Military Review

Withdraw money from oligarchs?

106
After reading one of the articles on the site, I wrote in the comments that the article is of a critical nature only, that the author did not offer an alternative to the object being criticized. He also added that I can write about a dozen of such unencumbered articles. My remark that I can write about a dozen of the same was rhetorical. But someone suggested at least one such write. This offer has been actively added. Therefore, nowhere to go and specifically for the reader with a nickname omsbon decided to write. Immediately I warn you, this article does not fit into the mainstream of this site. Do not want, do not read. You can desperately minus it. It does not touch me. Everyone has the right to express his opinion, even if it does not coincide with the opinion of the majority.


So, let's begin.
Our country in the last 20 years has experienced powerful upheavals that have changed the social structure of the population. As a result of the 90 upheavals of the last century, the country almost went bankrupt. A very large number of people turned out to be below the poverty line. It was only with the advent of V.V. Putin's situation began to gradually improve. Some people managed to pull out of poverty. At the very least, state employees began to pay salaries. Yes, and sometimes raise it. The state gradually began to revive. Several factors contributed to this. Among them: the coming to power of more powerful people than the amorphous leaders of the country 90-s; the rising cost of Russia's main export goods, which led to the filling of the budget and various funds; crystallization of ideology. Of course, one cannot say that ideology has taken its final forms. But instead of the ideology of elementary survival of 90, at least some distinct ideology came to build, revive, be independent, rise from your knees, if you wish.

But during growth, appetites also grow. It is necessary to continue to raise the salaries of teachers and doctors, and other state employees. What would people, rising from their knees, could live, not exist. We need high costs for infrastructure projects. In order not to catch up with the whole world in technological development, but to be leaders or one of the leaders. Freed from the overly naive views of 90's, we all understand that just because no one will give up their place on the world Olympus. Moreover, there are quite a few hunters to shove us lower, away in the darkest times of the 90s. Therefore, our country needs a strong and modern army so that those who wish to shove do it with extreme caution. Modern technological equipment is not just expensive, but very expensive. The cost of a modern fighter at the level of the cost of a commercial airliner with a capacity of 130-150 passengers. Only commercial liners bring income to their owners. A military aircraft generates only expenses: fuel, maintenance, modernization, pilot training. In general, it is very expensive to protect the country. But extremely necessary. Need money, a lot of money.

The government has developed an army modernization program worth almost 20 trillion rubles. The amount is huge. And she will not fall from the ceiling. Moreover, the amount is constantly increasing due to the fact that the cost of developing and introducing new equipment is increasing from year to year. And the fact that it was laid down in the modernization program of the army several years ago has now become much more expensive. Visitors to the site know perfectly well the situation with the American F-35 aircraft, which at the development stage was estimated to be one sum, and already in production the price tag on it so increased that some countries either reduce orders for it, or even think of abandoning it in favor of cheaper ones F-18. I think that we have a similar situation. Maybe the scale of price increases is not the same, but also decent.

In view of this, there is always a lack of money for rearmament. Headaches add constantly emerging crises in the world. They may occur far from us, but still we get from them. Indeed, in any crisis leads to a decrease in consumer spending. This means less costs, less materials and energy are needed for production. Since we have a significant part of budget revenues formed by the sale of natural resources (primarily oil and gas), the global crisis leads to a lack of revenue for our companies and, consequently, a decrease in budget revenues. Less money and higher costs. As a result, a few years ago, our budget surplus became scarce, i.e. Money for all expenses is not enough. The question of where to get money from the state has become a chronic headache.

All this is not new to you, everyone who, more or less, understands how the economy works, understands that the question is really very serious. But a significant part of the readers of the site does not particularly think about it, and to the question of where to get the money very confidently answers, to take away from Abramovich, Prokhorovs, Deripasok. The logic is simple - people fraudulently seized a huge piece of the once public property. These people are not just oligarchs, they are thieves and bloodsuckers. And that means to take away from them that which once belonged to the state is a completely natural and even socially necessary business. If you rummage through the Forbs lists of the Russian rich, you can find several dozen people with billions or multimillion states in terms of dollars. The amount of wealth of only the first ten of domestic billionaires surpasses the 150 billion dollars. And this is almost 5 trillion rubles, it is a quarter of the entire rearmament program, calculated to 2020 year (if not mistaken). Huge money !!! They can easily patch all the holes in the budget. Enough of everything - the army, teachers, doctors. And even a lot of officials perepadet. Yes, I think that most of society will have nothing against such expropriation.

The source of additional income for the rearmament of the army was found !! The only question is how to remove all this from the overdue oligarchs. It is trivial how many cash collectors will need to take all this wealth from a handful of people. The answer is zero. Zero collector cars will be required. And not because someone will be against what would take it all. Even if there is a consensus between the society and the government on this issue. You will not need a string of armored vehicles for export for one simple reason - there will be nothing to take out.

