The USSR and the USA are two world superpowers that competed for primacy in everything from the post-war period to the early 90s of the last century. Very important aspect This struggle was economics. Particularly great importance was paid to the GDP of the USSR and the USA. Comparing these indicators was a fairly powerful tool in the propaganda of both countries. But at the same time, with the help of these economic data, we can also now, through the veil of the past years, restore the actual state of affairs in the countries under study. So, what was the GDP of the USSR and the USA during the period of their rivalry?
Concept of gross product
But before analyzing the GDP of the USSR and the USA, let's find out what this concept actually is and what types of it exist.
Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of all goods and services produced in a particular state or region. If we divide the total GDP by the average number of inhabitants of the territory to which it belongs, we get the gross product per capita.
Indicators can be divided into two large groups: nominal and purchasing power parity. Nominal expressed in national currency, or in terms of the currency of any other country at the established rate. When calculating GDP at parity, the ratio of currencies to each other in terms of purchasing power relative to a specific type of goods or services is taken into account.
Comparison of economic indicators before World War II
Although the main peak of rivalry between the USSR and the USA occurred in the period after World War II, to complete the picture it would be useful to look at how the dynamics of their GDP changed in the first half of the 20th century.
The pre-war period was quite difficult both for the economy of the USSR and for the country. During this time, the country was being restored after the Civil War, which resulted in two severe famine periods of 1922 and 1932-1933, and the United States in 1929-1932 was experiencing a period its history known as the Great Depression.
The economy of the country of the Soviets sank the most in relation to the US GDP immediately after the Civil War in 1922. At that time, domestic GDP was only about 13% of that in the United States. But, in the following years, the USSR began to rapidly reduce the gap. To the pre-war 1940 year of GDP The USSR was equal in terms of American currency$417 billion, which was already 44% of the US figure. That is, Americans at that time had a gross domestic product of about $950 billion.
But the outbreak of war hit the USSR economy much more painfully than the American economy. This was due to the fact that fighting took place directly on the territory of the Soviet Union, and the United States fought only abroad. By the end of World War II, the USSR's GDP was only about 17% of gross product USA. But, again, after production began to recover, the gap between the economies of the two states began to rapidly narrow.
Comparison of GDP 1950-1970
In 1950, the USSR's share of world GDP was 9.6%. This amounted to 35% of US GDP, that is, even lower than the pre-war level, but, nevertheless, much higher than the figure for the first post-war year.
In subsequent years, the difference in the size of the gross products of the two superpowers, which by that time had become the USSR and the USA, was increasingly reduced, although not at such a rapid pace as before. By 1970, the Soviet GDP was about 40% of the GDP of the United States, which was already quite an impressive figure.
USSR GDP after 1970
Most of all we are interested in the state of the economy of the USSR and the USA after 1970 until the end when the rivalry between them reached its maximum. Therefore, for this period we will consider the GDP of the USSR by year. Then we will do the same with the gross domestic product of the United States. Well, at the final stage we will compare these results.
USSR GDP for 1970 - 1990 in million dollars:
- 1970 - 433,400;
- 1971 - 455,600;
- 1972 - 515,800;
- 1973 - 617,800;
- 1974 - 616,600;
- 1975 - 686,000;
- 1976 - 688,500;
- 1977 - 738,400;
- 1978 - 840,100;
- 1979 - 901,600;
- 1980 - 940,000;
- 1981 - 906,900;
- 1982 - 959,900;
- 1983 - 993,000;
- 1984 - 938,300;
- 1985 - 914,100;
- 1986 - 946,900;
- 1987 - 888,300;
- 1988 - 866,900;
- 1989 - 862,000;
- 1990 - 778,400.
As we can see, in 1970 the gross domestic product in the USSR was $433,400 million. Until 1973, it grew to $617,800 million. The next year there was a slight drop, and then growth resumed again. In 1980, GDP reached $940,000 million, but the following year there was a significant drop - $906,900 million. This situation was associated with a sharp drop in world oil prices. But we must pay tribute that already in 1982, GDP resumed growth. In 1983, it reached its maximum - $993,000 million. This is the largest gross domestic product for the entire existence of the Soviet Union.
But in subsequent years, an almost continuous decline began, which clearly characterized the state of the USSR economy of that period. The only episode of short-term growth occurred in 1986. The USSR's GDP in 1990 was $778,400 million. This was the seventh highest result in the world, and total share The Soviet Union's share of the world's gross product was 3.4%. Thus, when compared with 1970, the gross product increased by $345,000 million, but at the same time, starting in 1982, fell by $559,600 million.
