Essence, forms and principles of interbudgetary relations. The concept of interbudgetary relations and their role in the socio-economic processes of the country 1.1 the concept and principles of the implementation of interbudgetary relations

COURSE WORK

Performed:

4th year student

distance learning

Zhabina Elena Evgenievna

Supervisor:

Senior lecturer of the department Pudovkina L.P.

Final grade - ________________________________

Signature______________________

Kolomna - 2016

Introduction………………………………………………………………3

Chapter 1. Theoretical aspects of interbudgetary relations

1.2 Intergovernmental transfers. ……………………………………9

2. Features of interbudgetary relations in Russia.

2.1. The mechanism of the relationship between the federal and regional budgets………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.2. Characteristics of the interbudgetary relations of regions and municipalities…………………………………………………18

Conclusion……………………………………………………………26

Appendix……………………………………………………………28

References………………………………………………………32

Introduction.

The relevance of the presented topic is determined by the fact that this work is devoted to such a problem of the modern Russian economy as interbudgetary legal relations, which is still in its infancy and development.

The system of interbudgetary legal relations is a factor whose influence on the socio-economic development of Russia is difficult to overestimate. The ability of the state to perform its functions, and the population to be provided with budgetary services, depends on how efficiently and expediently the responsibilities and financial resources for their implementation are distributed between budgets.

One of the most important institutions of the state is the budget system. Throughout the millennium of the existence of states, financial resources mobilized into the budget system provide state and territorial authorities with the performance of their functions. One of which, for all countries since ancient times, is the defense of the country, the maintenance of the state apparatus of government and much more. The budget system allows the regulation of economic and social processes in the interests of society.

In a market economy, in the conditions of the narrowed ability of the state to influence the economic processes in the country, the role of the budgetary system as one of the possible instruments of state regulation of interbudgetary legal relations increases significantly.

In the formation and development of the economic and social structure of society, state regulation plays an important role, which is carried out within the framework of the adopted policy. One of the mechanisms that allow the state to pursue economic and social policy is the financial system of society and the state budget, which is part of it. It is through the state budget that a directed impact is made on the formation and use of centralized, decentralized funds of funds.

The purpose of the work is to reveal the concept and principles of the organization of interbudgetary legal relations, as well as the problems of interbudgetary relations of the Russian Federation at the present stage .

Achieving the goal involves solving the following tasks:

Study of the concept and principles of organization of interbudgetary relations and budgetary federalism;

Consideration of the features of interbudgetary transfers;

Consideration of the features of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation;

Consideration of revenue powers and expenditure obligations between budgets of different levels;

The object of the work is the state budget of the Russian Federation.

The subject of the work is the interbudgetary legal relations of budgetary federalism and budgetary regionalism.

Research methods: analysis of economic and special literature on the problems of interbudgetary legal relations.

Information support of work.

The study used: regulations, monographic literature, scientific articles, textbooks and teaching aids, statistical literature, as well as Internet resources.

The structure and scope of the work is determined by the purpose and main objectives of the study. The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, conclusion, bibliography, applications.

The concept and essence of interbudgetary relations and budgetary federalism.

In order to find out what interbudgetary relations are, it is first necessary to define the concept of budget itself. The budget is a set of economic relations that arise in the process of creating, distributing and using the state centralized fund of funds.

Interbudgetary relations are an integral part of the economy and exist in any state. They depend on historical conditions, the organizational structure of the state system and the place they occupy in the system of the world division of labor.

In Russia, interbudgetary relations are financial relations between state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments to ensure the budget process, the formation and distribution of budget revenues of the budget system of the Russian Federation.

Intergovernmental relations are a subspecies of financial relations. They are understood as regulated relationships between public authorities, public authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments on the regulation of budgetary legal relations, as well as the organization and implementation of the budget process, which are supported by the norms of budget legislation.

The very term "interbudgetary relations" was first used in practice during the formation of market relations. Later, it began to be mentioned in legislative acts, instead of the previously used term "budget relations".

This term was also introduced into the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. Article 129 of the Code defines interbudgetary relations as "relations between state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments." The following articles establish and disclose the principles of interbudgetary relations, and only then do we talk about specific forms of financial assistance from one budget to another and the conditions for its provision. All these issues are covered in the Budget Code in two chapters, Interbudgetary transfers (Chapter 16) and Budgets of state non-budgetary funds (Chapter 17).

In the new edition of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the article “interbudgetary relations”, which is defined as “the relationship between the state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments on the regulation of budgetary legal relations and the implementation of the budget process” is absent in everything. At the same time, the legislation abandoned a detailed presentation and description of the principles of interbudgetary relations. Chapter 16 of the Code began to be called "interbudgetary transfers", which include only rules on the form and conditions for their provision, as well as on the procedure for the formation and use of various budget funds for financial support. Also, Chapter 17 of the BC “budgets of state extra-budgetary funds”, which refers to the composition, procedure for compiling, approving, income and expenses of state extra-budgetary funds, as well as cash services, reports on execution and control over the execution of budgets.

At the heart of interbudgetary legal relations lies a strict division between the subjects of budgetary law of funds allocated for financial equalization and for the execution of state powers. When allocating interbudgetary transfers, public authorities and local governments are obliged to use the methods for distributing the relevant funds of funds, which are fixed by law. In interbudgetary legal relations, the mechanisms of financial equalization consist in balancing budgetary security (taking into account the index of budgetary expenditures), as well as in interbudgetary transfers. The RF BC clearly defines the scope of each of these mechanisms.

In order to correctly reveal the concept of interbudgetary relations, it is necessary to reveal the essence of budgetary federalism as a certain type.

Budgetary federalism is one of the basic principles of interbudgetary legal relations. It is understood as the principle of the budgetary activities of the state, which is expressed in combination with the national financial interests, the interests of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and consists in the distribution of budget revenues and expenditures, as well as in the delineation of budgetary competence between the Russian Federation and its constituent entities.

The significance of budgetary federalism is due to the peculiarities of the state structure of Russia, its development in a market mechanism, the presence of various types of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the complex relationships between the federal center and the regions. The principle of federalism is manifested in various spheres of the financial activity of the state, but it is in the budgetary sphere that it is expressed as a combination of all the elements that make up this principle. Federalism, being the basis of the constitutional system of Russia, is expressed in the budgetary activities of the state and, due to the special importance of the state budget, significantly affects all financial relations.

The fundamental principle (principle of federalism) of the formation of budgets is their guaranteed independence of budgetary activity and the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, expressed in the presence of their own sources of income and the right to independently determine the spending of funds. However, often budgets of lower levels do not have enough funds to implement their tasks, and then higher budgets can allocate additional financial resources (sources of income) to needy budgets, which allows more rational and efficient use of financial resources throughout the state. The basis of the mechanism of budgetary regulation, through which federal, regional and local authorities exercise their powers, is the legal consolidation of a certain order of financial flows at the levels of the state budget system and the organization of economic relations that arise on this occasion.

In the sphere of budgetary activity, the Russian Federation is in charge of: establishing the legal foundations of the single market; financial and credit regulation; federal economic services, including federal banks (clause “g” of article 71 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation); federal budget; federal taxes and fees; federal funds for regional development (clause “h” of article 71).

Intergovernmental transfers.

Interbudgetary transfers play an important role in improving the effectiveness of solving current problems of territorial budgets. The Budget Code of the Russian Federation has a whole chapter devoted to interbudgetary transfers (Chapter 16 "Interbudgetary transfers").

Interbudgetary transfers are funds from one budget of the budget system of the Russian Federation transferred to another budget of the budget system of the Russian Federation.

Being an important part of the budget system, interbudgetary transfers perform such functions as:

Leveling the budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipalities and ensuring uniform access to a guaranteed set of public services throughout the territory;

Compensation to budgets located at the lower levels of the system for the costs associated with financing events of national importance, if there are not enough own budget revenues;

Elimination of horizontal disproportions between budgets, allowing to solve some problems of social security, to improve the living standards of the population;

Stimulation of local authorities to strengthen tax potential;

Reducing social tension in the region, stimulating economic growth.

The implementation of these functions in practice faces a number of objective and subjective difficulties. It should be noted that the very process of “reimbursement of expenses for services of a national purpose” is perceived differently by the federal center and the subjects of the Federation, which most often leads to various kinds of bargaining between governments of various levels. Therefore, it is important to establish stable formalized procedures for allocating and receiving such transfers.

It should be noted that when compiling budget statistics for all budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, interbudgetary transfers are consolidated, i.e. are excluded simultaneously from the revenues of the budgets-recipients of interbudgetary transfers and from the expenditures of the budgets at the expense of which these transfers were provided. Interbudgetary transfers play an important role in the relationship between different levels of government bodies on the regulation of budget legal relations, organization and implementation of the budget process.

The main forms of interbudgetary transfers are:

Grants;

Subsidies;

Subventions;

Other intergovernmental transfers;

Interbudgetary transfers to the budgets of state non-budgetary funds;

Budget credit.

Let's consider each of them in more detail.

Grants are non-targeted areas of budget funds provided to the budget of another level of the budget system, on a gratuitous and irrevocable basis. They are allocated in cases where fixed and regulatory revenues are not enough to form the minimum budget of a lower level (to balance income and expenses). They are provided by decision of a representative body of power, supported by a legal act.

Subsidies are budgetary funds (interbudgetary transfers) provided to the budget of another level of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation on the terms of shared financing of targeted expenditures. The allocation of a subsidy involves equity participation in the financing of state or municipal events. At the same time, the ownership of the subventionally financed object (project, program, etc.) does not change. The totality of subsidies to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget forms the Federal Fund for Co-financing Expenses (Article 132 of the RF BC).

