The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Taxation of country people Buryat Mongolsky the ASSR in the period of the New Economic Policy



PLEKHANOV'S anna

TAXATION of COUNTRY PEOPLE of BURYAT-MONGOLSKOY of the ASSR in the period of the New Economic Policy

In article the experience of taxation of country people of Buryat-Mongopii in the period of the New Economic Policy is analyzed; it is proved that social-class priorities were the cornerstone of the Soviet tax policy.

The article examines the taxation system of the rural population in Buryat-Mongolia during the period of the NEP. It is proved that social and class priorities were in the basis of the Soviet fiscal policy.

new economic policy, Buryat Mongolsky ASSR, unified agricultural tax, tax policy; new economic policy, Buryat-Mongolian ASSR, flat agricultural tax, fiscal policy.

The research of a problem of relationship of the peasantry and the power is of great importance for understanding of features of national history of the 20th century. Into the forefront the analysis of the relations of the specified subjects during the periods of functioning of transitional economic systems from which the new economic policy is especially significant acts. The system of taxation which underwent significant changes for years of the New Economic Policy was the sphere of permanent collision of interests of the peasantry and the power.

Tax policy of the Soviet state in the 1920th repeatedly became subject of the analysis from researchers of history Soviet dokolkhozny derevni1. However now insufficiently investigated are regional aspects of a problem, in particular consideration of the changes made in 1923 — 1928 to an order of taxation of country people of Buryat Mongolia by a unified agricultural tax.

The X congress of RCP(b) proclaimed transition from a surplus-appropriation system to a prodnalog. Later, in comparison with other regions of the country, transition to a prodnalog was feature of Buryatia, as well as in general all Siberia. By March, 1921 the percent of performance of an allotment reached here only 50% of a plan target. Sibrevk upon the demand of Narkomat of food adopted the resolution on cancellation of an allotment in provinces only in case the task is performed not less than for 75%. Therefore only in June, 1922 at the regular aymachny congresses of Councils it was declared cancellation of a surplus-appropriation system and introduction of a prodnalog in the territory of the Buryat Mongolsky autonomous Region of Siberia.

With education in 1923. Buryat Mongolsky all national and local taxes paid by the peasantry were united by the ASSR in a unified agricultural tax (single agricultural tax). Its main function was mobilization of monetary resources of the village to the budgetary sphere. Besides, the tax had to govern the social and economic relations and limit development of capitalist elements of the village and ulus.

Peasants brought a part of a single agricultural tax in kind, and a part, voluntarily — money. Since January, 1924, according to directives of the XII congress

1 V.P. Danilov. The Soviet tax policy in the dokolkhozny village//October and the Soviet peasantry. 1917 — 1927 — M., 1977; L.I. Bozhenko. The Siberian village during the recovery period. 1921 — 1925 — Tomsk, 1978; N.Ya. Gushchin, V.A. Ilinykh. Class fight in the Siberian village (the 1920th — the middle of the 1930th). — Novosibirsk, 1987, etc.

PLEKHANOVA

Maksimovna — to. and. N, associate professor of history of the Fatherland of the Buryat gosudirstvsnny plehanova .am@ nuil.ni univvreitet

RCP(b), the tax began to be levied only in cash.

Agricultural tax 1923/24 of okladny year across Buryatia was estimated of 1,683,361 rub. In view of that for a poor part of country people the payment of a tax in total sum was burdensome, the minimum sum — a firm task which had to be executed — of 1,121,900 rub was determined

Difficulties in holding a tax campaign arose in connection with discrepancy of a scale of taxation with economy of farms of the republic. So, in the conditions of Buryatia the poor economy at small crops had 8 — 10 beasts whereas in the central provinces the economy reckoned with 4 — 5 beasts as already prosperous. The Buryat economy with 8 — 10 beasts was economically weak, but was assessed as zazhitochnoye1.

In September, 1924 the Resolution of the CEC and SNK BMASSR "About privileges on an agricultural tax for country and Buryat farms" according to which for improvement of breeds of the cattle and the advanced methods of its maintenance, expansion of crops of commercial crops and introduction of the improved crop rotations, development of new lands and successful land management began to be given tax benefits, and especially for collective farms was published.

K15 of September, 1924 of a single agricultural tax was executed on 104.4%2, in many respects thanks to the strengthened impact on payers, especially on a prosperous part. The resolution SNK BMASSR of February 13, 1924 created Extraordinary commission of inquiry on collecting an agricultural tax which carried on the investigation and trial on the reasons of non-payment of taxes.

The firm task of a single agricultural tax for 1924/25 on the republic was given of 1,233,706 rub 3 For January 7, 1925 the task was performed for 61.75%. Payment of a tax in general passed across the republic more or less well. Non-performance of a tax in certain areas was connected including and with waiting mood of peasants who

1 National Archive of the Republic of Buryatia (NARB), t. 1, op. 1, 245, l. 61 (about).
2 NARB, t. 1, op. 1, 448, l. 11.
3 Russian center of storage and studying documents of the contemporary history (RTsHIDNI), t. 17,

op. 31, 6, l. 7.

said: "There is a fight between Stalin and Trotsky's supporters, will look who will win. If Trotsky wins, then the tax on the peasantry will be removed because Trotsky for peasants, against a tax" 4.

