1. Different approaches to assessing the state of taxpayers in terms of determining the size of their tax liabilities.

First, the benefit from the use of any good is determined by its individual utility, and the individual utility of the state's activities for each individual is extremely difficult to determine, and in most cases (for example, defense spending) is impossible. Therefore, in the case of applying the principle of benefits received, in fact, information is used not about individual utility, but about the total consumption of certain public goods, which is not the same thing.

Secondly, the principle of benefits received is absolutely unacceptable in the case of tax financing of redistributive programs. Once, using this principle, A. Smith tried to substantiate the thesis that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor, since they receive more benefits from the activities of the state that protects their wealth. But in modern states, a significant part of the funds collected from taxes is spent precisely on social support for low-income strata of the population. In this case, the benefits of various categories of citizens from the use of tax revenues are simply not comparable. The low-income strata of the population receive a purely material benefit, while the wealthy receive a benefit in the form of social stability in society, which is necessary to maintain their well-being. Paying taxes according to the benefits they receive for low-income segments of the population who receive transfers from the same taxes is meaningless.

For these reasons, the practical application of the benefit-to-benefit principle is very limited. To some extent, it is taken into account when setting the amount of fees and when determining the payers of certain targeted taxes to finance public services, from which certain groups of economic entities receive special benefits.

3 Principle of solvency

The principle of solvency proceeds from the objective ability of individual taxpayers to bear the tax burden. It is the most common, but upon closer examination it turns out to be not as simple as it seems at first glance.

For the first time, a detailed justification of the principle of solvency in the distribution of the tax burden was put forward by J.S. Mill, who formulated the concept of "equal sacrifice for common purposes." In fact, the replacement of the principle of benefits received by the principle of solvency is a transition from using the criterion of individual utility to using the criterion of social utility. The theoretical substantiation of such an approach is possible within the concept of utilitarianism, which proceeds from the postulate of the comparability of individual utility functions and defines the social welfare function to be maximized as the sum of the values ​​of individual utility functions.

One of the main problems in the practical application of the solvency principle is the interpretation of the very concept of tax solvency and the choice of criteria for its assessment. Income, property and consumption are usually considered as indicators of solvency. Which one (or a combination of which) is used to build a taxation system depends on the interpretation of the concept of tax solvency. D. Schneider considers four main options for such an interpretation (Fig. 2).

Tax solvency as the actual receipt of funds is measured by the income received during the tax period. At the same time, income is understood as the amount that can be used for consumption without reducing the value of property, fixed before the start of the tax period. In this interpretation, according to D. Schneider, additional taxation of property is unacceptable, since the preservation of its value is a condition for determining income.

Reference:

D. Schneider is a well-known scientist, professor, representative of the German school of marketing. Author of a number of books on the specifics of marketing.

When interpreting tax solvency as the satisfaction of needs, according to D. Schneider, the totality of property at the beginning of the tax period and income received during the tax period, or the totality of property at the end of the tax period and consumption expenditures incurred during the tax period, should be considered. At the same time, it is reasonable to establish a separate tax on property as an addition to the tax on income or consumer spending.

Rice. 2 - Possible interpretations of the concept of tax solvency (according to D. Schneider)

When interpreting tax solvency as an opportunity to meet needs, it is necessary to determine what exactly is the real satisfaction of needs. Attempts to distinguish between the possible and realized satisfaction of needs do not give a satisfactory result in terms of determining tax solvency and lead them to practical identification.

The interpretation of tax solvency as an opportunity to receive funds focuses on the income that could be received during the tax period from the use of property and labor during normal working hours, using all personal abilities.

Essentially, it means imposing an ability tax that:

Ø firstly, it limits the right of the taxpayer to freely choose directions for the use of his property and his abilities;

Ø secondly, it encounters insurmountable obstacles in terms of an objective assessment of abilities.

From the point of view of the theory of the victim, commonly used in substantiating the principles of taxation, which considers tax as a personal sacrifice that reduces the possibility of satisfying needs, the most acceptable interpretation of tax solvency is the satisfaction of needs, which implies the need to tax both the income received during the tax period and the income accumulated at the beginning. property tax period. However, this raises the problem of double taxation, since property is usually acquired at the expense of income received, which has already been subject to taxation.

As a result, tax solvency is usually determined on the basis of income received by the taxpayer. But at the same time, a fairly broad interpretation of the concept of "income" allows for the possibility and even justifies the need for taxation of certain types of property. According to the theoretical definition of Haig-Simons, income is the amount of growth in the welfare of an individual plus his consumption over a certain period of time. At the same time, consumption can be carried out both through the purchase of goods and services in the market, and through their production in one's own household.

The implementation of horizontal equality requires an assessment of the state of the taxpayer, taking into account all his income, including those received in the household. Suppose that one person works for hire, receives some income for his work and spends half of it on the purchase of food. The other receives half the income, but has his own land, on which he produces all the food he needs, so that the cost of their consumption is zero. It is obvious that both are in practically equal economic conditions, have approximately the same level of well-being and should have paid equal taxes. However, no system of taxation is able to take into account all, without exception, natural components of income, in particular those produced in the household, if only because this would require the creation of a huge controlling apparatus, the content of which would absorb most of the taxes collected. Therefore, the distribution of the tax burden according to the principle of solvency in an impeccable form is not feasible in practice. A person who produces a range of goods and services for his own consumption in the household will almost inevitably pay less taxes than a person who has the same level of wealth as him, but who purchases the same goods and services in the market. In addition to a large income tax, the latter will also pay indirect taxes on consumption when purchasing goods and services. Estimating the real level of well-being becomes even more complicated if we take into account that leisure also has an independent value.

The situation under consideration can change significantly if, in addition to income tax, taxpayers pay other types of taxes, such as property taxes. If a person who produces products for his own consumption on his own land plot also pays a land tax, then under certain conditions his total tax liabilities can be equalized with the tax liabilities of a person who purchases the same products on the market. Two conclusions can be drawn from this.

The principle of relative equality of tax liabilities should be applied in the context of the taxation system as a whole. From the point of view of the taxpayer, it is primarily the total amount of tax liabilities that is important for him, and not their distribution by individual types of taxes. The application of the principle of tax solvency requires a fair distribution of the total tax burden for all taxes that are not related to the distribution of the tax burden on the principle of benefits received. In real-life taxation systems, this is usually not observed. An example is the existence in parallel with income taxes of indirect taxes, the impact of which on tax solvency is usually not taken into account when distributing the tax burden on income taxes.

The existence of different types of taxes in the tax system makes it possible to achieve a distribution of the tax burden that is more adequate to the real well-being of taxpayers. In this case, the issue of a fair distribution of the total tax burden is particularly acute. As D. Schneider notes, in a taxation system with many types of taxes, in order to maintain uniformity of taxation, individual tax bases should be recalculated into a general indicator of tax solvency.

However, even a precise definition of income in itself is not yet a sufficiently adequate measure of solvency and does not ensure unconditional observance of the principle of horizontal equality. The economic situation of the taxpayer should be assessed taking into account involuntary expenses (for example, expenses for medical treatment), income-related expenses, minimum expenses for food, housing, clothing, etc. This leads to the need to establish a certain set of benefits. However, it is often difficult to distinguish between involuntary and other expenses.

Even more problems arise with the observance of the principle of vertical equality, which in itself does not determine and cannot determine the necessary degree of differentiation of tax liabilities for taxpayers with different levels of income. He is equally satisfied with both proportional and progressive taxation. The choice between them cannot be made at all on the basis of purely economic considerations, and it must be approached from the standpoint of the ideas of justice accepted in a given society. In the vast majority of countries, the choice is made in favor of a progressive scale of income taxation. In addition to the generally accepted ideas of justice, the theoretical justification for this approach is the theory of equal sacrifice and diminishing marginal utility of income. .

4 Conclusions on Chapter 2

The existence of different types of taxes in the tax system of the countries of the world makes it possible to achieve a distribution of the tax burden that is more adequate to the real well-being of taxpayers. At the same time, there are various types of tax incentives. The implementation of the principles of fair taxation in practice sometimes leads to contradictions. The resolution of emerging contradictions and the choice in favor of one or another principle usually goes beyond the scope of the purely economic approach and is determined by political, social and other motives.

3.The principle of fairness in proportionate and progressive taxation

The idea of ​​fairness in the tax system originated from the moment the system emerged.

At the beginning of the XX century. Russian economist G.I. Boldyrev at work Income tax in the West and in Russia what the concept of tax fairness is one of the least established concepts . The debatability of the problems of tax justice in the opinion of financiers is due to the extreme subjectivity of the idea of ​​justice in general, firstly, and secondly, the different understanding of it by wealthy and poor segments of the population. The political nature of the tax, including the principle of fairness in taxation, divided financial science into two camps, which interpreted fairness in taxation from opposite positions. But all financial schools were unanimous in that justice in taxation is not something absolute, that the concept of it varies depending on the place and historical epoch.

MM. Alekseenko, making an attempt to clarify the nature of justice in taxation, wrote that justice, like everything moral, is a relative concept and depends on the place, time and culture of the people . From these positions, M.M. Alekseenko gives a theoretical interpretation of fairness in taxation: When forming taxes, people tend to justice , but human justice relative. In a society characterized by the division of classes into the privileged and the taxable, the generality of taxation is offensive to the privileged. In a society in which equality before the law, court, service and tax is recognized as the fundamental principle of social life, the generality of taxation is so commonplace that it is strange to even talk about it as a question.

A. Isaev in his work Essay on the theory and policy of taxes considers fairness in taxation from the point of view of financial policy. The doctrine of justice in the policy of taxes, in his opinion, contains answers to two questions:

) who should pay taxes?

) how to achieve equalization in the distribution of taxes between payers, using what principle of proportional or progressive?

This question is still relevant today.

Taking into account these factors and criteria, the idea of ​​justice in taxation developed, which, as we already know, found its expression in the principle of generality and uniformity of taxation. This principle, proclaimed by A. Smith at the end of the 16th century. was refined until the end of the 20th century, when it received its final formulation as a principle of justice with the specification of its vertical and horizontal sections in the US tax system.

It was the political nature of the tax, and not just the financial one, that forced states to implement the idea of ​​justice in the construction of tax systems. G.I. Boldyrev wrote that the idea of ​​building a tax system on the basis of justice more than once it had a decisive influence in carrying out both purely financial and social reforms in various states.

Consider the principle of universality in the payment of taxes. Financial science of the XIX century. noted two stages, how, taking into account specific historical conditions, the understanding of the development of the concept of universality changed. Under feudalism, universality was understood as a requirement that all strata of the population be taxable, that the nobility and clergy pay taxes equally with everyone else. In the 2nd half of the XIX century. the principle of universality could not be understood in the literal sense of the word, since it was recognized as necessary to exempt small incomes from taxes, including the approved minimum means of subsistence. Justifying the principle of universality, K. Eeberg wrote: It (universality) also consists in the exclusion of all privileges, both property and personal. Unfairly and certainly contradicts the concept of belonging to the state, the existence of individuals and legal entities who, while participating in the benefits of the state, are nonetheless completely or partially exempt from the duties that fall on them. The exemption of some small incomes and property, for example, the so-called subsistence minimum, from separate direct taxes is not a violation of this principle, since the poor still bear indirect taxes. On the contrary, such an exemption, in those cases in which indirect taxes fall especially hard on the lower classes, is even an act of justice and a real necessity caused by economic considerations.

In the theory and practice of taxation, the question of choosing proportional or progressive taxation to implement the principle of justice has been and remains the most controversial. To answer this question, financial science offers two criteria for the possible distribution of the tax burden:

) by the amount of benefits received by the taxpayer from the state;

) in accordance with the solvency of the taxpayer.

The criterion of tax distribution depending on the amount of benefits received from the state appeared and developed within the framework of individualistic tax theories. Proponents of these theories believed that the payment of a tax is a payment to the state for the services it provides to citizens in the form of protection from enemies, etc. In this sense, the amount of taxes is determined by the volume and nature of state services.

According to Zh.Zh. Rousseau "the state strenuously guards the vast wealth of the rich and barely allows the poor to use the hut that he built with his own hands." From this he concludes that progressive taxation is necessary to achieve justice.

J. Sismondi wrote that since the tax is the price paid by a citizen for what he uses, taxes should not be demanded from those who have nothing. He for the first time expresses the idea of ​​a non-taxable minimum necessary to ensure life. “You should never encroach on that part of the income that is necessary for the life of the taxed. Since most of the state's expenditures go to protect the rich from the poor, it is fair that the rich pay for the maintenance of such an advantageous order of things, not in proportion to their property, but somewhat more. J. Sismondi calls this proportion with "light modifications", in fact, this is the rationale for the system of progressive taxation.

The Physiocrats, putting forward the demand for a single land tax, unanimously came out in favor of proportional taxation.

A. Smith adhered to the same point of view, formulating this proposal in the form of the first principle of taxation: according to the income they enjoy under the patronage and protection of the state.

These theories corresponded to the individualistic understanding of the state in the 17th and 18th centuries. But these ideas retained their significance in the 19th century and were transformed into the theory of remuneration, the theory of insurance, and a number of others.

The theory of remuneration recommended setting the amount of taxation in proportion to the benefits received by subjects from the state, namely, taxation similar to taxation in terms of the costs incurred by the taxpayer. In accordance with this theory, a greater burden of taxation should fall on the lower classes of the population, who, due to their poverty, ignorance, weakness, require more public assistance (education, medicine, protection, etc.).

The theory of tax as an insurance premium was put forward by A. Thiers and J. R. McCulloch. In their opinion, taxes are an insurance payment paid by citizens to the state in case of any risk. Taxpayers insure their property against war, fire, theft, etc. But unlike true insurance, i.e. receiving insurance compensation upon the occurrence of an insured event, taxes are paid to prevent this event, in order to pre-finance the state's expenses for law enforcement and defense.

As you can see, within the framework of individualistic theories of taxation, the criterion of benefits received for solving the problem of justice did not give an unambiguous answer: the recommendations of scientists ranged from regressive to proportional and progressive taxation.

The idea of ​​fairness in taxation poses the problem of the need for a minimum income that is free from taxation. Such a minimum of taxation can be the criterion of the average subsistence (monthly, annual) minimum of a family member or the family as a whole. Although this principle contradicts the principle of universality of taxation, it fully corresponds to the principle of social justice, which provides a citizen with a human existence in society.

The principle of proportionality in the collection of taxes from the subject of the tax means that each taxpayer is charged a single percentage of tax on the subject of taxation (income), i.e. the tax is levied in equal shares of income. For example, the annual income of tax subjects is: the first - 30 thousand rubles, the second - 250 thousand, the third - 2 million, but all taxpayers are charged 13% of income tax. This principle is in conflict with the principle of social justice.

The principle of progressive taxation of tax subjects means that with the growth of income of taxpayers, the percentage of withdrawals also increases, forming a scale of rates with a direct or complex progression. A simple progression involves an increase in the tax rate in relation to the entire object of taxation (income), and a complex one - the division of the object of taxation into parts, of which each subsequent part is subject to an increased rate. The principle of progressiveness is in conflict with the principle of proportionality, but does not contradict the principle of social justice.

Before considering the arguments of the supporters of proportional and progressive taxation, it should be recalled that taxes are not only a financial phenomenon, but also a political one. Views on taxes always reflect certain class interests.

Proportional taxes are much more easily tolerated by the wealthy classes, since they weaken the tax regime as the object of taxation increases. Progressive taxes, on the other hand, affect the propertied classes much more sensitively and the more, the stronger the progression of taxation increases. That is why the propertied classes have always opposed this method of taxation, and the financiers who defended their interests have found arguments against progressive taxation.

The supporters of the principle of progressiveness have always been the working classes, mainly the working class, which put forward this principle in the programs of their parties. Marxism associated progressive taxation (up to the complete confiscation of large property) with the destruction of private property as such.

The next attempt to introduce progression on purely economic principles is associated with the name of E. Sachs, who abandoned the theory of equality of the victim and excluded the question of justice from his theory. E. Sachs divides all human needs into individual and collective. The basis of taxation is that the citizen must support the state, which alone can satisfy the collective needs. What part of the property or income of a given person goes to the state is determined by the marginal utility of goods, and the latter is determined depending on the amount of goods belonging to the citizen. The purely economic basis of taxation is the equality of the values ​​levied, and not the equality of the sacrifice.