Subventions are a form of interbudgetary transfers provided from the federal budget to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to financially secure the expenditure obligations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and (or) municipalities arising from the exercise of the powers of the Russian Federation, transferred for implementation by state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and (or) local authorities self-government in the prescribed manner. The totality of subventions to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget forms the Federal Compensation Fund (Article 133 of the RF BC).

Grants, subventions and subsidies are united by their gratuitous and irrevocable nature. A distinctive feature of subventions and subsidies from subsidies is their targeted nature. And subventions and subsidies are differentiated by the volume of financing: due to the subvention, certain targeted expenses are fully financed, and subsidies are provided on the basis of shared financing of targeted expenses.

A budget loan is a form of financing budget expenditures, which provides for the provision of funds to legal entities or other budgets on a returnable and reimbursable basis. It is provided from the federal budget and for no more than a year, which distinguishes a budget loan from other types of transfers. Its volume is determined when drafting the federal budget. Each entity has the right to acquire this kind of financial income.

One of the main goals of interbudgetary transfers is to reduce the dependence of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on financial assistance from the federal center, to ensure a balanced budget and increase the budgetary potential of the regions. For this you need:

Formation of unified mechanisms of interbudgetary relations that do not allow subjective decisions and individual approvals;

Clear legislative consolidation of budgetary powers and responsibility of authorities at different levels in solving problems of the socio-economic life of the regions;

Refusal to make decisions imposing additional obligations on lower budgets without providing sources of their financing;

Expansion of the tax powers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation within the framework of a single tax space;

Implementation of the principle of conditionality in the provision of financial assistance to the subjects of the Russian Federation;

Strengthening control over the targeted nature of the use of financial assistance, taking into account the validity of budget expenditures of subsidized regions.

Intergovernmental transfers are one of the most effective instruments of fiscal policy. There are three main tasks of this tool:

Compensation for external effects arising in the form of a spillover of benefits from the activities of the authorities of one administrative-territorial entity to other administrative-territorial entities;

Equalization of revenues of subnational budgets;

Elimination of shortcomings of the tax system.

Legal regulation of interbudgetary transfers to the budgets of state non-budgetary funds is carried out on the basis of Art. 146 of the RF BC, according to which the budgets of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the PFR), the Social Insurance Fund (hereinafter referred to as the FSS), the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund (hereinafter referred to as the FFOMS), among others, are subject to interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget; the budgets of territorial state extra-budgetary compulsory medical insurance funds are credited with interbudgetary transfers from the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund, as well as interbudgetary transfers from the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation transferred to territorial compulsory medical insurance funds, including receipts as insurance premiums for compulsory medical insurance of the non-working population.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

COURSE WORK

World experience in the development of interbudgetary relations and its use in the Russian Federation

Introduction

fiscal federalism of the world

The theme of my course work is called "World experience in the development of interbudgetary relations and its use in the Russian Federation." I chose this topic because the place of the state in the world determines its economic condition and financial security, and all this depends on the budget policy and the policy of budgetary relations.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia became its successor, which suffered all the financial problems of the Soviet Union. It was necessary to change the policy of the budgetary device and look for ways out of the crisis. Thanks to the competent actions of the country's leaders, Russia emerged from the crisis and gained a foothold at the world level. However, in connection with recent events, Russia is again facing a crisis.

Based on everything mentioned above, I made my choice in favor of the topic of interbudgetary relations. Since interbudgetary relations are characteristic of all countries that have an administrative-territorial division. The Russian Federation, due to its specific features of the state structure, has a developed system of interbudgetary relations of the federal type.

Interbudgetary relations can be characterized as the functioning of a multi-level budget system, in which each level of government has its own budget and works within the limits assigned to it by virtue of its budgetary powers. The main difficulties in improving interbudgetary relations are concentrated in the sphere of streamlining and dividing the budgetary possibilities of the authorities and, accordingly, in the sphere of the distribution of budgetary and tax powers.

Budgetary federalism acts as a form of organization of interbudgetary relations in a state with a federal structure. It is considered a form of monetary relations that appear in the process of formation, distribution and use of funds of foreign exchange resources. Therefore, fiscal federalism expresses a systemically sanctioned set of financial flows in order to provide the population with social benefits.

The purpose of my course work is to study interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation, to discern the structure and principles of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, to analyze the forms and methods of providing interbudgetary transfers on the example of the Chechen Republic.

The objective of my course work is to analyze the dynamics of the structure of interbudgetary transfers in the consolidated and republican budgets of the Chechen Republic.

The object of analysis is the consolidated and republican budgets of the Chechen Republic

The subject of the analysis is interbudgetary transfers in the consolidated and republican budgets of the Chechen Republic.

I would like to emphasize that thanks to the analysis carried out, I have further consolidated the knowledge I gained while mastering the discipline “Budgetary structure of the Russian Federation”.

1 . Theory of formation and development of interbudgetary relations

1.1 The concept and essence of interbudgetary relationsotions and fiscal federalism

Interbudgetary relations are relations between public authorities at different levels,

The term "interbudgetary relations" began to be applied in practice during the development of market relations. Then it began to be used in legislative acts, replacing the previously used term “budgetary relations”.

This term was also introduced into the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. In Article 129 of the Code, interbudgetary relations are characterized as "relations between state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments." In subsequent articles, the views of interbudgetary relationships are installed and opened, and only then do we talk about certain forms of financial support from one budget to another and the criteria for its provision. A whole chapter (Chapter 16) was devoted to all these issues in the Code, which was called “Interbudgetary Relations”.

But over time, this wording was changed and included in the Budget Code of January 1, 2005. In this edition, this term is characterized as follows: "relations between state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments on the regulation of budgetary legal relations and the implementation of the budgetary process." At the same time, the legislator decided to abandon a thorough presentation and description of the foundations of interbudgetary relations. Chapter 16 of the Code was renamed and to this day it is called "interbudgetary transfers." It began to include only norms on the form and criteria for their provision, and also on the procedure for the formation and use of various budgetary funds of monetary assistance.

In order to correctly reveal the essence of interbudgetary relations, it is necessary to reveal the concept of budgetary federalism as their specific type.

Fiscal federalism is understood as a form of organization of interbudgetary relations in a federal state. By virtue of this, in the Russian financial system it is considered an adequate form of implementation of interbudgetary relations. The Russian system of budgetary federalism includes the following components:

Two poles of budgetary flows (federal budget and budgets of subjects of the Federation);

Tax federalism as a system of federal, regional and district taxes;

A block of interbudgetary transfers (funds from one budget of the budget system of the Russian Federation transferred to another budget of the budget system of the Russian Federation);

Block of mutual settlements;

Block of targeted budget funds (Federal Fund for Financial Assistance of the Subjects of the Russian Federation, Federal Regional Development Fund, Federal Compensation Fund).

An unusual subsystem of interbudgetary relationships is made up of ties within the constituent entities of the Federation. Here, interbudgetary flows circulate from the budget of the subject of the Federation (republican, regional, regional, district) to local budgets. This bloc, being included in a single system of interbudgetary relations, legally falls out of the relationship of budgetary federalism, since local authorities are in no way considered subjects of federal relations, and local governments in the Russian Federation, in accordance with its Constitution, do not enter into the system of state authorities. That is, there is a certain, well-formulated and adjusted system.

One of the central issues of budgetary federalism is budget equalization. Separate vertical and horizontal alignment.

Vertical alignment means removing inconsistencies between the same functions of regional budgets and revenues attached to this budget level. The central government, having even greater financial regulation and tax revenues than any region, is obliged to make up for the imbalance of regional budgets at the expense of funds accumulated at the level of the federal budget.

As for regional and local authorities, the principle of vertical balance imposes on them, firstly, the responsibility for the financial supply of the functions assigned to them and the provision of relevant services to the population, either specifically by state institutions and organizations, or through the private sector; secondly, the obligation to perfectly apply their own rights to preserve and increase their own profitable potential.

Horizontal equalization means the proportional arrangement of taxes between the subjects of the Federation in order to eliminate (or reduce) inequality in the tax capacities of different territories. These manifestations of regional inequality are considered in the doctrine of budgetary federalism as a form of manifestation of social inequality caused by a territorial cause.

By itself, budget equalization is by no means considered the main indicator of budgetary federalism, because it has the ability to have a place in a unitary state. There is also a budget equalization within the subject of the Federation, in relations with local authorities, although these relations cannot be classified as federal. Budget equalization, thus, in its essence acts as an objectively necessary method of functioning of the budgetary system of one country, a single monetary and financial system of society. It combines the federal state and its citizens and has its own task of acquiring the budgetary solvency of the population of each region at a level no lower than the average Russian one.

1.2 Formation and development of the system of interbudgetary relations in the EU and the USA

The variety of forms, types and types of models of interbudgetary interaction is still being carefully studied by specialists. The most global studies in this direction were carried out by G. Hughes and S. Smith (Hughes, Smith, 1991), who managed to identify 19 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), with the exception of countries with a small population - Ireland, Luxembourg and New Zealand . Thanks to their research, the main models of interbudgetary interaction were identified. They divided the selected countries into 4 groups:

Group 1: three federal states - Australia, Canada and the USA and two unitary states - Great Britain and Japan, in which regional and local authorities are given relatively greater independence, backed up by broad tax powers;

Group 2: Nordic countries - Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden, characterized by a particularly high share of participation of non-central authorities in the financing of social spending;

Group 3: Western European federations - Austria, Germany and Switzerland, for which the budgets of different levels are distinguished by autonomy and active cooperation;

Group 4: south and west of Europe - Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and France, characterized by a significant financial dependence of the regions on the central budget.

Since the main criterion for distinguishing types of models of budgetary federalism is the degree of centralization (decentralization) of state administration or the degree of independence of regional and local authorities, all existing models of interbudgetary relations today are usually reduced to centralized, decentralized and mixed (cooperative).

Centralized models are characterized by the highest degree of participation and responsibility of central authorities in solving socio-economic problems, the highest degree of centralization of management, total control of territorial budgets by the federal center, the maximum possible limitation of the independence of regional authorities, and the elimination of regional inequality through a system of budget transfers. For countries with this model of interbudgetary relations, the delimitation of powers between levels of government, as a rule, is not accompanied by the provision of sufficient sources of income of their own, which creates the need to finance territorial programs through the redistribution of funds concentrated in the federal budget. The advantage of centralized models of interbudgetary relations is the close cooperation of regional and central authorities, which contributes to the preservation of the unity of the state.

Speaking about the shortcomings of these models, first of all, it is worth highlighting the fact that on an independent basis, the lower levels of the budget function only formally. This is due to the fact that they do not have personal sources of income. But it cannot be said that this is a colossal drawback of these models, because this minus can be corrected by taking appropriate measures.

For decentralized models, the priority of federal tax and budget legislation over regional legislation is distinctive, as if it guarantees the implementation of the national interests of the state. In states with a decentralized system of power, the removal of acute horizontal disproportions of regions is performed by providing targeted funding to the categories of the population that need it.

The advantage of decentralized models is the conditional independence of the regions from the center and the minimization of redistributive actions in the fiscal system. Their main shortcomings include superfluous independence, which can lead to a violation of the integrity of the country due to the consolidation of the positions of a number of regional leaders; the desire of more profitable regions for financial self-sufficiency and isolation, a high probability of losing control of the central government over the budgetary and tax efficiency of regional authorities.

Mixed (cooperative) models imply an established symbiosis of parts of centralized and decentralized models. They imply narrow cooperation between regional and central municipal authorities in the process of activating the mechanism of budgetary equalization of territories, increased responsibility of the federal center for the position of regional municipal finances, for creating conditions for the social and financial development of the regions, which leads to tighter control by the center and some limitation of self-sufficiency. regional authorities. For these models of interbudgetary relations, the significant role of interbudgetary transfers from higher budgets to lower ones for the budget equalization of regions is distinctive.

Consider the decentralized competitive model of fiscal federalism in the United States.

The ideological origins of American federalism were formulated at the time by A. Hamilton, J. Madison and J. Jay. They considered the federal state as a complex whole, based on a two-level structure and mutual non-interference in the sphere of authority of both the federal center and the subject of the federation. In the United States in 1787, a federal form of government was established, based on the extremely rigid delimitation of jurisdiction between Washington and the states of the country. This model of budgetary federalism was used by them as a doctrine of state building in the development of the US Constitution. In the 30s of the 20th century, it was critically reassessed by J. Clark, T. Dye (Dye, 1990), E. Coruin, the founders of the theory of “dual federalism”, who based it on contractual relations between the subjects of the country. In this model, there was no moment of hierarchy. The capital of the state and its regions were interpreted by them as equal centers of power. This model assumed a voluntary union of sovereign political communities,

Later, the theory of "dualistic federalism" was transformed into the theory of "cooperative federalism (cooperative federalism)". Within the framework of the model of "cooperative federalism", the power of the federal center of the United States extended to all spheres of government authorities, including those within the competence of the states. The main emphasis was placed on the interaction of the branches of government, which explains the term "cooperativeness". The regions included in the unified system of power participated in the implementation of the national policy, endowing themselves with the functions that the subnational level of government is most effectively able to perform. In the 1970s-1980s. in the United States, new concepts of federalism were formed: the theory of "competitive federalism", the theory of "technocratic federalism", the theory of "federal society", the theory of "new federalism".

The modern highly decentralized budgetary system of the United States includes the federal budget, the budgets of 50 states, more than 80 thousand local budgets, school and special districts (districts), trust funds. At the same time, the spheres of competence of the federal authorities and the states are demarcated. Each level of public finance (federation, states, local authorities) independently draws up and approves its own budget, develops and implements tax policy, and manages debt. State budgets are not included in the federal budget, and local budgets are not included in state budgets. Local self-government is not included in the system of state power.

Tax revenues are considered to be the main source of the profitable share of the budget. At the same time, the types of taxes levied, their rates, and the amount of fees are distributed according to the levels so as to repay according to the needs of the country and people, while avoiding an unnecessary tax burden. This is a very well-formulated system, and that is why the United States has gone ahead, leaving many states behind. One of the peculiarities of the tax system and the system of state regulation in the United States is that certain types of taxes are levied at all 3 levels, the rest - only at one (or 2) levels. That is, there is a certain hierarchy of tax collection, according to which certain taxes are collected in a smaller amount.

In its modern form, the US tax system, which serves as an inventory of the formation of market relations, is rather difficult and heterogeneous. According to the law, not only the federal government, but also the governments of the states and lands, as well as district authorities in towns, counties, districts, etc., have the right to establish personal taxes.

The central space in the US monetary system belongs to the federal budget. About 65% of the total earnings and expenses of the consolidated budget pass through it, 35% - the share of the other two levels, distributed between states and local authorities in a ratio of 2 to 1.

The federal bodies have fixed expenses of a national meaning (for military purposes and international affairs; for economic assistance to any sectors of the economy and sections of the state economy; for the maintenance of the federal municipal apparatus; for the management of the federal municipal debt, etc.). The share of state and local authorities accounts for a significant share of public expenditures related to the financing of social affairs of the district economy and the administrative apparatus. Here, federal taxes are uniform and obligatory for the entire population of the state, while local taxes differ geographically.

Tax revenues are considered the main source of the profitable share of budgets. Direct taxes dominate in federal budget revenues, indirect taxes dominate in state revenues, and direct property taxes dominate in district government revenues.

The South American model of budgetary federalism is characterized by the highest degree of fiscal independence of subnational governments, both in terms of spending budgetary funds and in the formation of a profitable share of their budgets. The construction of the profitable share of the budget of any of the values has important differences:

For federal taxes, a progressive scale is distinctive, because the main burden of paying them falls on the more affluent circles of the population;

Local taxes have a flat or, in some cases, a regressive scale, which contributes to the most even participation and role of the population of a particular area in the formation of a profitable share of its budget.

The most significant source of the US federal budget is the personal income tax. Personal income taxation in the United States is characterized by the following features:

Progressive nature of taxation;

Discreteness of tax deductions - each higher rate is applicable only to a strictly defined part of the taxable amount;

Regular changes in the legislative order of tax rates;

Universality of taxation - if the amounts of income are equal, the same tax rates apply;

The presence of a large number of targeted discounts, benefits and exceptions;

Isolation from tax deductions to social security funds;

A fixed minimum level of individual income that is not subject to taxation.

The US states have broad tax powers, have the right to impose the same direct taxes as at the federal level, determine the rates and base of taxation. One of the main sources of state revenue is the sales tax.

Municipalities in the United States have varying levels of access to local tax revenue, as they require state approval. Sources of income for local budgets are: real estate tax, sales tax, various fees and other types of receipts.

The model used in the United States, which is described by the highest degree of decentralization of management of fiscal actions along the vertical of power and the budget system, is mixed with the priority of federal legislation, which guarantees the implementation of national interests and the likelihood of the federal center to show targeted economic assistance to territorial entities as the main thing, does not aim at leveling territories, whose tax potential turned out to be below the average value.

As noted above, the division of tax sources and the great rights of states and municipalities in the field of US taxation contributed to the formation of the basis for the vertical balance of the country's budget system. Since 1988, the device of budgetary self-financing has been supplemented by a system of financing federal targeted programs, executed in the form of targeted transfers provided on the terms of counter financing. More than 500 targeted federal programs are currently being implemented in the United States to finance the needs of states and counties through targeted transfers. In general, transfers from the US federal budget cover about 20% of state spending and, first of all, are used to increase the well-being of the population. Most of the programs are subject to federal laws. Under these circumstances, quite a few programs are run by state governments (in which case the costs are shared between the states and the federation).

As a rule, profitable shares of all levels of budgets, including the budgets of subjects of the federation and local budgets, are replenished only to a small extent through monetary support or loans from higher budgets. Interbudgetary adjustment in the United States is used by the federal center as a "medicine" for the implementation of its regional political activities, providing economic assistance to the states on the basis of a program-targeted approach. The model of interbudgetary transfers is dominated by two types of targeted grants.

The first type provides "block grants" designed to finance a fairly wide range of expenditure items, while setting limits on the reassignment of funds between these items. They are allocated for health care, social security, payment for other expenditure groups. The second type is "categorical grants" (categorical grants), in which funds are allocated in order to pay for individual spending programs.

A feature of the American model can also be considered the fact that about half of the total volume of targeted financial assistance is provided on a shared basis, that is, the allocation of funds by budgets of a higher level occurs only if the authorities of a lower level finance a certain share of expenditure items covered by the grant. In the USA, all main types of special grants are used: formula, project, project formula, open-funded grants and special grants. Most earmarked grants are closed-end funding with capped amounts, driven by the need to limit growth in federal spending.