But here you need to take into account one more detail: the dollar, like any currency, is subject to inflation. Therefore, 778,400 million 1990 dollars in terms of 1970 prices will be equal to 1,092 million dollars. As we can see, in this case, from 1970 to 1990 we will observe an increase in GDP in the amount of 658,600 million dollars.
We looked at the value, but if we talk about GDP at purchasing power parity, then in 1990 it was $1971.5 billion.
The value of gross product for individual republics
Now let's take a look at how much the USSR's GDP was by republic in 1990, or rather, how much, as a percentage, each subject of the Union contributed to the total gross income.
Naturally, the richest and most populous republic, the RSFSR, brought more than half into the common pot. Its share was 60.33%. Then came the second most populous and third largest republic - Ukraine. The gross domestic product of this subject of the USSR was 17.8% of the all-Union one. In third place is the second largest republic - Kazakhstan (6.8%).
Other republics had the following indicators:
- Belarus - 2.7%.
- Uzbekistan - 2%.
- Azerbaijan - 1.9%.
- Lithuania - 1.7%.
- Georgia - 1.2%.
- Turkmenistan - 1%.
- Latvia - 1%.
- Estonia - 0.7%.
- Moldova - 0.7%.
- Tajikistan - 0.6%.
- Kyrgyzstan - 0.5%.
- Armenia - 0.4%.
As we can see, Russia’s share in the all-Union GDP was greater than that of all other republics combined. At the same time, Ukraine and Kazakhstan also had a fairly high share of GDP. The rest of the subjects of the USSR have much less.
For a more complete picture, let's look at GDP today. Let us determine whether the order of arrangement of the former Soviet republics in terms of gross domestic product has changed.
GDP size according to the IMF for 2015:
- Russia - $1325 billion.
- Kazakhstan - $173 billion.
- Ukraine - $90.5 billion.
- Uzbekistan - $65.7 billion.
- Belarus - $54.6 billion.
- Azerbaijan - $54.0 billion.
- Lithuania - $41.3 billion.
- Turkmenistan - $35.7 billion.
- Latvia - $27.0 billion.
- Estonia - $22.7 billion.
- Georgia - $14.0 billion.
- Armenia - $10.6 billion.
- Tajikistan - $7.82 billion.
- Kyrgyzstan - $6.65 billion.
- Moldova - $6.41 billion.
As we see, the undoubted leader in GDP of countries The USSR remained Russia. On this moment its gross product is $1,325 billion, which in nominal terms is even more than it was in 1990 for the entire Soviet Union. Kazakhstan came in second place, ahead of Ukraine. Uzbekistan and Belarus also swapped places. Azerbaijan and Lithuania remained in the same places they were in during Soviet times. But Georgia has noticeably slipped, leaving Turkmenistan, Latvia and Estonia ahead. Moldova has slipped to last place among post-Soviet countries. And she missed ahead of Armenia, which in Soviet times was last in terms of GDP, as well as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
US GDP from 1970 to 1990
Now let's take a look at the dynamics of changes in the US gross domestic product during the last period of the existence of the USSR from 1970 to 1990.
Dynamics of US GDP, million dollars:
- 1970 - 1,075,900.
- 1971 - 1,167,800.
- 1972 - 1,282,400.
- 1973 - 1,428,500.
- 1974 - 1,548,800.
- 1975 - 1,688,900.
- 1976 - 1,877,600.
- 1977 - 2,086,000.
- 1978 - 2,356,600.
- 1979 - 2,632,100.
- 1980 - 2,862,500.
- 1981 - 3,211,000.
- 1982 - 3,345,000.
- 1983 - 3,638,100.
- 1984 - 4,040,700.
- 1985 - 4,346,700.
- 1986 - 4,590,200.
- 1987 - 4,870,200.
- 1988 - 5,252,600.
- 1989 - 5,657,700.
- 1990 - 5,979,600.
As we can see, the nominal GDP of the United States, in contrast to the gross domestic product of the USSR, grew continuously over the period from 1970 to 1990. Over 20 years it increased by $4,903,700 million.
Current level of the US economy
Since we have looked at the current state of the level of gross product in post-Soviet countries, we should find out how the United States is doing with this matter. According to the IMF, GDP value USA in 2015 amounted to $17,947 billion. This is more than three times more than in 1990.
Also, this value is several times greater than the GDP of all post-Soviet countries combined, including Russia.
Comparison of the gross product of the USSR and the USA for the period from 1970 to 1990
If we compare the level of GDP of the USSR and the USA for the period from 1970 to 1990, we will see that if in the case of the USSR, starting from 1982, the gross product began to decline, then in the United States it continuously grew.
In 1970, the gross product of the USSR was 40.3% of that of the United States, and in 1990 it was only 13.0%. In physical terms, the gap between the GDP of both countries reached $5,201,200 million.
For reference: current Russia's GDP is only 7.4% of US GDP. That is, in this regard, the situation, compared to 1990, has worsened even more.
General conclusions on the GDP of the USSR and the USA
Throughout the existence of the USSR, its gross domestic product was significantly inferior in size to that of the United States. Even in the best years for the Soviet Union, it amounted to about half the size of the American gross product. In the worst periods, namely after the Civil War and before the collapse of the Union, the level dropped to 13%.
Trying to catch up with the US economic development ended in failure, and in the early 90s of the last century the USSR ceased to exist as a state. Moreover, in 1990, the situation with the ratio of the USSR's GDP to the United States' GDP was approximately at the level of the situation after the end of the Civil War.
GDP level modern Russia is even further behind American indicators than the USSR was in 1990. But there are also objective reasons for this, since Russia currently does not include those republics that made up the Soviet Union and also contributed to the total GDP.
I often see discussions about the economy of the USSR, its structure and application. Most often, of course, the USSR and its economy mean only the time from 1985 to 1991, when the destruction of everything socialist was in full swing: the anarchy of production, the destruction monetary system, dreams of the invisible hand of the market and other delights of perestroika. It is as if there was no economy before this time.The most ardent anti-Sovietists, whose heads were washed by perestroika nationalist propaganda, claim that it was their republic that fed everyone else, that the USSR took everything from them, giving nothing in return. “It’s so good that we are freed from this oppression,” they think. Even their deplorable state modern economy does not sober up these people: “with the USSR it would be even worse,” they say, “we would live with our bare bottoms while other republics take apart our property.”
Enlightened anti-Sovietists even show some graphs and tables that “visually show” parasites who did nothing and were leeches. This picture is popular these days:
The top figure here is GDP per capita (as some claim), the bottom figure is unclear (after all, no one has calculated this). It is completely unclear how exactly the GDP of individual republics of those years was calculated, why the GDP of the USSR (calculated from this table) is equal to 4 trillion. dollars (1989), if in reality it was about 2.5 trillion. dollars. But for some reason, few people ask such questions.
For the sake of objectivity, I want to conduct my own investigation.
The USSR budget was built from two components: Union budget and budgets of the Union republics.
To start Let's look at the budgets of the union republics, because they are more specifically tied to territories. We use the 1989 budget.
Let's first take a look at the income/expenses of the most “unfortunate”/“bloodsuckers”, i.e. RSFRS, BSSR, GSSR, Ukrainian SSR, ESSR:
Revenues of the RSFSR
Expenses of the RSFSR
Revenues of the Ukrainian SSR
Expenses of the Ukrainian SSR
Revenues of the BSSR
Expenses of the BSSR
Revenues of the GSSR
GSSR expenses
Revenues of the ESSR
ESSR expenses
As we can see, the republics spent as much as they earned. All other republics, which I did not demonstrate here, also had income/expenses in a ratio close to 1:1. It was like that until 1989.
Remained union budget. But this is more complicated.
The fact is that the union budget did not belong to any republic, but was common. All republics invested in it. They spent this part of the state. budget for all-Union needs, according to plan and agreement with all republics.
In the days before Khrushchev became secretary general, the union budget was 3-4 times larger than the total budget of the union republics, i.e. Much more money was allocated for general needs than for private ones:
And that's understandable after all, a more centralized approach to budget allocation is much more effective than a divided one. Such a budget structure is natural for a socialist country that is trying to develop evenly, because not all regions were equally developed, it was necessary to raise the standard of living where it was very low, building factories and factories, creating infrastructure and much more. The budgets of the union republics were used mainly for socio-cultural events and household needs.
But, during the reign of Khrushchev and after it, The union budget was heavily cut, giving the lion's share to the budgets of the union republics (in particular, one of the main revenue items - turnover tax):
Budget policy became less centralized, the union republics began to control more aspects of activity, which became one of the reasons for the decrease in the rate of development of less developed regions and the entire economy as a whole. Also this led to greater independence of all republics and detachment from each other. Over time, the aloofness increased due to the decreasing importance of the Union budget. Such a budget is typical for a capitalist economy, but not for a socialist one.
We know what this led to in the end, but we would like to know everything in detail. To do this, let's do something that no one usually does - Let's calculate the share of budget expenditures of the Union republics per capita:
And so what we see: in 1950, many weak industrially republics received more funds than industrialized ones. The state tried to bring their standard of living to the level of developed republics and make living in these parts of the country more attractive, thanks to injections from the Union budget. During the years of using such a budget policy, the growth of the USSR economy was ahead of all capitalist countries. It was precisely this kind of socialism that the West fenced itself off with the Iron Curtain.
By 1960 fiscal policy has changed. By reducing injections into the union budget, the union republics had more funds at their disposal, but only those whose industry was already developed. The underdeveloped republics began to lag behind. This was the beginning of the decoupling of the economy. The only question is: was this done consciously?
According to the data of 1970, it is clear that funds from the union budget again began to be spent on the development of small republics, but very selectively: the main investments received the western parts of the union - the Baltic states and Belarus, as well as Armenia. Apparently, the remaining republics, in the opinion of the country's leadership, were already sufficiently developed.
In 1979-1989, leaders and laggards emerged. The government, for some reason, began to allocate less funds to almost all underdeveloped Caucasian and Asian republics. Unfortunately, I do not have data on specific expenditures of the Union budget for individual republics, but there is reason to believe that contributions to the Union budget went back to those who contributed them.
Someone might think that "there was cold war, money could not be spent on the development of weak republics, since all the funds were spent on weapons." No matter how it is. Defense spending systematically decreased from 26% of the state budget in 1950 to 4.4% in 1988.
Against this background, many might have a question - “Why do we need a Union at all, if all the republics are developing separately from each other?” For a system with such a budgetary policy, this is the right question and this is the question that was brought up by those who wanted to recreate capitalism on the territory of the Union, hushing up the fact that treating a patient by cutting off his head is a bad decision.
It can be said with absolute certainty that no republics during perestroika times fed anyone except themselves, and before Khrushchev’s budget changes, most of the budget was the same for the entire country and could not be attributed to any one republic. So the myth “about one republic feeding others” can be considered destroyed.
The budgetary policy of the second half of the history of the USSR was flawed and anti-socialist, contributing to the disunity of the country, rather than its planned and unified development. Whether the creation of such a policy was an evil intent to destroy socialism or an illiterate imitation of capitalism (which uses such a budget model) is unknown, but one thing is for sure - this policy was one of the reasons for the slowdown in the development of the USSR and its further degradation to capitalism.
Given the deep budget crisis that lasted from 1985 to 1999, which, according to popular belief, began due to economic reforms, one may get the impression that before 1985 everything was in order with the budget and that the budget crisis is a consequence of the reforms.
In fact, this is not the case, and to be convinced of this, you need to have a good understanding of the difference between the Soviet budget and the current one.
Firstly, the public sector in the USSR covered almost the entire economy, and financial balance state, developed by the State Planning Committee as part of the balance sheet of the national economy, was essentially the balance sheet of the public sector, including all income and expenses of state-owned enterprises.
Secondly, tax system there was practically none. The lion's share of state budget revenues came from two sources - turnover tax and deductions from enterprise profits. The basis of the turnover tax is the difference between the reduced state wholesale prices (selling prices of state-owned enterprises) and the state retail prices (or the so-called industrial prices, equal to the selling price plus turnover tax, in cases where the turnover tax was not levied at the retail level). Deductions from profits were made individually, in accordance with the plans of the enterprises.
Thirdly, the budget was characterized by a high degree of centralization. Although there was a division of the budget into union, republican, regional, etc., in reality all income was credited to a single state budget and distributed from there. There was not even a shadow of fiscal federalism. Of course, in practice there was a certain degree of decentralization, certain types of income were assigned to local budgets, for example, personal income tax, but this was only due to the insignificance of revenues. By the way, then the Soviet tradition of low taxation of the population and leaving income taxes to local budgets will seriously complicate life public finance new Russia. But in the USSR, budgetary centralism gave the state another degree of freedom.