Many people, when they hear about the large sums of wealth of oligarchs, imagine their capital as factories, newspapers, steamers, and money. If you say that a person has so many billions of dollars, he will first of all think about huge packs of dollars, maybe even tied with a clerical eraser, which lies in the rich man’s pantry. Or in the bank, at worst. And the factories, newspapers, steamers, it seems, the oligarchs were received for surrender somewhere. So, this is a completely wrong idea. The bulk of the wealth of such people is tangible assets, and not money at all. That is, these are plants, banks, land, buildings (real estate), shares of some enterprises. And a certain amount of cache (cash, non-cash). Let's just say a small amount of cache. With a great interest in the Internet, you can structure the capital of an oligarch. I, of course, can be mistaken in details, but also only. None of these people keep money in the mattress. Even if this mattress has the sign “BANK”. Have you ever wondered why in times of crisis the deck of our oligarchs is shuffled and new people appear in the first places? The day before yesterday was Prokhorov, yesterday Lisin, today Usmanov. Because during the crisis, the shares of companies are very volatile. Today, the share of someone's company was worth 100 dollars. During the crisis, the stock price fell to 20 dollars. Today you are in the first place with 15 billions of dollars, tomorrow your fortune is “only” 3 billion and you are not the first in the list, but you close the twenty / thirty of the richest. All this, of course, conditional. But the essence is exactly that. These guys have little money. All their wealth is enterprises, stocks, real estate, movables.

So, we stop on a consensus that it is necessary to withdraw wealth in order to arm the army, to feed the state employees. Let's take shares. The bailiffs with bailiffs arrived, seized a pile of shares for many, many hundreds or even billions of dollars. What's next? How to arm the army and feed the state employees with shares? With state employees easier. You can give them shares. They will sell them if they want. It does not matter that for a penny, as it was with vouchers. But as an option, this can be imagined. And what about weapons for the army? By using the seized shares arm the army? You can put shares in the depository. And when they will distribute dividends to the owners of the shares, the state can take away its dividends. Only the amount of dividends will be small compared with the capital that the state was going to withdraw from the oligarchs. The surest way to get big money for the withdrawn shares is to sell them. Relatively speaking, they seized shares for a billion dollars, and sell them for a billion. There is a question, to whom to sell? If we withdraw from our own Russian oligarchs, then there will be no money inside the country for the purchase of shares. There remains only the option of selling the shares of the company to some foreign investor. If you sell the shares to a foreigner, then it turns out that we took away the company's shares from the Russian businessman, and sold it to a foreign businessman. That is, the shares of factories, newspapers, steamboats were ours, they will become theirs, in the sense of American, British or German? Do you want this? Me not.

Further, what else can be withdrawn from the Russian oligarchs? Factories, pipelines, mining companies, etc. We will remove And how will this money for the army? The pipe lying in the ground, the pumping of oil in Siberia or the metallurgical plant in Norilsk are not money. This is a pipe, a rocking chair, a factory. This means of production. But only. To get a lot of money from this, it means that after withdrawal, you must immediately sell it. Again the question is who. Ours already have no money, but we have “all of them" dispossessed them. " Yes, and sell to someone of ours, this means that there will again be some kind of oligarch. Sell ​​to foreigners? So this is our all. How do they sell it?

There is an option to leave all this in the possession of the state. But then you need to forget about the extra money for the army. After all, if some privately-owned enterprise paid taxes on 100 million rubles, then by transferring to state ownership, this company would not pay taxes on either 500 million or 200 million. And the same 100 will pay millions of rubles. That is, the budget will not be particularly hot from transferring the ownership of an enterprise to state ownership. Well, yes, again, the state can pay dividends to itself. But the amount of dividends is a penny. Yes, and let's speak bluntly - our government managers are still managers. See what Serdyukov was directing. Do you think that the rest of our managers are all extremely honest? I'm not so naive.

The result of the above. All the talk about the withdrawal of wealth from domestic oligarchs is extremely harmful. This will not benefit our economy. It hurts social relations in the country. But the oligarchic capital itself in our country is, of course, not very good.

I say goodbye to this. I don’t write about alternative ways of filling the military budget, as I was told: write at least the same article (without offering alternatives). Here I wrote. There are thoughts about alternative ways.
Author:
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. domokl
    domokl 23 July 2013 06: 01
    +9
    I read the article carefully, simply because the author proposed a wonderful announcement. Sorry, but the options that you offer smell of some sort of revolutionism ... Select, withdraw. On what basis? Again, select and share? So we did it more than once our long history.
    But is it possible to simply introduce civilized measures to protect capital and taxation? Why is a progressive tax bad? A good manager, knowing how much he MUST pay taxes, will find an option to make the company profitable. Bad, it is bad.
    Taking private firms on the shoulders of the state, even if they are currently effective, is stupid. As the author correctly noted, public administrators are most often those managers. So you need to solve just a few problems.
    Create a tax system in which the entrepreneur will be able to plan their profits.
    Eliminate the possibility of kickbacks and bribes, i.e. destroy corruption.
    To give an opportunity, through the state financing system (namely the state), to each citizen to create private firms without risking everything and everything.
    To shift the emphasis of work from large firms (oh, this is our Soviet gigantomania) to work with small and medium-sized businesses. The province lives by this. And where there is none (cities-satellite of large enterprises) there will never be subsidized regions.
    1. Dart weyder
      Dart weyder 23 July 2013 06: 20
      +4
      I completely agree on the progressive tax, - I’ll add - just prohibit withdrawing cash - and transfer all payments between enterprises and enterprises, employees and others to non-cash payments - then the salary in envelopes will also go away - and tracing the history of banking operations and their current monitoring will be easier .
      Quote: domokl
      Sorry, but the options that you offer smack of some sort of revolutionism ... Select, withdraw. On what basis?
      - and here, I’m more than sure that when I carefully study the method of enriching one or another individual, there will be more than one episode per year, which can be considered an economic crime, fraud, (I am silent, how many enterprises were squeezed by raiders at one time captures), tax evasion, and so on - to the flesh before eliminating competitors - so such an exemption can also be quite justified, but I'm afraid we will not see this ....
      1. Kolya
        Kolya 23 July 2013 08: 35
        +1
        Introduce a gradual tax on wealth. For example: if you have a billion - pay 30% of this tax, a million - pay 20%. The income tax is completely removed and replaced by a wealth tax plus a consumption tax. It will become profitable again to work hard (because there is no payroll tax) and lead a modest life. And you don’t need to take anything from anyone, they themselves will give it!
        1. vladsolo56
          vladsolo56 23 July 2013 08: 56
          +3
          You have a simplified understanding of taxes and the tax system. Those who are involved in the sale of all your taxes will immediately include in the cost of products and we will pay for their wealth. the same will happen in production, in general, the result is one of the prices soar and "everyone" will be happy, I think that you too.
          1. Kolya
            Kolya 25 July 2013 20: 40
            0
            Do you mean that the payroll tax (income tax) does not affect production costs and the cost of the final product ??? In fact, there will be a redistribution of taxes (the one who works will pay less and the one who consumes more). This will stimulate exports as well. Import will suffer - a consumption tax will add a price, and thank God. The tax on wealth will stimulate the emergence of an effective owner.
        2. stroporez
          stroporez 23 July 2013 11: 22
          +2
          Quote: Kohl
          work hard (because there is no payroll tax) and lead a modest life.
          ---------------- Are you talking about whom ??? wassat I'm wondering if there is at least one "sovereign man" who lives solely on a salary ............
        3. cdrt
          cdrt 24 July 2013 17: 02
          -2
          Hmm ... for today, the Russian Federation is kept from the crisis only by relatively high consumer activity ... Actually, it usually is the key to healthy economic growth (any institute textbook on economics is a discussion of the way out of the Great Depression).
          By introducing a consumption tax - let the same locomotive of growth derail wink
    2. buzuke
      buzuke 23 July 2013 07: 15
      +1
      I agree with your assessment of the article. revolutions and its derivatives we do not need. At one time, an initiative was discussed to conduct an audit of the privatization of key enterprises and, based on the results, to offer owners an additional payment (simply speaking), but this is practically impossible from the legal point of view (change of ownership, etc.) and would greatly impact the investment climate, which is already not high. including you have to put up with what has already been done and try not to step on the same rake again (privatization plans)
      1. Varies
        Varies 23 July 2013 09: 36
        +2
        Initiatives to conduct an audit and offer to pay are simply torpedoed by all sorts of human rights defenders and screamers from the economy nurtured by a Gaidar, but this does not contradict the law.
    3. Ustas
      Ustas 23 July 2013 08: 21
      -1
      Quote: domokl
      Create a tax system in which the entrepreneur will be able to plan their profits.

      Planning in the conditions of fierce competition of capitalism is an ungrateful thing and is very conditional in nature and prone to crises.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 24 July 2013 17: 16
        -2
        for enterprise planning, there is no particular difference in what the source of the fluctuation in demand is — constant corrections to the central descent plan or fluctuations in market demand.
        Rather, competition is reflected in the ever greater adaptation of the product to the needs of a particular client (as opposed to a centrally planned economy).
        Crises also affected the economy of the USSR, as well as any other. even the USSR was not the author. Maybe not directly affected, but ... The same Great Depression "in a surprising way" coincides with the industrialization in the USSR, the massive use of labor by the Gulag convicts, with massive construction projects: Belomorkanal as an example.
        Given the national specifics, is this much different from the labor "armies" in the US for building roads?
        Is it very different from the same massive road construction in Germany at this time?
        As Keynes wrote there - to get out of the crisis - do whatever you want, force to build something, force to fight, but remove "hungry" people from the labor market.
        1. lexe
          lexe 24 July 2013 22: 49
          -1
          for enterprise planning, there is no particular difference in what the source of the fluctuation in demand is — constant corrections to the central descent plan or fluctuations in market demand.

          There is a difference and it is temporary. An investor in the west opening a plant knows in advance that he will merge it (stocks will collapse along with demand). Only large strategic corporations hold the blow with cyclical drops.
          In the meantime, the Gosplan will adopt \ decide \ embody, the plant will become obsolete. But merging then it is a pity ... - you can lose your post, and it will drive the bullshit.
          BUT you correctly noticed the similarities between the industrialization of Stalin and Roosevelt. The result was equivalent (conditionally) in different ways.
          But then what? With the new cycle? All this industrial power needs to be constantly and quickly updated with the development of scientific and technical progress. And here the State Planning Commission has big problems ...
          Well, now we will make the Stalinist spurt and in 20-30 years?
          Roosevelt's jerk is needed. In China, the whole world behind the scenes is their market with the consent of the United States. Again, human resources. And with us?
    4. Ustas
      Ustas 23 July 2013 09: 33
      +5
      Quote: domokl
      To give an opportunity, through the state financing system (namely the state), to each citizen to create private firms without risking everything and everything.

      So we need to return to state-owned banks and, first of all, amend the Law on the Central Bank. The state central bank should not depend on the financial policy of the US Federal Reserve. The money supply of rubles should correspond to the amount of domestic product and services produced. The price of services should be differentiated from the material values ​​produced.
      Resource-mining and energy-producing enterprises should belong to the state with strict control over the pricing of their products.
      In this regard, it is necessary to amend article 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on state property on land and mineral resources.
      Then you can at least plan something.
    5. Varies
      Varies 23 July 2013 09: 33
      +6
      The oligarchs have nothing wrong with expropriating capital; Stalin is subject to it.
      1. revnagan
        revnagan 23 July 2013 12: 26
        +2
        Quote: Varies
        The oligarchs have nothing wrong with expropriating capital; Stalin is subject to it.

        Not only Stalin, but also Hugo Chávez. They stole state property, used it - basta! Nationalize, and that's the end of it. After all, the oligarchs' property brings profit to them, the pride. The treasury gets only taxes, and the profits are bought by yachts, liners, islands and mansions .Let the profit go to the state treasury, let the Topol, Iskander and other things necessary in modern realities be purchased for it. And the former "owners" can be left as managers and pay them a fixed salary, as Lenin had suggested. Everything, everyone is happy, both the state and ordinary citizens. And she, there are 15 (30-50-75) dissatisfied people in the whole country, they are former oligarchs. Well, we have a democracy, the minority must yield to the majority, rightly so. That's just these events will occur when the very existence of the state is threatened, and no matter how late it was then.
    6. a
      23 July 2013 10: 06
      +1
      Quote: domokl
      Sorry, but the options that you offer smack of some sort of revolutionism.


      no .. you must have read it inattentively. I do not propose to select and divide. this is a hypothetical proposal, and I wanted to show that this cannot be done, that it will not bring any benefits.
      1. S_mirnov
        S_mirnov 23 July 2013 10: 14
        +5
        "I do not propose to select and divide" - I belittle you, not laughing nothing to share! Give me everything! (R. Abramovich)
        1. revnagan
          revnagan 23 July 2013 12: 27
          0
          Quote: S_mirnov
          I belittle you, there is nothing to divide! Give me everything! (R. Abramovich)

          Give everything to the state, you don’t need me to be stolen. Anyway, through generations they will be very strong.
    7. Gari
      Gari 23 July 2013 10: 14
      +2
      Quote: domokl
      Sorry, but the options that you offer smack of some sort of revolutionism ... Select, withdraw. On what basis? Again, select and share? So we have done this more than once in our long history.


      Good afternoon, why again the revolution can be done according to the law:

      NATIONALIZATION (from lat. Natio - people) - the transfer of private property to state ownership. Objects can be: land, industrial enterprises, banks, transport, communications, etc. As a rule, it affects industries and industries that require large and long-term investments. Some states resort to nationalization during periods of crisis shocks, wars and other force majeure circumstances. It can be carried out by two methods: by confiscation, i.e., gratuitous alienation of property, and by alienation of it with full or partial compensation (redemption).
      According to Art. 235 Civil Code of the Russian Federation nationalization is carried out in the manner prescribed by federal law. Since such a law has not been adopted at present, nationalization cannot be carried out in Russia; that is all.

      Examples:

      The nationalization of large-scale industry, real estate and banks in Soviet Russia as a result of the Bolsheviks coming to power.
      Nationalization of Oil Production in Mexico in 1938 by the Government of Lazaro Cardenas
      The nationalization of a number of economic sectors in the UK by the government of Clement Attlee in the 1940s
      Nationalization of the Suez Canal by the Government of Egypt in 1956 (see Suez Crisis)
      The nationalization of American enterprises in Cuba in 1959-1960
      Nationalization of the mining industry in Chile in the 1970s (under President Salvador Allende)
      Nationalization of Oil Production in Venezuela in 1976
      1. a
        23 July 2013 11: 17
        -1
        Quote: Gari
        Examples:



        your examples are quite "ancient", sorry
        as more modern, one can suggest considering examples of large-scale nationalization of enterprises in France in 1981-1982. And the denationalization of the same enterprises in 5 years. As well as large-scale denationalization of enterprises in England in the early 80s
        1. Gari
          Gari 23 July 2013 11: 33
          +6
          Quote: uno
          as more modern, one can suggest considering examples of large-scale nationalization of enterprises in France in 1981-1982. And the denationalization of the same enterprises in 5 years. As well as large-scale denationalization of enterprises in England in the early 80s

          Very happy for your examples, by the way from ,, democratic geyvropy ,,
          The main thing you understand the meaning I have written - no revolutionary action-
          just passed the LAW ON NATIONALIZATION

          Here is an excerpt from
          Private international law

          5. Ownership in private international law

          5.3. Application of nationalization laws

          The term "nationalization" means the seizure of property in private ownership, and its transfer to the ownership of the state. As a result of nationalization, it is not separate objects that become the property of the state, but entire branches of the economy.
          Nationalization as a general state measure for the implementation of socio-economic changes should be distinguished from expropriation as a measure to seize certain objects into state ownership and from confiscation as a measure of punishment of an individual order.
          The right of any state to nationalize private property, including that owned by foreigners, derives from the universally recognized principle of international law - the sovereignty of the state. The implementation of nationalization is one of the forms of manifestation of state sovereignty.
          Each state, by virtue of sovereignty, establishes its own political and economic system, its own system of property rights. The state has the exclusive right to establish the content and nature of the right of ownership, the procedure for the acquisition, transfer and loss of this right.
          The state’s right to nationalization, including the right to freely dispose of its natural resources and wealth, was affirmed in a number of resolutions of the UN General Assembly.
          Since the implementation of nationalization falls within the internal competence of the state, no international body can discuss measures to nationalize the property of foreigners.


          Here is the link http://www.aup.ru/books/m233/6_3.htm

          All you need is the political will of leadership
          1. a
            23 July 2013 11: 40
            +2
            Quote: Gari
            Very happy for your examples, by the way from ,, democratic geyvropy ,,
            The main thing you understand the meaning I have written - no revolutionary action-
            just passed the LAW ON NATIONALIZATION


            we are not alone on the planets and whether we want it or not, we are doomed to creatively process the experience of others. I think that even Europe and America hated by someone needs to take good experience and adapt it to their conditions.
            I did not propose revolutions. in our country, revolutions have already happened for many centuries to come. we need to develop calmly and peacefully now. it is necessary to consolidate society on some global ideas.
            I just wanted to show that the withdrawal of funds from the oligarchs proposed by many here will not bring significant funds to the treasury.



            Quote: Gari
            All you need is the political will of leadership


            it is difficult to wait for the political anti-oligrachic will of the leadership, which is inherently oligarchic. our political oligarchy covers the financial oligarchy
            1. Gari
              Gari 23 July 2013 12: 25
              +2
              Quote: uno
              I did not propose revolutions. in our country, revolutions have already happened for many centuries to come. we need to develop calmly and peacefully now.

              And I do not propose revolutions - enough for us in our history
              All according to the law and without any shocks

              Quote: uno
              I just wanted to show that the withdrawal of funds from the oligarchs proposed by many here will not bring significant funds to the treasury.


              The example now absolutely does not agree with this, when large plants, factories, combines, etc. are in whose hands?
              Companies registered in offshore companies, but in reality we all know who the owners are
              and the result is a tiny amount of taxes paid to the state budget, and real capital is withdrawn abroad and where it is invested, that is, the economy of Russia (Ukraine, Armenia ....) is again losing. and who on a private enterprise protects the rights of ordinary workers?
              I am writing not only about Russia, but also everywhere in the CIS.
              If there is nationalization, this is another example of the economy of the USSR or
              China, and of course, if there are state-owned enterprises and workers' rights will be protected, then trade unions
              China's economy is a mixed system - a multistructure conglomerate of large state-owned enterprises and mainly medium and small enterprises in the private sector. Unlike the Russian Federation, China did not hastily destroy its public sector - market enterprises were re-created.
              1. a
                23 July 2013 12: 44
                +1
                Quote: Gari
                Companies registered in offshore companies, but in reality we all know who the owners are
                and the result is a tiny amount of taxes paid to the state budget, and real capital is withdrawn abroad and where it is invested, that is, again losing


                so after all, business owners do everything by law. let the state prohibit the export of capital from the country and require the full disclosure of the beneficiaries of enterprises. and then the capital will be in the country and we will mean who is behind this or that enterprise. is not it? and now the owners are using the laws that exist. Who is to blame that the laws are bad? owners or state?
                and by the way, why do you think that if the state owns a controlling stake in the enterprise, then there will be no export of capital? will .. and not on a smaller scale. and it won’t .. but it is. for example, when a few months ago, the Cypriot authorities decided to pinch off some of the money, the domestic state banks most of all squealed from deposits held in Cypriot banks. It seems VTB and VEB. but I can confuse. how did it turn out that the largest deposits in Cypriot banks were in our STATE banks ??? here's an example of how capital is withdrawn from the country, not by private enterprises, but by the state.
                1. Gari
                  Gari 23 July 2013 14: 50
                  0
                  Quote: uno
                  a controlling stake in the enterprise will be owned by the state,

                  I mean the State, where at the helm of state leaders and not ....
                  at least those like Comrade Stalin, and under him everything was nationalized and everything was large and medium-sized enterprises were in the hands of the state, but by the way small ones were in the hands of private owners and no export of capital, but everything was invested in the USSR - and the result of the Dnieper, Belomor channel .......
                  1. a
                    23 July 2013 16: 29
                    +1
                    Quote: Gari
                    I mean the State, where at the helm of state leaders and not ....


                    and where to get these people? I do not know.

                    Quote: Gari
                    at least such as comrade Stalin


                    sorry, but enough of the butchers. don't need Stalin

                    Quote: Gari
                    with him everything was nationalized


                    I may be inaccurate, but was it not during the socialist revolution that decrees on nationalization were issued? then Lenin should hold the palm here.


                    Quote: Gari
                    and no export of capital


                    Yes, what problems now eliminate the export of capital? let's close the borders. and that's it ... no one will take anything out. the mouse will not slip. because under Stalin it was. Wanted to relax, forget about Turkey, go to Sochi. or Pyatigorsk, failure to watch.
                    1. Gari
                      Gari 23 July 2013 17: 00
                      +2
                      Quote: uno
                      and where to get these people? I do not know.

                      Do not think that there are no people, there will always be Persons.

                      Quote: uno
                      sorry, but enough of the butchers. don't need Stalin


                      Here I don’t agree with you, you shouldn’t call Stalin a butcher, there was a Person who created a powerful state and won the Great
                      the war

                      Quote: uno
                      I may be inaccurate, but was it not during the socialist revolution that decrees on nationalization were issued?

                      And what's wrong

                      Quote: uno
                      Yes, what problems now eliminate the export of capital? let's close the borders. and that's it ... no one will take anything out. the mouse will not slip. because under Stalin it was. Wanted to relax, forget about Turkey, go to Sochi. or Pyatigorsk, failure to watch

                      I didn’t offer it. Read above. I don’t like the example of the USSR. There is now China.
              2. cdrt
                cdrt 24 July 2013 17: 40
                0
                To take away and share is a bad recipe for overcoming crises ...
                Yes, our owners, given how they received it, cannot be effective. It is a fact.
                Yes, state-owned companies operate less efficiently (as usual) than private ones.
                Yes, given the fact that privatization in Russian is actually a diversion of state property, and therefore the profit of a private owner is perceived by everyone as stolen.
                But, taking away again, actually kill any private initiative. And actually we have problems with this.
                Therefore, soft nationalization (as they do now - buying enterprises from owners), consolidation of corporations, although the flip side of this is monopolization, which is not sugar at all (looking at rising gas tariffs, railway transportation, electricity as an example) . And then, after 5-10 years, the sale of small blocks of shares so that they would pass into the hands of those who would stupidly demand profits / dividends from managers of the enterprises they sell - pension funds, insurance companies, etc.
        2. Alan
          Alan 24 July 2013 14: 41
          0
          Quote: uno
          your examples are quite "ancient", sorry

          Well, in Venezuela, there are not so ancient ones: Quote ... In 2005. Venezuelan President raised the extraction tax for foreign firms operating in the Orinoco Basin from 16,6% to 30%. And in Jan. 2007 he signed a decree nationalizing the oil fields in the Orinoco basin. According to the document, foreign companies until May 1, 2007. should have sold the state PDVSA a share of at least 60% in joint oil production projects .... end of quote. In general, in the current conditions it is difficult to wait for massive examples, since the power in the world is WILD, STUNNED CAPITAL violating the laws !!! for him to search the plane of the president of a sovereign country is to spit (sorry for vulgarism) And for him nationalization is "like death"
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 24 July 2013 17: 27
        0
        Take and share (c) Balls - this is one
        Nationalization is with compensation.
        Moreover, if it is ridiculously "partial" - this is again Sharikovism (that is, the ardent desire of the former dog, in general wink ).
        And by the way, now the resource sectors are already in the hands of companies controlled by the state (Gazprom, Gazpromneft, Rosneft). + UVZ, UAC, UEC, USK, Rostec, etc. - Already the state controls more than 50% of the assets.
        But (!!!) if you compare, for example, how TNK-BP worked (the volume of investments per ton of production from new wells as an example, ROCE, etc.) with the operation of the same assets under Rosneft’s conditions, then the comparison would be not at all in favor of state ownership. Overhead costs (for the illiterate - THIS IS NOT AN INVESTMENT IN BASIC FUNDS) are growing at a crazy pace, the volume of investments in PF with the same return is growing. The reason is kickbacks, kickbacks, kickbacks ... Well ... because. the bag is limited in money - dividends (including to the state, as the main owner) will not actually be paid ...
    8. S_mirnov
      S_mirnov 23 July 2013 10: 27
      -2
      "Take away, withdraw. On what basis? Again select and divide? This is how we have done this more than once in our long history." - Exactly, and defeated fascist Europe, and became the strongest country in the world! Then they stole everything again (privatized) and where are we now ...
      "So only a few problems need to be solved.
      Create a tax system in which the entrepreneur will be able to plan their profits.
      Eliminate the possibility of kickbacks and bribes, i.e. destroy corruption.
      To give an opportunity, through the state financing system (namely the state), to each citizen to create private firms without risking everything and everything.
      To shift the focus of work from large firms (oh, this is our Soviet gigantomania) "
      It is necessary to start with governing the country, if the ruler is incompetent and cannot pick up corruption - that all further empty idle talk. Yes, and how can a man whose Borya Yeltsin by the handle, raise the country. He does not protect the people, but the interests of those who brought him to power.
      1. a
        23 July 2013 12: 00
        +1
        Quote: S_mirnov
        Create a tax system in which the entrepreneur will be able to plan their profits.


        Yes, the tax system should be clear. understandable to many, otherwise people simply will not risk doing business.

        Quote: S_mirnov
        Eliminate the possibility of kickbacks and bribes, i.e. destroy corruption.


        it was famously on paper, but forgot about the ravines.
        I think that corruption is unlikely to succeed. even in the most prosperous countries and in countries where they shoot for corruption, it has not disappeared and exists for itself. but, of course, you cannot stop fighting her.

        Quote: S_mirnov
        To give an opportunity, through the state financing system (namely the state), to each citizen to create private firms without risking everything and everything.


        but this is, excuse me, profanity. by this method we will "send" into business everyone who wants and does not, who can and cannot. business is always a risk. you can't do business without risk. business is competition and the one who offers the best (in theory) gets the benefit. if risks are removed, competition is removed. then the market will be filled with a mass of unnecessary goods and services

        Quote: S_mirnov
        To shift the focus of work from large firms


        Yes. I agree. in developed countries, it is small and medium-sized businesses that are the basis for development, the most competitive layer of society. it must be developed with us.
        1. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 23 July 2013 12: 22
          +1
          You are a little confused, these are quotes from Domocles.
          My opinion: It is necessary to start with the government of the country, if the ruler is incompetent and can not pick up corruption - that all further empty idle talk.
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 24 July 2013 17: 56
          0
          I once saw a fantasy on the topic of the tax system.
          1. Tax on fossil resources (more precisely, the share of the cost of fossil resources in the products sold by an enterprise / processor, but is levied / reimbursed according to the rules of VAT, that is, it is "transferred" along the chain to the final consumer. initial PI is less than 40%).
          2. Income tax (salary, dividends, insurance income, interest on deposits)
          3. Tax on imputed income or license fee (for small businesses)
          4. Property tax (both enterprises and individuals)
          5. Mandatory contributions to any insured funds PS, SS, VHI.
          Something like that.
          In other words, a tax on factors of production, on the extraction of minerals, on income. A simple system for small businesses. In other words - if you work well, everything you have earned, work poorly, you will go broke. Everything seems to work correctly.
    9. Sirocco
      Sirocco 23 July 2013 13: 04
      +2
      Quote: domokl
      Create a tax system in which the entrepreneur will be able to plan their profits.

      Hello, Sasha, my opinion is that no matter what taxation system is created, our entrepreneurs will still underpay taxes, and the salary will be in envelopes. (There is such a friend who said something like, if I don't get more than 50% of the profit, I won't get up from the couch) The other day I ran into an acquaintance who is applying for a preferential pension, he works in Kaliningrad at some plant under construction, his salary is more than 40 tyrov, But when they calculated his pension, about 8 tyrov, he was indignant why his friend working at the State Enterprise, retired, receives 14 tyrov. Although he himself understands that out of 40 tyrs, there are 31 in an envelope. So it is impossible to take away from these entrepreneurs, but it is high time to take them into account. And it is polite to offer them to pay taxes and salaries according to "white". Something like this.
      1. a
        23 July 2013 13: 22
        +3
        Quote: Sirocco
        Although he himself understands that out of 40 tyrov, there are 31 in an envelope. So you can’t take these entrepreneurs away, but it's time to take them into account