The goal of improving the US financial system, which ensures a combination of the interests of territories and groups of the population, is to maintain statehood and preserve the orderliness of public life.

Cooperative model of budgetary federalism in Germany

H. Siebert, who defined cooperative federalism in Germany as negotiation federalism, when all parties each time gather and agree, including on the division of revenue sources and expenditure obligations, noted its following significant drawback - a compromise in negotiations between the center and regions is always achieved through infringement of the interests of future generations who do not take part in these negotiations (Siebert, 2005).

The individuality of the German model of budgetary federalism is considered to be its focus on creating similar life criteria for the entire nation and supplying more fundamental values at the federal level: the legislative function, the distribution of financial resources and the formation of the main directions of political activity in one or another area. According to professionals, the fundamental difference between German cooperative federalism and South American competitive federalism lies in the maintenance of the integrity of stereotypes of life, in the exercise of income splitting and in the nature of self-financing land leveling.

Germany's three-tier budget system includes the federal budget, special government funds, the budgets of 16 states (including 3 cities), and the budgets of about 10,000 communities. The Constitution of the country fixes the presence of two meanings of state power - the federation and the lands (members of the federation). The communities are considered to be a share of the land, in connection with which the self-government of the communities moves is limited. The prevailing principle of the German system of interbudgetary relations is the supply of one standard of living for the population of the entire country. The fundamental principle of the federal structure of Germany should consider the principle of subsidiarity in the distribution of areas of responsibility between federations and states. The Constitution emphasizes that the exercise of municipal power is considered the occupation of land.

Since 1977, an outstanding role in the formation of budget revenues has been played by tax policy, based on the principles laid down by L. Erhard: tax payments must be as minimal as possible; the amount of taxes must be consistent with the amount of services provided by the state; tax payments should in no way burden competitiveness; tax payments must be consistent with structural political activity; tax payments are required to ensure fairness in the distribution of income profits among the population; the tax system is obliged to exclude double taxation of tax payments; taxation must provide for the need to levy a tax.

In accordance with the object of taxation, German tax legislation distinguishes the following taxes: property taxes (taxes on income - income tax and company revenue tax; property taxes - property tax, land tax, motor vehicle tax, etc.); circulation taxes (indirect taxes - VAT, tax on insurance transactions); taxes on use (excises).

German taxes are divided into single (distributed between the budgets of all levels), federal, state, regional and duties (one of the sources of formation of the EU budgets).

General taxes include: payroll tax, direct income tax, corporate income tax, indirect income tax on dividends and interest income, VAT.

Own taxes include: motor vehicle tax, property tax; to their own local taxes - real estate tax, local business tax, etc.

The main types of earnings in Germany are progressive income tax on the finances of individuals, corporate income tax, VAT, trade tax, property tax, land tax, excises.

In the event of a lack of revenue to cover the expenses of the territory, since 1969, additional federal transfers have been received - transfers that do not have a targeted nature, which budget recipients can freely dispose of.

A feature of the German budget system is the presence of a difficult mechanism for vertical and horizontal alignment, enshrined in the Constitution of the country: the main vertical alignment apparatus is the location of VAT revenues between the federal and the total budget of the lands; for horizontal equalization, first of all, single taxes directed to the budgets of the lands are used. VAT is divided as follows: 75% (out of 44% of land in income) is distributed taking into account the number of population, that is, per capita, and 25% - depending on the financial potential of the land, this part goes to the fund for subsidizing the poor . In addition, 2% of income from the share of VAT received by the federal budget is used in the form of additional subsidies to lands with a low level of tax income.

In Germany, particular importance is attached to equalizing the tax potential of the lands with the help of a system of horizontal transfers. Germany is developing its territories, working closely with their budgetary security and allocating the necessary funds to maintain their stability. The modern German model of budgetary federalism is focused on partnership and an active policy of the federal center for the vertical and horizontal alignment of territorial entities whose budgetary security is less than the average level.

The financial relationship between the federation and the communities is insignificant - the communities receive the necessary assistance mainly from the budgets of the lands. If their own income after financial equalization is not enough, the communities are entitled to receive general grants and targeted subsidies. General subsidies act as compensation for the lack of tax revenue. Targeted subsidies have a strictly defined purpose: a significant part of them goes to finance capital investments; grants to cover the difference between income and expenditure indicators (the amount of financial assistance is determined on the basis of the difference in the size of own revenues and expenditures of lower budgets or on the basis of determining the standard levels of expenditures of lower budgets, regardless of the tax potential of a given territory). The system of budgetary federalism in Germany, as well as the methods and techniques of budget equalization, are in constant reform and improvement.

On January 1, 2005, the Budget Equalization Act came into force in Germany. It is based on the principle of providing assistance to contributions to land, on attracting investments in land, and this law also formulates a new approach, according to which land is allocated that has the right to purchase subsidies and land that is obliged to pay them. Implementing this approach in Germany, they proceed from a comparison of the monetary potential of the lands, taking into account the specifics of each individual territory and its inherent features. The obligation to provide subsidies, as well as the right to acquire them, depends on how much the potential of a particular land differs from the average value for all lands. Interest rates on the amounts specialized for the implementation of equalization payments and interest rates for land recipients are set in such a way that the amounts of payments and subsidies are similar (Baltina et al., 2007).

The German model of budgetary federalism created the highest degree of homogeneity of regional socially necessary services for the population. Its implementation made it possible in a short time, through powerful transfers to the lands of East Germany, to create an advanced public infrastructure, to advance entrepreneurship and, which is quite important, to stabilize social life. This is exactly what Russia needs to do now, but the problem is that Germany is territorially much smaller than Russia, and, consequently, the amount of intergovernmental transfers is much smaller. Indeed, in order to develop all its regions, Russia will need to spend huge amounts of money.

The commensurability of the historical experiment of Germany and Russia, the general views on the organization of interbudgetary relations, the degree of decentralization of budgetary systems, the reason for the “institutional legacy” allow us to consider the German model of cooperative federalism as more promising in matters of reforming interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation. But very different mechanisms for regulating interbudgetary relations, the presence of important disproportions between the subjects of the federations in incomes and expenditures per capita in no way allow the concrete implementation of the German model of cooperative federalism in the Russian Federation - it must be adapted to the specifics of Russian conditions.

In the current conditions, Russia needs to compare all the pros and cons in order to correctly use the experience of the EU countries and the United States in matters of interbudgetary transfers. The Russian Federation has its own specific system of interbudgetary relations, but the competent use of certain approaches to this issue, used in the advanced countries of the world, will only benefit Russia. Of course, in no case should Russia entirely borrow the entire budget system of Europe or the West, since the living conditions and the very mentality of the Russian people are fundamentally different from Western and European living standards. In my opinion, Russia needs, while maintaining the originality and originality of its budgetary system of interbudgetary relations, to borrow only elements of other systems that are extremely necessary, relying on their experience and realizing its potential. The US economy is one of the most developed, so it is worth taking a close look at their system and studying it in detail, drawing all the most useful for yourself. Most importantly, it is necessary to be honest and objective in considering the economic potential of the country, and then, based on this, apply the theories and concepts of other countries. But you shouldn't abandon the Soviet system either, because Russia is the legal successor of the USSR, you just need to adapt this system to current trends.

2 . Analysis of changes in the MBO in the Russian Federation on the example of the Chechen Republic

2.1 Analysis of the dynamics of changes in the structure of the MBT in the consolidatedbudget of the Czech Republic for 2010-2 014 years

The interbudgetary relations of the Russian Federation keep pace with the times and undergo certain, often necessary changes, thanks to which they develop and become better and better.

In this chapter, I analyzed the dynamics of changes in the structure of interbudgetary transfers of the consolidated and republican budgets of the Chechen Republic, using data available on the official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Chechen Republic. According to the criteria given to me, I used data from 2010 to 2014. Based on this analysis and the results I received, I made a small conclusion about the dynamics of our economy.

Once one of the most industrial regions of the country, it was destroyed by two brutal wars. After these devastating wars, having lost almost all of its economy, the Chechen Republic turned into the most backward subject of Russia. There was no point in talking about any republican budget. But by the will of the Almighty, having survived all these torments, the Chechen Republic was revived and rose from its knees. And at the moment I can proudly say that today the Chechen Republic is the fastest growing subject of the Russian Federation.

To date, the budget of the Chechen Republic remains the most highly subsidized in Russia. The only competitive in foreign markets is oil production, which provides 98.6% of the total industrial output. But projects to return the status of one of the strongest industrial regions of the country to the Chechen Republic are being created and should bear fruit in the near future.

The first post-war consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic was approved in 2002, its revenues amounted to 5 billion 580 million rubles, and its own revenues were equal to 780 million rubles. Naturally, most of the budget was covered by grants and subventions.

According to Article 31 of the Federal Law of December 24, 2002 No. 176-FZ "On the Federal Budget for 2003", the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic was approved in terms of revenues in the amount of 8,406,588 thousand rubles and expenses in the amount of 8,543,559 thousand rubles. The consolidated budget of 2003 did not differ from the budgets of 2001 and 2002; it also covered the deficit from proceeds from the sale of state property of the Chechen Republic. In 2001, the process of forming the ownership of the Chechen Republic was launched, since it was in 2001 that 278 objects of the agro-industrial complex, housing and communal services and the social sphere were transferred from federal ownership to the state ownership of the republic.

But today the Chechen Republic has a stable system for determining the consolidated budget. It is also possible to highlight the positive dynamics of the development of interbudgetary relations in the CR, although small problems still remain unresolved.

In order to analyze the consolidated budget of the republic, it is necessary to consider the growth dynamics of tax and non-tax revenues in the period from 2010 to 2014. These data are shown in Figure No. 1

Revenues of the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic	Tax and non-tax revenues	Gratuitous receipts from other budgets of the RF BS	Share of tax and non-tax revenues in the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic, %
		tax. income	non-tax. income

Rice. 1. Growth dynamics of revenues of the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic

Based on these data, it can be concluded that the consolidated budget of the CR for the period from 2010 to 2014 is distinguished by an extremely low level of tax and non-tax revenues. However, it should be noted that despite this, a certain dynamics of their growth has formed.

Let's analyze the dynamics of expenditures of the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic, for this, Figure 2 shows a graph that shows the dynamics of increasing expenditures.

Rice. 2. Dynamics of the increase in expenditures of the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic

The total cash expenditure of the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic at the end of 2013 was equal to 77 billion 531.9 million rubles, but at the end of 2014 this figure changed and amounted to 58 billion 215.8 million rubles.

It should be emphasized that, compared with 2010, the costs decreased by almost 5%.

Turning directly to transfers, I want to highlight the fact that the functional structure of the 2014 budget was focused on social needs, because 62.8% of total expenditures fell on public and social events.

We will reveal each aspect where the funds were directed:

Education - 25.5%

Culture, cinematography - 3.7%

Healthcare 15.7%

Social policy - 15.7%

Physical culture and sports - 2.2% 25.2% of the total amount of transfers was allocated to solve general economic problems. Issues of a state nature and others received 12% of the consolidated budget.

In general, the dynamics of changes in the structure of interbudgetary transfers of the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic has a positive character. Funds are allocated in accordance with the regulation of the law of the Chechen Republic dated July 14, 2008 No. 39-RZ "On the budget structure, budgetary process and interbudgetary relations in the Chechen Republic."

Based on the analysis carried out, a conclusion can be drawn regarding interbudgetary transfers of the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic. At the moment, the main drawback of the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic is considered to be the high level of its deficit, which can be called one of the largest among all the subjects of our vast country. Of course, funds are allocated to cover it in the form of gratuitous receipts from other budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation. But this cannot go on forever and the Ministry of Finance of the Chechen Republic is aware of this. In order to get out of the current situation and move to the level of a deficit-free budget, the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic will need 45 years, provided that the current dynamics of increasing its income and expenses is maintained, and this is essentially unrealistic. In my opinion, to resolve this problem, everything possible must be done in order to create the necessary conditions that stimulate the growth of the tax base. Based on the fact that more than half of tax revenues are obtained from income taxes, it is necessary to pay close attention to the growth of relevant taxes. Therefore, it is necessary to restore the economic clusters that once existed in the Czech Republic:

petrochemical complex;

Agro-industrial complex;

Energy complex;

Building complex;

Machine-building complex;

Hotel and health complex.

It is on this path that the Chechen Republic is going, and it will certainly bear fruit. The Government of the Republic is trying in every possible way to bring the budget component of the Chechen Republic to a competitive level. Large-scale projects of resort, industrial, energy, machine-building and other complexes are being implemented. Most of the projects are financed by investments from abroad, but there is hope that in the near future all projects will be financed by the republican budget.

2.2 Analysis of the dynamics of changes in the structure of the Office in the RepublicanBudget of the Czech Republic for 2010-2 014 years

As mentioned above, the economy of the Chechen Republic was broken by the fighting. It was not possible to talk about any republican budget at the beginning of the new millennium. However, as was well noted in the journal "Economics of Russia - 21st Century", the foundation for the restoration of the economy of the Chechen Republic was laid in 2001. It was in 2001 that the Government Commission, headed by Viktor Khristenko, developed a program to restore the economy of the republic and, having taken the first step, launched the mechanism for the functioning of the scheme for financing the restoration process in the republic.

And this program was very effective and gave impetus to the development of the economy, which was destroyed by the war, but did not break the Chechen Republic. The implementation of the program was tightly controlled, especially its financial component. All violations were qualified as economic crimes, and not as failures in the system, which was typical in past years.

Speaking about the program itself, it is worth highlighting 3 main areas in which funding was provided:

from the federal budget - about 7.95 billion rubles;

from extrabudgetary funds - about 1.8 billion rubles, including funds from the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation and funds received from the export sale of oil produced in Chechnya;

from the funds of economic entities - RAO "UES of Russia", OAO "Gazprom" and the Ministry of Railways of Russia - about 2.79 billion rubles.

As a result, the first post-war consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic was approved and, accordingly, the republican budget too.

Thanks to all these activities, today the economy of the Chechen Republic has a positive development trend, of course, it is not the most competitive, but everything has its time.

Turning directly to the analysis of the dynamics of changes in the structure of interbudgetary transfers of the republican budget of the Chechen Republic in the period from 2010 to 2014, it is necessary to consider the structure of the republican budget and evaluate the dynamics of its changes over the analyzed period.

For this, data on the republican budget in the period from 2010 to 2014 are given, in the form of a table in Figure No. 3.

total revenues of the republican budget	gratuitous and irrevocable receipts from the federal budget	tax and non-tax revenues	total expenditures of the republican budget	Intergovernmental transfers
RUB 60,773,765.7 thousand	RUB 54,891,188.7 thousand	RUB 5,882,577.0 thousand	RUB 62,798,218.0 thousand	RUB 3,262,672.9 thousand
RUB 75,840,195.7 thousand	RUB 68,764,578.9 thousand	RUB 7,075,616.8 thousand	RUB 78,305,602.2 thousand	RUB 2,525,203.8 thousand
RUB 64,676,002.7 thousand	RUB 56,442,016.7 thousand	RUB 8,263,986.0 thousand;	RUB 65,090,255.4 thousand	RUB 3,363,767.5 thousand
RUB 53,434,072.9 thousand	RUB 44,827,665.9 thousand	RUB 8,606,407.0 thousand	RUB 54,299,744.9 thousand	RUB 1,117,485.2 thousand
RUB 64,565,892.9 thousand	RUB 55,447,903.0 thousand	RUB 9,117,989.9 thousand	RUB 69,219,936.6 thousand	RUB 2,175,737.4 thousand

Rice. 3. Dynamics of changes in revenues, expenditures and interbudgetary transfers of the republican budget of the Chechen Republic in the period from 2010 to 2014

Based on the above data, we can state that from year to year tax and non-tax revenues are growing and have a positive growth trend. It should be noted that 2013 was the most positive year, as the budget deficit amounted to less than 1 million rubles, for which one cannot but rejoice. The most profitable, as we can see, is 2011, but at the same time, the expenditure side was large, and the deficit was about 3 million rubles.

After analyzing the dynamics of interbudgetary transfers, it should be noted that in 2014 there are relatively low rates.

The highest rate was in 2012. In general, after analyzing the dynamics of changes in the structure of interbudgetary transfers, I noticed that interbudgetary transfers in the Chechen Republic are of a spasmodic nature, due to the fact that every year the republican regional centers develop and the dynamics of their budget growth is also positive, like the dynamics of the entire budget in in general. It should be noted that over the period under review, the budgets of cities and regions have become more balanced. Also, the lack of funds in order to fulfill the priority expenditure obligations in the budgets of cities and regions decreased in 2014 compared to 2010, 2011 and 2012 and increased compared to 2013. I would also like to highlight that a highly subsidized year in the period I analyzed is 2011.

In 2014, the main funds of interbudgetary transfers were allocated in the form of subventions and subsidies to the budgets of urban districts and municipal districts, and funds in the amount of 336,000.0 thousand rubles were allocated to the budget of the Territorial Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund. As a result, its budget amounted to 8,830,995.0 thousand rubles. It is worth mentioning the allocated funds in the amount of 224,843.2 thousand rubles for servicing the state internal debt of the Chechen Republic.

Summing up my analysis, I would like to emphasize that despite the still unresolved problems, in general, the economy of the Chechen Republic is slowly but surely moving towards the top. The indicators are getting better every year both in the consolidated and in the republican budgets. The relationship between budgets is based on a well-organized system of distribution of interbudgetary transfers. All the above data indicate that the budget of the Chechen Republic is less and less in need of revenue from the federal budget, and there is also a tendency to achieve the level of a deficit-free budget. That is, the Chechen Republic has risen from its knees and is no longer an economically backward region.

3 . Improving interbudgetary relations inRF

3 .1 Features of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation

Each state decides for itself which model of budgetary relations to use. The effectiveness of interbudgetary relations and how useful they will be determined not by the degree of centralization (decentralization) of the budget system, not by whether or not there are regulatory taxes, not by the ratio between the country's revenues and expenditures, not by the size and methods of transferring financial assistance, but by a clearly and understandably formulated and balanced a system of all these factors that correspond to the characteristics of the federal state that uses them. As a rule, the highest centralization of the budget system and a larger amount of redistributed budgetary funds are distinctive for states with the highest degree of inequality of budget solvency between the subjects of the federation.

Russia is the biggest country in the world. It consists, in accordance with the Constitution, of 85 subjects, including the recently annexed Republic of Crimea and the third, along with Moscow and St. Petersburg, the federal city of Sevastopol. Russia belongs to asymmetric federations. Article No. 5 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states that all subjects of the Russian Federation are equal among themselves. The principle of equality here does not in any way eliminate the differences in the degree of compliance of these rights with the historical, socio-economic and political conditions that have really developed in budget policy, because they are necessary conditions for the functioning and development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The Constitution of the Russian Federation delimits the subjects that are under the jurisdiction of the state authorities, as well as the powers between the state authorities of the Russian Federation and its subjects, including in the field of the budget. The asymmetry of the federation does not mean that it completely departs from the principles of federalism.

If this asymmetry is caused by a real need, then it is a prerequisite for balancing the interests of the subjects, respectively, and for maintaining the unity of the federal state.

The Budget Code of the Russian Federation identifies the following principles of interbudgetary relations, which can be confidently attributed to the principles of budgetary federalism:

Distribution and consolidation of budget expenditures for certain levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation;

Delimitation (fixing) on a permanent basis and distribution of regulatory revenues according to temporary standards by levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation;

Equality of budgetary rights of subjects of the Russian Federation, municipalities;

Aligning the levels of the minimum budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities;

Equality of all budgets of the Russian Federation in relations with the federal budget, local budgets in relations with the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

It is especially necessary to single out the principle of equality in the relationship between the budgets of the subjects of the Russian Federation and the federal budget, since it is precisely this principle that implies the establishment of uniform norms and rules for all subjects of the Russian Federation for deductions to their budgets from federal taxes and fees and a single procedure for paying federal taxes and fees. Agreements between the Russian Federation and a constituent entity of the Russian Federation containing norms that violate the uniform procedure for relations between the federal budget and the budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and other provisions established by the RF Budget Code, the federal law on the federal budget for the next financial year, are invalid and are not subject to execution.

The Budget Code of the Russian Federation establishes that financial assistance from the federal budget to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation can be provided in the following forms:

Subsidies to equalize the level of the minimum budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Similar Documents

The main directions of reforming interbudgetary relations as the basis of budgetary reform. Interbudgetary Relations: Theoretical Approaches. Organization of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation, improvement of their system in the medium term.

test, added 08/20/2011

The federal structure of the state as the basis of budgetary federalism. Delimitation of expenditure obligations between the levels of the budget system. Fundamentals of interbudgetary relations. Improving the system of interbudgetary relations. The mechanism of budget equalization.

thesis, added 01/13/2011

Fundamentals of the organization of interbudgetary relations in a federal state. Normative regulation of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation. Research of interbudgetary transfers and practice of interbudgetary relations on the example of the Novosibirsk region.

test, added 07/15/2011

The concept of interbudgetary relations and their role in the socio-economic processes of the country. Goals and objectives of the organization of the system of interbudgetary relations, the prerequisites for their reform and ways to improve. Basic mechanisms and principles of interbudgetary relations.

test, added 01/15/2011

The concept and signs of interbudgetary relations. Features of the organization of interbudgetary relations in Russia. Operations with interbudgetary transfers provided from the federal budget. Prospects for improving the system of interbudgetary relations in Russia.

term paper, added 08/13/2012

Essence and principles of interbudgetary relations. Socio-economic aspects of interbudgetary relations in the course of their historical development in Russia. Mechanism of relationship between the federal and regional budgets in the Russian Federation in 2010–2012.

term paper, added 12/07/2013

Scientific-theoretical and practical foundations for the development of interbudgetary relations. Study of the actual state of the budget system of Ukraine. Directions for improving interbudgetary relations, which will make it possible to improve the use of funds.

test, added 09/12/2011

Theoretical foundations for the formation and development of intergovernmental relations of the state: the economic situation, the process of formation, problems, foreign experience. Analysis of interbudgetary relations in the Republic of Kazakhstan and legislation on budget planning.

thesis, added 06/29/2011

Socio-economic essence of the budget and its functions. Principles of the budget device. Distribution of expenses and incomes between the links of the budget system and types of budgets. Improvement of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation, development of budgetary federalism.

presentation, added 03/28/2015

The essence and internal structure of the budget system, the main elements and features of their interaction. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this system, the principles and stages of its formation, economic management. Proposals for the development of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation.

Interbudgetary relations (Article 6. RF BC) – this is the relationship between public legal entities on the regulation of budgetary legal relations, organization and implementation of the budgetary process.

Intergovernmental relations - this is a whole complex of financial and legal norms, which include, in particular, the relationship between different levels of government regarding:

1. delimitation of expenditure obligations and responsibility for their implementation;

2. delineation of tax powers and income sources;

3. budgetary equalization and distribution of financial assistance.

There are two types of budget equalization – vertical and horizontal.

Vertical budget equalization- established in accordance with the law and proceeding from the criterion of sufficiency to cover the normatively distributed costs, the assignment to each level of the budgetary and tax system (federal, regional, local) of tax and non-tax revenue sources.

Horizontal budget equalization(with the help of grants, subsidies, subventions) - the establishment in the classification of expenditures of the federal and regional budgets of special positions for financing such areas of the regional policy of the federal state as compensation to lower budgets for the insufficiency of their own funds to cover the normatively distributed costs.

Interbudgetary relations exist in any state that has an administrative-territorial division, but they can develop on different bases (principles). It is customary to distinguish unitary(Great Britain, Italy, etc.) and federal budget systems (USA, Germany, Russia). Unitary corresponds to a high level of centralization of budgetary funds, the absence or a small amount of budgetary rights of lower authorities. Federal budgetary systems are built on directly opposite foundations. They are characterized by a high degree of independence of territorial authorities, while maintaining the unity of national interests.

The principles on the basis of which federal budgetary systems function are called the principles fiscal federalism.

Fiscal federalism can be defined as a public finance management system based on the distinction between different levels of government of budgetary rights and powers in the field of formation and spending of budgetary funds, with a combination of interests of participants in the budgetary process at all levels of the country's budgetary system and the interests of society as a whole.

It is customary to allocate two main models fiscal federalism - decentralized (competitive) And cooperative.

IN decentralized model of the three main functions of the state - macroeconomic stabilization, redistribution of national income and the production of public goods and services - the first two most often belong to the sphere of activity of the central government, and the third is divided between three levels of government, but is considered the most important in the activities of regional governments (an example of this model can be serve the US).

more widespread cooperative model budgetary federalism, which implies: wider participation of regional authorities in the redistribution of national income and macroeconomic stabilization, which leads to closer budgetary cooperation between regional authorities and the center; increasing the role of regional authorities in the system of distribution of tax revenues, incl. and national, an active policy of horizontal alignment, increased responsibility of the center for the state of regional finances, the level of development of territories, which leads to increased control by the center and some limitation of the independence of regional authorities (Germany can serve as a vivid example of such a model).

The issue of equality in the distribution of powers, revenues and expenditures between the federal center and the regions is the central problem of budgetary federalism.

On the one hand, it is the federal type of device that is able to provide the regions with real independence, both politically and economically. The federation as a type of state structure assumes that this state consists of separate state entities (states - in the USA, provinces - in Canada, subjects of the Federation - in Russia), which have their own executive and legislative authorities, regional legislative base, their own taxes, etc. d. It is easier to “get through” to the regional authorities, it is easier to ask about the results of their activities; regional authorities are closer, they really know firsthand about the problems of the region, are able to take into account its national characteristics, socio-economic conditions, etc. Thus, the development of independence of the regions is a guarantee of real democratization of the whole society.

On the other hand, one should not underestimate the role of the federal center, which is called upon to ensure national interests, maintain the integrity of the state, neutralize separatist sentiments, and equalize the living conditions of the population of various regions.

For Russia, this problem is most relevant, as we are constantly accused of an excessive degree of centralization. This is confirmed by the lack of political and economic independence of the regions (governors are appointed; most of the financial resources are accumulated at the federal level, etc.). The propensity for "unitarism" in Russia can be explained, first of all, by the legacy of the recent past - the dominance of the command-administrative system, as well as by the peculiarities of the Russian mentality.

In our opinion, at present, the priority of the federal center cannot be abandoned, since a feature of Russia is the presence of a large number of regions (more than 80, as in no other country in the world), which differ sharply in their socio-economic conditions. In order to ensure more or less equal living conditions and constitutional rights for the population of various constituent entities of the Federation, it is necessary to concentrate financial resources in the federal budget, and then redistribute them in the form of interbudgetary transfers to equalize budgetary security (today this is the largest expenditure item of the federal budget - more than 30% of all costs).

Intergovernmental transfers (Article 6. RF BC) – funds provided by one budget of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation to another budget of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with Art. 129 of the RF BC there are the following forms of interbudgetary transfers , provided from the federal budget (since 2008):

Subsidies to equalize the budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Subsidies to the budgets of the subjects of the Russian Federation;

Subventions to the budgets of the subjects of the Russian Federation;

Other interbudgetary transfers to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Interbudgetary transfers to the budgets of state non-budgetary funds.

Conditions for granting interbudgetary transfers(Article 130 of the RF BC)– see table 3.11.

Interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget (with the exception of subventions) are provided subject to compliance by the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the budgetary legislation and legislation on taxes and fees of the Russian Federation.

If the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation fail to comply with the conditions for the provision of interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget, determined by the budget legislation of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation has the right to decide to suspend (reduce) in the manner established by it the provision of interbudgetary transfers (with the exception of subventions) to the relevant budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Federation.

Table 3.11

Restrictions for subjects of the Russian Federation when receiving interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget

Subsidization level	Subjects of the Russian Federation They have no right to
1. Over 5%	Conclude agreements on cash services for the execution of the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, budgets of territorial state non-budgetary funds and budgets of municipal entities included in it by the executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation
2. Over 20%	1. Establish and fulfill spending obligations that are not related to the resolution of issues referred by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws to the powers of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation
2. Exceed the standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation for the formation of expenses for the remuneration of civil servants of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and (or) the maintenance of public authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation
3. Over 60%	In addition to the requirements of line 2, such subjects of the Russian Federation take the following measures:
1. Signing agreements with the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation on measures to improve the efficiency of the use of budgetary funds and increase tax and non-tax revenues of the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation
2. Organization of the execution of the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation with the opening and maintenance of personal accounts for the main administrators, administrators, recipients of budget funds of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and chief administrators (administrators) of sources of financing the budget deficit of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in the bodies of the Federal Treasury
	3. Submission by the financial body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of documents and materials necessary for preparing an opinion on compliance with the requirements of budget legislation submitted to the legislative (representative) body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation of the draft budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation for the next financial year (for the next financial year and planning period)
	4. Carrying out an annual external audit of the annual report on the execution of the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation by the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation or the Federal Service for Financial and Budgetary Supervision; other measures

A special place in the system of interbudgetary transfers is occupied by financial funds(art. 129-133, 135-140, 142-142.3 of the RF BC):

1. Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Russian Federation is formed as part of the federal budget in order to equalize the budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with the current budget legislation this fund is formed grants to equalize the budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The total amount of subsidies to equalize the budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is determined based on the need to achieve a minimum level of estimated budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Minimum level of estimated budgetary security of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, taking into account subsidies for equalizing the budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the next financial year, is defined as the average level of estimated budgetary security prior to the distribution of these subsidies among the constituent entities of the Russian Federation that are not among the 10 constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the highest level of budgetary security, and 10 constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the lowest level of budget security.

Tax Potential Index (TIN)- relative (compared to the average level in the Russian Federation) assessment of tax revenues of the consolidated budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, determined taking into account the level of development and structure of the economy of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

The tax potential index is used to compare the levels of estimated budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and is not a predictable estimate of the tax revenues of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation per capita or in absolute terms.

The amount of value added for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the average for the Russian Federation is calculated according to the data of the Federal State Statistics Service for 3 years before the last reporting year, while the added value of insurance and agricultural products produced by the population is excluded from it.

Budget spending index- a relative (compared to the average level for the Russian Federation) assessment of the expenditures of the consolidated budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation for the provision of the same volume of budgetary services per capita, determined taking into account objective regional factors and conditions.

The index of budget expenditures is used to compare the levels of estimated budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and is not a predictable estimate of the expenditures of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation per capita or in absolute terms.

2. Federal Fund for Co-financing Certain Types of Social Expenditures is formed for the purpose of financing by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in full the costs attributed to the priority expenditure obligations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Aggregate subsidies budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget forms the Federal Fund for Co-financing Expenses.

The Fund provides for subsidies for partial reimbursement of expenses of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation:

To provide social support measures for rehabilitated persons and persons recognized as victims of political repression;

To provide measures of social support for labor veterans and home front workers;

To pay monthly child support.

The distribution of funds from the Federal Fund for Co-financing Certain Types of Social Expenditures for the provision of social support measures to certain categories of citizens and the payment of child benefits (except for the provision of subsidies to citizens for housing and utility bills) is made based on the number of relevant categories of citizens, taking into account the level of budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation after the distribution of funds from the Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Russian Federation.

3. Fund for the reform of regional and municipal finances is the successor of the acting in 2002-2004. Fund for Reforming Regional Finances.

Subsidies from the fund are provided to constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities selected on a competitive basis in two installments within 2 years based on the results of the implementation of the stages of implementation of programs for reforming regional and municipal finances.

The use of the fund's resources is aimed at implementing programs for reforming regional and municipal finances, repaying and servicing debt obligations, developing social infrastructure, and implementing socially significant events and projects.

In 2006, as part of the federal budget, a Federal Regional Development Fund in order to increase the level of socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, including by improving the provision of regions with engineering and social infrastructure.

The provision of the Fund's resources is carried out on the terms of co-financing, taking into account the level of budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the need for obtaining appropriate financial assistance.

4. Federal Compensation Fund is formed for the purpose of financially supporting the powers of the Russian Federation delegated for execution to state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments.

Aggregate subventions the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget forms the Federal Compensation Fund.

The Federal Compensation Fund includes subventions:

To provide social support measures for persons awarded the badge "Honorary Donor of Russia (USSR)";

To pay for housing and communal services to certain categories of citizens;

For registration of acts of civil status;

To exercise the powers of primary military registration in territories where there are no military commissariats;

To exercise powers in the field of organization, regulation and protection of aquatic biological resources;

For the implementation of powers in the field of protection and use of wildlife objects classified as hunting objects;

For the payment of lump-sum benefits for all forms of placement of children deprived of parental care in a family;

To exercise the powers of the Russian Federation in the field of conservation, use, promotion and state protection of cultural heritage sites;

To exercise the powers of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in preparation for the All-Russian Population Census of 2010, etc.

The distribution of the funds of the Federal Compensation Fund is carried out taking into account the standards of financial costs for the implementation of the relevant powers and the number of certain categories of citizens.

Table 3.12.

The main forms of interbudgetary transfers (IBT) provided by

from the federal budget

Name	Definition	Regulation (fund)
Grants	Office provided on a gratuitous and irrevocable basis without establishing directions and (or) conditions for their use	Subsidies to equalize the budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation form Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Russian Federation
Subsidies	Office provided to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to co-finance expenditure obligations arising from the fulfillment of their own and joint with other public legal entities the powers of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation	The totality of subsidies to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget forms Federal Fund for Co-financing Expenses
Subventions	Office provided to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to financially support the expenditure obligations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and (or) municipalities arising from the exercise of federal powers transferred for implementation to public authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and (or) local governments in the prescribed manner	The totality of subventions to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget forms Federal Compensation Fund

Topic 4. Formation of federal, regional and local budgets. Management of budgets of different levels

Lecture plan:

1. Consolidated budget: concept, meaning

2. The federal budget: concept, meaning, features of the formation of revenue and expenditure

3. Budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation: concept, meaning, features of the formation of revenue and expenditure

4. Local budgets: concept, meaning, features of the formation of revenue and expenditure

5. Budget management system

6. The main directions of budget policy at the present stage

Chechenov A.A., Kalov Z.A., Chechenova L.S., Mazloev R.B.

The main direction of improving interbudgetary relations is to achieve a balance of budgets at various levels, which, in turn, will allow the regions to actively use the potential of all forms of ownership, to have an independent base of financial resources as the basis for self-development and self-sufficiency of the reproduction process

Modern states, regardless of their formal structure in the form of a federation, confederation or unitary state, include subnational administrative-territorial units that are significantly heterogeneous in various characteristics (in terms of economic development, needs for the provision of public goods, the cost of providing public goods, etc. ). Accordingly, the presence of various administrative-territorial entities in one state leads to the existence of the problem of regional inequality and creates the need to solve such a problem.

This problem is solved within the framework of interbudgetary relations. Interbudgetary relations are a diverse concept. In domestic publications there is no single point of view on the economic content of this concept. Some authors do not see the difference between interbudgetary relations, budgetary federalism and budgetary regulation; others reduce the content of interbudgetary relations to the system of providing financial assistance to regions and local self-educations.

In our opinion, interbudgetary relations by their nature belong to a special phase of the process of formation and implementation of the core of the public finance system - the budget. The content of these relations is set by the target function of this phase, namely, the redistribution of financial resources with the participation of various levels of the state budget, adequate to the method of organizing state power and management.

In the process of such a redistribution, the budgetary funds of the middle and lower - regional and municipal - levels are brought into line with the objective needs of financial coverage of the social and economic needs of the corresponding level (subject of the Russian Federation or municipality) included in the complex provided at the expense of the state. An analysis of the composition of these needs and spending powers related to the level of the subject of the Russian Federation allows us to conclude that the basis of the state financial support for the complex of socio-economic needs is the socialization of the socio-economic process at various levels of its organization.

Despite the fact that in different countries the terms of reference of different levels of government differ significantly, recently there has been a general trend towards a gradual expansion of the powers of the lower echelons of power in the field of finance. This trend is due to the tasks of increasing the efficiency of spending public funds, more fully taking into account the interests of the population.

Decentralization of the Russian budget system in the 90s. led to a serious redistribution of state budgetary resources in favor of territorial governments. The federal center was relieved of part of the management functions and financing of a number of social programs that in federal states are usually carried out at the regional and local levels, thereby making an attempt to overcome the federal budget deficit, which has a negative impact on the development of the economy as a whole.

At present, both in terms of the status of subjects (republics, territories, regions) and their economic capabilities (donors, recipients), Russia is an “asymmetric federation”. In this regard, work to specify the subject content of the powers and responsibilities of each of the levels of state power for the effectiveness of solving issues of socio-economic development of the reproduction complex is of particular importance. The division of powers carried out in this case between different levels of federative formations should, to the maximum extent possible, be oriented towards taking into account the interests of the participants in federal relations and ensuring favorable conditions for the economic growth of the federation as a whole and its subjects.

There are two types of powers of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on subjects of joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. First, these are the powers, the implementation of which is financed from the budget of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Federal regulation here can only be a framework. At the same time, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation have the right to accept other issues for their consideration, if they are not assigned either to the jurisdiction of state authorities of the Russian Federation or to the jurisdiction of local governments. Secondly, these are the powers on the subjects of joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, exercised by the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, but financed in the form of targeted subventions from the federal budget and therefore regulated in detail by the state authorities of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with the concept of budget reform, it is assumed that the final delimitation of powers according to the level of power should take place by January 1, 2006.

The modernization of interbudgetary relations, in our opinion, should be based on taking into account their relationship with the reproduction process. This means a fundamentally different formulation of a number of issues from the standpoint of improving the financing of the development of regional reproduction.

Considering the problem of the development of the regional economy, some authors note that the main sources of financing for real development should be the components of income from property - depreciation, interest on capital and land rent, others associate real returns with the circulation of capital, labor, product and income. In our opinion, everything rests not on the redistribution of specific objects of property, but on the fact that, in accordance with the budgetary powers assigned to the Federation and the subjects of the Federation, the functions of regulating the rights of ownership, disposal, use are redistributed in such a way as to ensure maximum return on the reproduction of property.

Therefore, when substantiating the directions for improving interbudgetary relations, the priority should be to achieve such a balance of budgets at various levels that would allow the regions, actively using the potential of all forms of ownership, to have their own financial resource base as the basis for self-development and self-sufficiency of the reproduction process.

Since each of the levels of the state budget, one way or another, participates in the reproduction process at the corresponding level of the national economy system, interbudgetary relations solve a specific investment and financial task - they correct and give a specific form and scale to the participation of state budget funds of one level or another in the reproduction process. .

Various interpretations of investment and financial relations that develop with the participation of state budget funds, found in the economic literature, ultimately come down to two possible approaches. Within the framework of the first one, which is currently being implemented, the state "is removed" from the role of the owner, and forms only the rules of the game ("monetarist option"); within the framework of the second, the state actively participates in the investment process, acting according to the rules common to all participants in the capital market (“Keynesian option”).

It seems that in order to specify the role of interbudgetary relations in the development of the reproduction process, a constructive methodological approach to the analysis of the relationship between income and expenditure, savings and investment, formed within the framework of the Keynesian financial paradigm - the so-called "Keynesian cross" (Figure 1).

Let us assume that revenues are equal to expenditures in relation to the level of budgetary relations and the reproduction process of a single subject of the Russian Federation. In Figure 1, this equality is displayed by the straight line OF with an inclination of 45 degrees to the income axis. It is known that part of the income received is directed to consumption C, and the other part forms savings S. The expenses of the participants in the reproduction process grow, but not to the same extent as incomes increase. The BC curve, which reflects the process of consumption, is gradually approaching a line parallel to the income axis, which corresponds to a relative decrease in the share of expenses in total income.

Picture 1. Keynesian approach to the analysis of income, expenses, savings and investments

At the beginning of each cycle of reproduction, consumer spending is provided not so much by current arguments, but by past savings (AS). At point A, savings are equal to zero, that is, they are all invested in the development of reproduction, in the future, part of the current income begins to accumulate in the form of savings of this reproduction cycle. Let us assume that the reproduction of the economic complex of the region needs a more active investment process. This means that at the beginning of each cycle, we must have a larger reserve of savings in order to invest it in the development of reproduction. Curve BC should change to curve B1C1. The equilibrium point A will shift to position A1. The source of such changes can be, first of all, external financial and investment expansion into the economic complex of the region, carried out, in particular, through the redistribution of budgetary resources from one level to another.

Analyzing the possibility of correcting the participation of state budget funds in the reproduction process through the redistribution of financial resources within the framework of interbudgetary relations, it is necessary to identify the factors of this process. They are established based on the elements of the internal structure of interbudgetary relations:

The balance of the primary distribution of financial resources between different levels of the budget and the distribution of social and economic needs supervised by the state;

The scale of counter financial flows between different levels of the budget, arising in the process of redistribution of funds within the framework of interbudgetary relations;

The form of providing funds within the framework of interbudgetary relations (on a returnable or irrevocable basis for the recipient;

Target (that is, conditional) or free nature of the funds provided to the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation within the framework of interbudgetary relations;

The inertia of financial policy, formed in the course of the development of interbudgetary relations.

The need to balance the primary distribution of financial resources between different levels of the budget and the distribution of socio-economic needs supervised by the state is due to the fact that for the reproduction process the worst thing is the polarization of these forms of distribution, which means the financial insecurity of many socio-economic needs and the need to increase transaction costs by increasing redistribution processes .

This implies a transition from traditional methods of planning budget revenues from the achieved level to assessing the financial capabilities of territories and taking them into account in the system of distribution relations. This approach is prevailing in the world practice of building a system of interbudgetary relations and its implementation in Russian practice will be evidence of market reforms on the principles of financial self-sufficiency and self-development. At the same time, the scale of counter financial flows between different levels of the budget, arising in the process of redistribution of funds within the framework of interbudgetary relations, should be minimized.

Analysis of the evolution of Russian interbudgetary relations from the point of view of interaction between the federal center and individual subjects of the Russian Federation in the organization of the reproduction process shows that in the structure of forms of financial equalization there has been a shift towards an increase in the share of financial transfers. Changes in the budgetary and tax legislation of the Russian Federation, which have come into effect since 2001, are unlikely to ensure the sufficiency of the regions' own financial base. The emphasis on subsidized forms of interbudgetary regulation means an increase in the dependence of the economic development of territories on higher levels, a decrease in incentives to increase their own financial potential.

A more reliable way in comparison with other types of budgetary regulation for the regions is the system of tax redistribution, since the probability of reducing the share of tax revenues by the state is, as a rule, less than the probability of reducing the total amount of subsidies and subventions. Considering the problems of interbudgetary relations, special attention should be paid to the distribution of tax revenues between the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the federal budget. In recent years, there has been a tendency to reduce the share of tax revenues of regional budgets in the total tax revenues of the country's consolidated budget, although Article 48 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation establishes a proportion of 50/50, which determines the proper ratio of federal budget revenues and the consolidated budgets of the subjects of the Federation. At the same time, an increase in spending obligations is clearly noticeable. As a result, the provision of regions with financial resources is reduced. In addition, the current tax base of territorial budgets is still based on the splitting of regulatory taxes and significantly depends on the rates of tax distribution between the federal and regional budgets. According to existing estimates, more than 80% of the tax revenues of regional and local budgets are formed from federal tax deductions.

The annual changes in the distribution of tax revenues and fees also have a negative impact on the stability of regional budgets. At the same time, the ongoing changes in tax legislation are often far from equivalent in their consequences for individual regions and in some cases can lead to a significant reduction in the own revenues of regional budgets, a reduction in the reproduction process of the constituent entities of the Federation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. The budget system of the Russian Federation: Textbook. / Ed. M.V. Romanovsky, O.V. Vrublevskaya.- M.: Yurayt, 1999.

2. Zadornov M.M. Financial policy of the state and the possibility of its implementation // Finance.- 1999.- N 1s.6

3. www.minfin.ru - Official site of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.

Bibliographic link

Chechenov A.A., Kalov Z.A., Chechenova L.S., Mazloev R.B. THE ROLE OF INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS IN THE REPRODUCTION PROCESS // Modern problems of science and education. - 2006. - No. 4.;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=422 (date of access: 02/01/2020). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

Interbudgetary relations- these are relations between state authorities, authorities of subjects and local governments on the regulation of budgetary legal relations, the differentiation of income and expenses and the implementation of the budget process.

Target- creation of initial conditions for balancing budgets at each level of government, taking into account the tasks and functions assigned to these authorities.

Principles:

1. distribution and fixing of budget expenditures for certain levels of the budget system

2. differentiation and distribution of regulatory revenues by levels of the budget system (each level of the budget system has its own revenues - the Tax Code assigns federal taxes to the federal budget, and regional taxes to the budget of subjects). Regulatory - these are revenues or taxes, for which a higher authority establishes for a lower level of government and budget on a temporary (at least 1 year) or long-term (at least 3 years) basis the rate of deductions as a percentage of its income.

3. equality of budgetary rights of subjects of the Russian Federation or municipalities

4. equalization of the levels of minimum budgetary provision

5. equality of all budgets in relations with the federal budget, local - with the budget of the subject.

32. Assessments of the financial position and quality of financial management of the subject of the Russian Federation and municipalities

In accordance with the developments of the NIFI in 2002, the Ministry of Finance applies a methodology for assessing the financial position and quality of financial management in a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and a municipality. The essence of this document is:

1. assessment of the subject’s own (fixed) income, based on the tax potential of the territory and non-tax income:

The amount received is compared with the costs of social standards, based on the population of the corresponding category living in the area. If the share of these revenues is less than 64%, the territory has the right to apply to the federal budget for a subsidy.

Own income is compared not with expenses according to the social standard, but with expenses + budget debt

Own revenues are compared with all expenses of the subject or municipality. In the event that income is less than 30%, the financial position of the entity is unstable.

2. management

The quality of financial management at the level of a municipality or at the level of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is assessed depending on the stability and value of own income separately for tax and non-tax sources over a number of years. At the same time, the trend towards increasing sources is a good sign of financial management. In addition, the quality of financial management is determined through the share of enterprises of municipal and regional subordination that operate at a loss.

Through the value of extra-budgetary funds for social purposes, formed on the territory of the municipality, the subject. A positive trend is an increase in the value of funds.

Through the amount of loans and credits - the debt of the budget of the municipality or region to the population, legal entities. A good trend is a decrease in magnitude.

Essence, forms and principles of interbudgetary relations. The concept of interbudgetary relations and their role in the socio-economic processes of the country 1.1 the concept and principles of the implementation of interbudgetary relations

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

Bibliographic link

32. Assessments of the financial position and quality of financial management of the subject of the Russian Federation and municipalities

Latest

It needs to be known