All this meant that it was possible to collect almost any predetermined amount into the budget. It would have been worthwhile, for example, to increase the planned deductions from profits and charge them in the planned amounts, even if the enterprises suffered losses. In this case, the enterprise lost working capital, but they were replaced by extremely cheap (2–3%) also planned bank loan. Credit resources were replenished by emission, but it did not cause open inflation, since all prices were state-owned. True, at the same time I grew commodity shortage. But they got used to him as free application to the “advantages of socialism,” the degree of which cannot be measured, and therefore, as it were, always unchanged.
Of course, there is a certain amount of exaggeration in what has been said, but only in the sense that the arbitrariness of planning and financial authorities still had limitations. Thus, it was impossible to refuse income from the state trade in alcohol. And when this happened in 1985, a deficit literally immediately appeared in the budget.
Nevertheless, the main difference between the Soviet budget and the budget of a country with market economy consisted in the fact that the first played a subordinate role and was displayed as required. The main ones were natural proportions and balances, planned tasks in kind. On key positions, decisions were made by the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and issued a directive to the Ministry of Finance: to find financial resources. And they were always there, the outstanding Soviet ministries of finance Zverev and Garbuzov knew how to do it.
The structure of the state budget of the USSR is given in table. 12.2 in comparison with the structure of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation.
Table 12.2. The structure of income and expenditure of the state budget of the USSR for 1990 in comparison with the structure of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation for 1999 (main items), % of the budget
In the first months after the October Revolution of 1917, due to the collapse of state and local government bodies, sabotage by officials and banks, the flow of taxes into the budget system practically ceased. To finance urgent needs, the new authorities were forced to resort to indemnities from the propertied sections of the population, mainly, as they wrote at that time, “from merchants and speculators who profited during the war and spent their capital unproductively” (Proletarian Revolution. - 1925. - No. 3 - pp. 162, 163). Until November 1918, 816.5 million rubles were mobilized into the budget in 57 provinces in the form of indemnities.
The successful existence of the new system directly depended on the state of finances in the country. Already on May 17, 1918, the All-Russian Congress of representatives of the financial departments of the Soviets opened, at which the head of government V.I. Lenin, speaking with a report, emphasized:
We must achieve lasting financial reforms at all costs, but we must remember that all our radical reforms are doomed to failure if we do not succeed in financial policy ( Lenin V.I. Poly. collection Op. - T. 36 - P. 351 In 1920).
Coming from a difficult economic situation in the country it was recognized as necessary to move to strict centralization in the field of finance in order to ensure the flow of funds into the budget and their effective use. This provision became fundamental in the formation of financial policy Soviet state at all subsequent stages of the history of the USSR:
These principles were enshrined in July 1918 in the first Constitution of the RSFSR, in article 79 of which the goals of state financial policy were formulated:
The financial policy of the RSFSR at the present transitional moment of the dictatorship of the working people contributes to the main goal - the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the preparation of conditions for general equality of citizens of the republic in the field of production and distribution of wealth. For these purposes, it sets itself the task of placing at the disposal of the authorities Soviet power all necessary means to satisfy the local and national needs of the Soviet Republic, without stopping at the invasion of private property rights. The Constitution of 1918 established the federal structure of the RSFSR and laid the foundations budget device states. The principle of centralization of all finances was expressed in the establishment of the unity of the state budget and the entire financial system Russian Federation, inclusion government revenues and expenses to the national budget. At the same time, the Constitution provided for the separation of state and territorial budgets (budgets of autonomous republics and regions), i.e., the division of state and territorial revenues and expenses. The state budgets of the Ukrainian Socialist Republic and the Belarusian Socialist Republic existed separately.
Territorial budgets were formed at the expense of: revenues from taxes established by provincial, district, city, and volost Councils, levied for local needs; surcharges (up to 40%) to state income tax; income from local Soviet enterprises and property; loans and benefits from the state budget.
However, in wartime conditions, economic devastation, lack of funds in local budgets (for example, in 1919, expenses local budgets Petrograd province amounted to 950 million rubles, and revenues from local taxes - 44 million rubles, or 4,6%) The session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in June 1920 decided to merge the state and territorial budgets.
With the end of the Civil War, the transition to a new one economic policy(NEP) and the restoration of the national economy in connection with the need to stabilize finances, strengthen self-accounting relations, including in the local economy, and increase economic activity local Soviets in October 1921, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted the Resolution “On measures to streamline the financial economy,” according to which the state and territorial budgets were separated.
With the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922 and the publication of the USSR Constitution in 1924, changes were made to the budget system. The state budget of the USSR was formed, which included the state budgets of the socialist republics that make up the USSR, a union budget was created, which was entrusted with financial support all-Union needs and activities, mainly in the field of economic and cultural construction and defense significance.
When forming the revenue side of all budgets, it was used principle of jurisdiction according to which enterprises and business organizations were distributed among various levels of government and made contributions from profits to the corresponding budget. Thus, enterprises of union subordination, i.e., those under the jurisdiction of union departments, made their payments from profits to the union budget, and enterprises (republican, regional, city subordination) - to the corresponding budgets. In turn, enterprises, organizations and institutions of union, republican and local subordination were financed from the corresponding budgets.
Consequently, the income of the union budget was formed at the expense of all-union state revenues, the main of which were deductions from the profits of enterprises of union subordination and national taxes and income, for example, income from foreign economic activity.
It should be noted that local budgets (budgets of autonomous republics, regional, regional, city, district, and from 1929-1930 - rural budgets) were not included in the budgets of the union republics and in the state budget of the USSR.
A major role in the development of the national economy and budget system USSR played tax reform 1930-1932 She laid the foundations tax system, the main elements of which still exist today. During the reform, 86 previously existing payments to the budget were unified, multiple taxation of taxpayers was eliminated, and financial control behind economic activity enterprises. About 60 taxes and fees were combined into main payments - turnover tax, deductions from the profits of state-owned enterprises and income tax for cooperative enterprises.
During tax reform was introduced in principle a new method of generating revenues for territorial budgets. In accordance with the Decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars "On republican and local budgets" dated December 21, 1931, a portion of state revenues began to be transferred to territorial budgets - turnover tax, sales proceeds government loans etc. The transfer of these funds was carried out in the manner of budget regulation in the form of percentage deductions from national taxes and revenues, which became regulatory sources for balancing territorial budgets. Common sources of income became important factor strengthening the connection between all budgets included in the budget system of the USSR. Subsequently, this principle began to extend to other national sources. It is also used in the current budget system of Russia.
The final formation of the budget system of the USSR is associated with the Constitution of 1936. The strengthening of the centralized principle in the management of the national economy and state finances was reflected in Article 14 of the Constitution of the USSR, which stated that the jurisdiction of the Union authorities included not only the approval of the state budget of the USSR and the report on it execution, but also the establishment of taxes going to the union budget, the budgets of the union republics and local budgets.
The tendency towards centralization was also expressed in the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated July 10, 1938, according to which the state budget of the USSR included local budgets. In 1938, the USSR state budget also included state social insurance budget.
Thus, until 1991, the country's budget system had the following structure.
Rice. 1
Depending on the degree of centralization, distribution financial resources varied between budgets.
| 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | |
| INCOME - total Including: | 390.6 (100%) | 419.5 (100%) | 435.4 (100%) | 469.0 (100%) |
| 1. Sales tax | 97.7 (25%) | 91.5 (21.8%) | 94.4 (21.7%) | 101.0 (21.5) |
| 2. Payments of state enterprises and organizations from profits (income) Of which: | 119.5 (30.5%) | 129.8 (30.9%) | 127.4 (29.2%) | 119.6 (25.5%) |
| 2.1 Payment for production fixed assets and standardized working capital | 38.1 | 40.8 | 41.7 | 39.5 |
| 2.2 Fees for labor resources | - | - | - | 4.9 |
| 2.3 Contributions of free profit balance | 47.1 | 38.5 | 12.8 | 9.4 |
| 2.4 Deductions from profit (income) and other payments | 29.1 | 47.3 | 72.9 | 65.1 |
| 2.5 Fixed payments | 5.2 | 3.2 | - | 0.7 |
| 3. Income tax from cooperative enterprises and organizations | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| 4. Government loans sold to the population | 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 |
| 5. State taxes on the population. Including: | 30.0 | 31.2 | 32.5 | 35.9 |
| 5.1 Income tax | 28.3 (7.6%) | 29.5 (7.0%) | 30.9 (7.0%) | 33.9 (7.2%) |
| 5.2 Tax on single and small-family citizens | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| 6. State social insurance funds | 25.4 | 26.5 | 28.1 | 30.1 |
| 7. Income from foreign economic activities (customs income, income from exports and non-trade transactions) | 71.1 (18.2%) | 64.4 (15.3%) | 69.3 (15.9%) | 62.6 (13.3%) |
| Of the total income received: | ||||
| a) from social economy | 340.3 | 337.5 | 343.0 | 339.9 |
| b) from the population | 32.3 | 34.1 | 35.4 | 39.0 |
| With) Borrowed funds from the national loan fund to cover the deficit | 18.0 | 47.9 | 57.1 | 90.1 |
| COSTS - total Including: | 386.5 | 417.1 | 430.9 | 459.5 |
| 1. For the national economy | 209.1 | 226.3 | 226.9 | 242.8 |
| 2. To social and cultural events. Of them: | 125.6 | 133.7 | 140.0 | 151.3 |
| 2.1 Enlightenment and science | 49.6 | 52.8 | 54.8 | 59.6 |
| 2.2 Health and physical education | 17.6 | 18.0 | 19.4 | 21.9 |
| 2.3 Social Security | 31.9 | 35.0 | 37.3 | 39.5 |
| 3. State social insurance | 22.8 | 23.6 | 24.0 | 25.5 |
| 4. State benefits for large and single mothers | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 5. Funds transferred to the centralized union fund for providing collective farmers | 3.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.1 |
| 6. Financing foreign economic activity (financing imports and export operations, rendering free assistance and expenses for non-trading transactions) | 15.1 | 18.0 | 24.6 | 26.0 |
| 7. For the maintenance of the army and navy* | 19.1 | 19.1 | 20.2 | 20.2 |
| 8. To control | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 3.0 |
* Excluding expenses for the purchase of weapons and equipment, for scientific research, for military construction, pensions for military personnel, etc. For these purposes, taking into account the costs of maintaining the army and navy in 1989, it was planned to allocate 77.3 billion rubles.
Note. State debt on government loan bonds held by the population, taking into account the population’s funds in the policies of the State Insurance of the USSR and borrowed money The national loan fund for financing budget expenditures amounted to over 312 billion rubles in 1988.
The structure of income and expenditure of the USSR state budget for 1990 in comparison with the structure of the consolidated budget of Russia for 1999.
(main items), % of budget
Fundamental differences The Soviet budget is that the system of contributions to the budget is replaced by a system of taxes (turnover tax - VAT) and excise taxes. In terms of expenses, noteworthy is the significantly higher share of expenses for the national economy (38.5 versus 7.4% of the budget amount), for defense, and in return - the absence of expenses for repayment and maintenance government debt. Expenditures on the national economy previously included mainly subsidies to prices, financing of centralized capital investments and replenishment working capital enterprises.
Attitude government spending(more precisely, state budget expenditures) to GDP (or GNP) decreased from 50% to 30% (consolidated budget expenditures to GDP).
Defense expenditures before 1989 were mostly related to expenditures on the national economy and were reported under many headings, so it is difficult to say what their true value was. When in 1989 they were transferred to the “Defense” item, spending on the national economy immediately decreased by 6% of GDP (from 27 to 21%). As for income from foreign economic activity, indirect estimates show that from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, their share in income rose from 10-12% to 18-20%, which is associated with an increase in energy exports. At the same time, the share of income redistribution through the budget also increased: foreign exchange income was completely centralized. Only later did foreign exchange funds appear at departments and exporting enterprises, which were thus encouraged to increase foreign exchange earnings.
It is especially worth noting the features of the Soviet budget execution system. In addition to the Ministry of Finance and its local bodies, it included financial divisions of all ministries and departments, as well as state banks. Since everything was state-owned, there was no need for a special body such as the federal treasury.
Table Execution of the Union budget in 1991
EXPENSES
| 1. National economy | 46.6 | 25.3 | 53.2 | 2.11 |
| 2. Social and cultural events | 27.9 | 19.6 | 70.3 | 0.93 |
| 3. Costs associated with foreign economic activity | 26.8 | 8.7 | 32.5 | 0.41 |
| 4. Defense | 108.6 | 101.6 | 93.6 | 4.84 |
| 5. Expenses (total) | 317.6 | 228.8 | 72.0 | 10.90 |
| 6. Budget deficit | 57.7 | 83.2 | 144.2 | 3.96 |
| Stabilization fund income | 37.9 | 14.5 | 38.2 | 0.66 |
| Expenses of the stabilization fund | 68.5 | 50.9 | 74.3 | 2.43 |
| The fund deficit has stabilized. ek-ki | 30.6 | 36.6 | 119.0 | 1.71 |
| TOTAL INCOME | 296.9 | 160.1 | 53.9 | 7.62 |
| TOTAL COSTS | 348.2 | 279.7 | 80.3 | 13.30 |
| TOTAL budget deficit with the economic stabilization fund | 88.2 | 119.6 | 135.6 | 5.70 |
| GDP | 2100.0 |
BUDGET SYSTEM
According to the form of government, countries are divided into two groups: simple (unitary) and complex.
Simple (unitary) states- these are single centralized states consisting of various administrative-territorial units (districts, regions, territories, etc.). They do not, as a rule, contain other state entities. But there are also exceptions.
The structural units of unitary states are districts, cities, regions, etc. The degree of their dependence on the center may vary. From this point of view, unitary states are divided into centralized and decentralized. In centralized states, the degree of dependence of regions on the center is high (France, Türkiye and others). In decentralized ones, regions are endowed with significantly greater rights (Italy, Japan, etc.), however, they do not have their own sovereignty. Administrative autonomies exist in several unitary states. For example, in the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland are administrative denominations. Spain includes two national autonomies (the Basque country and Catalonia), as well as a number of administrative-territorial autonomies. The scope of powers of autonomies in unitary states is, as a rule, less than in federations.
Complex States- this is either a union or a community of relatively independent territorial (state) entities. For example, confederation, federation, empire (an empire is a state created by force).
Complex states consist of various government entities (republics, states, provinces, lands, cantons, etc.), which are their subjects and have their own administrative-territorial division.
They assume the presence of two systems of supreme bodies of state power: federal and corresponding bodies of the subjects. The delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers of the center and the subjects is carried out, as a rule, by enshrining them in the constitution. This distinction is made in two ways: in some states, such as Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the exclusive competence of the federal center and the exclusive competence of the subjects are secured. In others, such as Germany, India, Germany, along with exclusive competence, joint competence is also established
Depending on the scope of powers of various subjects of the federation, federations are divided into symmetrical and asymmetrical. In symmetrical federations the subjects have equal rights, in asymmetrical ones they do not.
In some federations, subjects may have their own constitution. legislative system, sometimes the judicial system. At the same time, it is prohibited to create your own armed forces and introduce regional money. Public administration carried out, as a rule, with the help of a bicameral parliament, the upper house of which is formed from representatives of the constituent entities of the federation and is designed to express their interests.
Most often, federations are built on a territorial basis (USA, Canada, Germany, etc.). Russian Federation on a national-territorial basis.
In unitary states, the budget system consists of two levels: the state budget and local budgets. Revenues and expenses of local budgets are not included in the state budget. They are formed and used by local authorities independently.
In federal states, there are three-level budget systems: the federal budget, the budgets of members of the federation and local budgets.
Topic 4. Budget revenues
Tax and non-tax revenues, their significance for the budget and general characteristics. Classification of income. Definition of classification and purpose.
Taxes in the system public finance. The emergence and evolution of the tax category. Economic content of the tax. Definition of tax. Signs and functions of taxes.
general characteristics tax systems developed countries. The main forms of relationships between budgets of various levels in a federal state: different taxes, different rates, different incomes. Desirable characteristics of a tax system. Structure of tax revenues of the Russian Federation. Federal, regional and local taxes. Fixed and split (regulating) taxes. Methods of collecting taxes.
Non-tax revenues federal budget RF, their characteristics. Oil and gas revenues, their share and importance in FB revenues in recent years.
Income budget is cash, received free of charge and irrevocably at the disposal of federal authorities, federal subjects and local authorities authorities.
Budget revenues include: 1) tax revenues, 2) non-tax revenues, and 3) gratuitous transfers.
1 TO tax revenue relate income from federal taxes and fees, including taxes provided for by special tax regimes, regional and local taxes, as well as penalties and fines on them.
2) Non-tax income includes:
2.1 income from use state property;
2.2 income from the sale of state property (except for shares and other forms of participation in capital, state reserves of precious stones);
2.3 income from paid services;
2.4 funds received as a result of the application of civil, administrative and criminal liability measures, including fines, confiscations, compensation, as well as funds received in compensation for damage caused to the state.
e) means of self-taxation of citizens.
3) Free receipts include:
3.1 subsidies from other budgets of the budget system;
3.2 subsidies from other budgets of the budget system;
3.3 subventions from the federal budget and (or) from the budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
3.4 gratuitous receipts from individuals and legal entities, international organizations and foreign governments