What principle should be put in the basis of taxation - proportional or progressive? Financial practice uses both. The discussion, due to economic and socio-political reasons, ended in the last third of the 19th - early 20th centuries with the victory of the supporters of progressive taxation. The presence of progressive, proportional and even regressive taxation in the tax mechanism balances and balances the tax system.

3.1Conclusions

In the theory and practice of taxation, the question of choosing proportional or progressive taxation to implement the principle of justice has been and remains the most controversial. But all financial schools were unanimous in that justice in taxation is not something absolute, that the concept of it varies depending on the place and historical era.

Conclusion

In his work, the author of the course project managed to consider only certain approaches, ideas and views on the problem of fair taxation, which are due to the subjectivity of the idea of ​​justice in general. The general approach to understanding the principle of tax fairness is to understand it as an expression of the conformity of the property status of the taxpayer and the tax levied, taking into account the actual income of the taxpayer when levying taxes.

The concept of justice, both in society and directly in taxation, is a very dynamic phenomenon. With the development of society and the state, its content changes. At each historical stage, their own ideas about fair taxation are formed.

Fairness in taxation lies in the fact that fair taxation should not be burdensome, which would hinder the economic development of a subject of the economy. An important condition for the implementation of the principle of justice should be considered the equality of all taxpayers in taxation under equal conditions.

The principle of justice is fundamental in the system of principles of taxation. It is not only independent and has a real content, but also daily dominates other principles, and the eternally dissatisfied taxpayer appeals primarily to him. Not only in Russia, but also in European countries and in the USA, if an ordinary taxpayer is dissatisfied with the tax system, then most often he points to injustice as its main drawback. The significance of this principle is great and indisputable.

It is fully justified that the principle of justice will never lose its relevance and significance. The process of studying this principle cannot be completely completed, since the principle of justice has an extremely mobile content, due to the constantly changing economic, political and social conditions that arose at each stage of the historical development of states.

Taxes must be fair. This provision, expressed by Adam Smith in the form of a kind of economic axiom, is reflected in the modern economic history of Russia in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Fair taxation should be built on the basis of a harmonious combination of the financial interests of the state, society and taxpayers. A necessary condition for this is the consistent implementation of the principles of universality of equality and proportionality of taxation.

As a tool for the practical implementation of the principle of justice in taxation, this paper considers the personal income tax, as well as the turnover tax, which replaces the totality of VAT, personal income tax, UST and NP.

In order to improve this tool, a gradual transition to a parity system of financing pension, social, and medical insurance by employers and employees is proposed, subject to a significant increase in wages and increased control of state bodies over the payment of "net" wages by employers.

As a second tool to improve the fairness of taxation, it is proposed to introduce a turnover tax instead of VAT, personal income tax, UST and NP. The four main taxes - VAT, personal income tax, UST and NP - have a negative consequence of the fact that a number of industries (fuel and energy complex, industries of primary processing of mineral and organic raw materials) receive a unilateral tax advantage at the expense of other sectors of the national economy (engineering, construction, transport, housing and communal services , services, light and food industries, high-tech industries).

The reason for this situation is the fact that the total tax burden on the taxpayer for these four taxes depends on the sectoral structure of net revenue (primarily on the share of the payroll fund and material costs). As a result of the discriminatory tax pressure, the sectoral structure of the economy was deformed: the dominance of raw materials industries to the detriment of all other industries became the norm; a mass phenomenon was the concealment of the true size of the wage fund in the economy.

Bibliography

1.Aleksandrov I.M. "Taxes and taxation". Textbook. Dashkov and K. 2010 - 318 p.

2.Alekseenko M.M. "Income tax and conditions for its application". Kharkiv. M.: Publishing house "Os-89", 2007.

.Boldyrev G.I. "Income tax in the West and in Russia". Leningrad. 1924

.Boryan Yu.B. “The main changes in taxation in 2005”. Publisher: Economy. 2011

.Korovkin V.V. "Fundamentals of the theory of taxation". Publisher. SGAP. Saratov. 2012 p.139-142

.Chernik D.G. "Taxes and taxation": Proc. allowance - M. 2007 - 311s.

.Chernik D.G., Shmelev Yu.D. "History of taxation and the general theory of taxes": Proc. allowance, M., 2010 - 208 p.

.Schneider D. Technological marketing. Ed. "Janus-K". 2009. p.478.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.