Shortcomings of a system of an agricultural tax were shown also during the tax campaign of 1925/26. Tens of thousands of complaints from taxpayers came to hoshunny fiscal commissions. In the report of the government "About results of a campaign for a single agricultural tax for 1925/26" it was noted that "the main lack of carrying out collecting a single agricultural tax is untimely accounting of subjects to taxation, weak consideration of complaints by fiscal commissions because of what also payment of an agricultural tax on the party submitted applications was delayed". Nevertheless the firm task on an agricultural tax for October 1, 1926 was performed on 101.7%5.

In a campaign of 1926/27 began to involve domestic crafts, employment revenues and other not agricultural classes of peasants in taxation. As these classes were already assessed with a tax (trade and income taxes), included only a certain percent of not agricultural income established in a legislative order in a single agricultural tax, and so-called fists paid from the total sum of income, i.e. were assessed twice.

Holding a campaign for collecting a single agricultural tax in 1926/27 revealed defects in the system of taxation, in many respects not the corresponding economy of edge and to conditions of agriculture. The standards of profitability established by the center from the earth and the cattle did not answer reality. Such tax system and also low purchase prices of agricultural products led to the fact that peasants ceased to sell bread to the state for nothing that became the reason of crisis of grain-collections. Therefore in 1928 a peculiar reform of an agricultural tax was undertaken. Individual taxation of "kulak" farms not on standard, and on the valid income was characteristic of it; inclusion in an agricultural tax of earlier not assessed objects (pig-breeding, beekeeping); increase in standards of profitability,

4 RTsHIDNI, t. 17, op. 31, 6, l. 8.
5 Buryat Mongolsky ASSR. Essays and reports. 1925-1926-Verkhneudinsk, 1927, page 49.

for example, on a mowing — from 7 to 8 rub on tithe, on sheep — from 1 rub 50 kopeks to 2 rub; reduction lgot1. Tax changes of 1928 became means of expropriation of a prosperous part of the peasantry.

"Self-taxation" became an original form in the Soviet tax system. The tax imposed in 1927/28 was imposed from below, i.e. peasants had to assess themselves with an additional tax from which means went on local needs. The provision on "self-taxation" was made so that 12 — 15% of the residents of the village having the right to vote could make the decision. The imposed tax managed to be executed seldom. So, from 252,833 rub planned to receipt as self-taxation by the end of 1927/28 162,180 rub (64%) 2 were collected.

1928/29 became critical in tax policy in connection with establishment of an additional raise of a tax on strong farms from 5 to 25%. The provision on a single agricultural tax for 1928/29 defined signs on which the economy could be laid over individually. Among them — systematic application of wage labor and delivery in hiring of difficult farm vehicles with mechanical engines, possession of institutions (mills, milkchurns, kruporushka, etc.), classes buying up for the purpose of resale, trade, usury, delivery in hiring of apartments. All farms having among the members of attendants of religious cults were carried to number of kulak.

The discontent of the peasantry with tax toughening was shown in utayka of subjects to taxation and in refusal of payment of a tax. However non-performance of tax tasks involved in time administrative prosecution which main forms were fines, confiscation of property, imprisonment. In 1928/29 in Buryatia the property of 2,356 farms was described, 163 persons were brought to court and condemned, 280 fists underwent fivefold taxation.

In regular information reports it was said about a condition of grain-collections that "the campaign takes place sluggishly. On 10 noyab-

1 Buryat Mongolsky ASSR. Materials to the report of the IV congress of Councils. 1926/27-1927/28. BMASSR CEC and SNK edition, page 156.
2 In the same place, page 161.

rya 1929 in the Barguzin aimag 6.7 percent of an annual task, in Agin — 1 percent were performed. Activity of the poor and a serednyachestvo negative, dissatisfied with last year's preparation, they say that, having handed over bread, they should buy it on 6 rub again, as last year. Kulachestvo in every possible way tries to avoid delivery to the state. Hide where it is possible, even in the forest" 3. Thus, the peasantry did not wish to hand over bread at the so-called "fixed purchase prices" favorable to the state. Such situation presented the republic with a fait accompli of a failure of grain-collections. In search of an exit from grain procurement crisis of the power resorted to rigid means of pressure upon the "sabotaging" peasantry. Emergency measures actually meant "declaration of war" to the peasantry.

Experience of taxation of the period of the New Economic Policy showed mutual distrust of the power and taxpayers, especially if the last treated a prosperous layer. Class orientation of tax policy has pernicious effect not only on development of economy, but also on a socio-political and moral condition of society. The developed system of taxation led to curtailment of production, reduction of own income of the peasantry and transition to subsistence economy. The economic policy of party in the village pursued the mutually exclusive aims and could not make considerable success: restriction of prosperity slowed down economic progress of the village, and "favoritization" of the poor expanded poverty as the phenomenon of political character.

By the end of the 1920th the economic policy reached a deadlock as development of individual managing in the conditions of a political and economic arbitrariness in relation to it was impossible. Return to new option of the New Economic Policy in the conditions of the developed industrialization also could not happen. Collectivization became, thus, not so much result of a previously developed plan, how many the investigation of the general social and economic situation in the country and in the agrarian sector in particular.

3 NARB, t. 475, op. 1, 451, l. 123, 123 (about).
Matthew Randolph Hilary
Other scientific works: