Difference between tax in kind and surplus appropriation.

Many of us know that during the Soviet era, there were such concepts as tax in kind and surplus appropriation. Some even have information that they are associated with the first years of the formation of the young state of workers and peasants. But what is the difference between the tax in kind and the surplus appropriation from each other? Let's try to figure it out.


Tax in kind - a natural, clearly fixed tax on food collected from peasant farms in Russia and then in the USSR from 1921 to 1923.

Procurement is a food procurement system that was introduced twice in Russia from 1916 to 1921 and assumed that the peasants would surrender all surpluses to the state at approved prices.


The food appropriation system appeared before the tax in kind - it was introduced in December 1916 in the Russian Empire, which was tormented by unrest (the USSR, as you know, was proclaimed in 1922). The so-called grain monopoly assumed that producers would transfer to the state the entire volume of grain they had (leaving only a small part for personal and economic needs in accordance with the approved norms). The prices for products were set by the state itself. In addition to grain, surplus appropriation, which became a manifestation of the policy of "war communism", gradually spread to potatoes, meat, and then to all agricultural products in general. It was carried out in a compulsory manner: all the reserves they had made were simply taken away from the peasants, which forced people to hide food, despite the danger of the death penalty. The norms for the delivery of grain were so “draconian” that in most cases they exceeded the amount of products stored by the purveyors and killed the incentive to work on the land and sow grain. Part of the food taken from the peasants rotted due to bureaucratic and transport problems. Commodity-money relations were practically reduced to zero, since the free sale of grain and bread was prohibited.

In March 1921, instead of the surplus appropriation, a fixed tax in kind was introduced: this meant a transition to NEP - a new economic policy. Now the peasants could sell surplus products, which stimulated agricultural production and the development of trade and market relations, people's interest in increasing crops and increasing yields. The state was no longer a monopolist, and the farmers knew in advance how much production they had to hand over to it (the tax in kind was an order of magnitude less than the "tribute" at the time of the surplus appropriation). The tax in kind was calculated as a share (first 20%, then 10%) of the total amount of the crop, moreover, for wealthy (kulak) farms it was higher, and it could not be levied from the poor at all.

Conclusions TheDifference.ru

  1. Procurement was acting before the tax in kind.
  2. Provisional appropriation belongs to the policy of "war communism", the tax in kind - to the policy of the NEP.
  3. The share of the tax in kind was an order of magnitude less than the surplus appropriation.
  4. With the tax in kind, in contrast to the surplus appropriation, it was not the state's need for products that was taken into account, but the ability of the peasantry to surrender it.
  5. At the time of the surplus appropriation, the free sale of grain and grain was prohibited; at the time of the tax in kind, peasants could sell their surplus, which stimulated commodity-money relations and the rise of the market economy.
  6. The rates for the delivery of the tax in kind were much more flexible: the yield, the prosperity of the farm, and the number of eaters in the family were taken into account. Tax in kind was not levied on the poor.