        "gray" business schemes in Russia are on a large scale .. somewhere I have met figures that from 40 to 60 percent of business in Russia works in "gray". if you take out all this gray business, then you can decently fill the budget. but who will take it out? and it will not be completely displayed anyway. even in developed countries the share of "gray" business is not less than 20%
      2. S_mirnov
        S_mirnov 23 July 2013 13: 36
        0
        "And it is polite to offer them to pay taxes, and wages on the" white ". Something like this." - so usually say those who themselves have never paid salaries to people in white! And as soon as you try to pay, your business will sink, unless of course you use oil or gas.
        If it’s more clear, then for starters, inviting a private plumber to return home, pay 1000r. plumbing, and another 1000r. to the state as an employer of plumbing!
        Why is that :
        "Let's estimate the size of the tax burden.
        For employers who are in the general taxation regime, the payroll taxes include a single social tax - the UST. The total rate of the UST is 26%. In addition to the unified social tax, another type of compulsory payments is associated with wages, namely insurance contributions for compulsory pension insurance. There is another type of payment - accident insurance contributions. However, the calculation of the tax burden is not limited to the amount of the unified social tax. contributions for pension insurance and insurance against accidents and occupational diseases. No matter how strange it may seem, while raising wages, the taxpayer simultaneously increases his VAT obligations. It turns out that for every thousand wages, we pay “from the top” about 487 rubles, or 48, 7%.
        This is the real value of the tax burden associated with the payment of wages. Plus we pay the same VAT every day in stores. "
  2. Dart weyder
    Dart weyder 23 July 2013 06: 10
    +6
    Not being strong in economics, and probably having a very poor idea of ​​assets and liabilities, I’m not going to put a plus or minus, the author’s opinion is partly quite fair, but I doubt that it makes sense to take oil and gas pipelines, metallurgical plants and so on, for resale - you forget about the income that they bring to their owners, even if tax revenues to the treasury decrease - but there is a net profit, and the state will have control over such strategic raw materials as oil and gas - the transport / mining industry meaning, and there are enough normal managers, they just need a good incentive - in which case - not to let witnesses in the case - and if they are guilty, in the civil service - and the article is stricter - so that it wouldn’t be disgraceful, because allocating money to fight corruption is tantamount that allocate alcohol to combat alcoholism. And personally, in my opinion, the capitalist or market model only leads to the enrichment of the scanty part at the expense of the majority, in fact we will soon return to the feudal system - we just need to not blindly copy the experience of others (and not always positive), but to plan and introduce it carefully and thoughtfully more current models of the economy, management and other things .... it really is - when oligarchs (who do not have cash (cache) or non-cash) funds are extremely doubtful - millions in bank accounts) - because yachts, football clubs, and mansions with locks and expensive cars - they’re not changing factories !? and hundreds of millions of taxes per year are not paid from the sale of shares or factories - and this is a certain percentage of the money received from labor activities - money - therefore I do not want to bother myself, because I don’t have time to google, I work, and I am not a resident of the Russian Federation) - if to know how many percent of the tax pay from the total income of all the liabilities of the oligarch and the amount of taxes paid - you can find out the income - and it is material, and in money - I think it’s profitable to transfer everything to the state - if only it would be good, and first remove the thief in this state - Yes, and people feel better morally ....
    1. baskoy
      baskoy 23 July 2013 09: 05
      +1
      That's right! STRATEGIC industries (gas, oil, coal, electricity, land, water, healthcare, education, CULTURE ...) must be completely under state control. If the prices for gasoline, gas, electricity (respectively, transportation costs) decrease tenfold - the defense industry, science, medium-sized business and the people in their apartments will instantly "bend"! Or there will be a jerk, which is scary to dream of. But as long as the country is governed by the "London Regional Committee", all that remains is to dream!
      Imagine, your neighbor on the landing begins to "load" you: "Why is your counter spinning so fast, turn off the refrigerator, buy groceries every day. Going to Karelia on kayaks? No shit, go to Turkey! And, in general, show your wallet Why did you get a little beer and cigarettes yesterday from my wife's kiosk? So that tomorrow I take twice as much. " Delirium - say? But, for some reason, at the state level, it goes off with a bang. Fortunately, we are starting to at least go to the toilet without asking!
  3. GELEZNII_KAPUT
    GELEZNII_KAPUT 23 July 2013 06: 12
    0
    Rob the loot, only let the state do this! And let them pay taxes to the regions in which they work!
  4. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 23 July 2013 06: 13
    +5
    "The oligarchs have no money" - what kind of shishi do they then live on? Are stocks gnawing? Are yachts built from minerals? They seize (and in a number of states do this with the help of the taxation system) surplus profits, natural resource rent, and finally income.
    In general, the article really turned out "not burdened with meaning". The author, apparently, does not realize that "nationalization" - and that is what he describes and rejects - has long been not just "expropriation of expropriators", but a serious theory (and no less serious practice).
    1. a
      23 July 2013 10: 12
      +1
      Quote: serge-68-68
      The author, apparently, does not realize that "nationalization" - and that is what he describes and rejects - has long been not just "expropriation of expropriators", but a serious theory (and no less serious practice).



      the author guesses. and even knows how successful examples of nationalization, and unsuccessful.
      as for "not being burdened with meaning" - I agree. if in another branch they would not have told me, try to write, at least the same not burdened with meaning, then I would not write. I'm still a reader here. but I wanted to be reading articles with meaning
  5. Alan
    Alan 23 July 2013 06: 30
    +7
    Dear Uno, Any opinion expressed on this resource deserves attention, and what is stated in the format of an article is even a plus, so I put it to you. As for the essence of your question .. Yes, the site has repeatedly sounded similar proposals, moreover, he himself expressed them more than once. In your article you say that our oligarchs have nothing to take "the cache is not enough" and the rest is invested in production .. I think this is not entirely true, and for a "black day" a very round amount in currency and precious metals has been postponed in some foreign bank and most likely not in one. It's almost impossible to get them back now. Therefore, consider another part of the asset, namely the business; a significant part of which is located in Russia. You understand that the profit received from these enterprises, especially in the field of mineral resources, is rarely invested in the modernization of production, and for the most part is brought to the west and invested there in securities, in the economy of other countries. You yourself noted that these enterprises went to most of these characters, not in a completely legal way (some loans-for-shares auctions are worth something) Therefore, nationalization will allow, first of all, to block the withdrawal of these funds abroad and start investing them in their economy. And this certainly requires political will, and effective management of these enterprises. Yes, at this stage, it is not easy but this does not mean that this should not be done. Moreover, nationalization has been practiced more than once by the "luminaries of democracy", the example of England under Mrs Thatcher, in particular, I think you know. Yours faithfully hi and other other.
    1. a
      23 July 2013 10: 29
      +1
      Quote: Alan
      Any opinion expressed on this resource deserves attention


      Thank you for understanding.

      Quote: Alan
      our oligarchs have nothing to take "the cache is not enough" and the rest is invested in production .. I think this is not entirely true, and for a "black day" a very round amount of currency and precious metals has been postponed in some foreign bank and most likely in more than one


      I think that if you dig in the internet, you can find the capital structure of some entrepreneur. When I said that "the cache is not enough", it is not enough in comparison with the total assets of the oligarch. Relatively speaking, if a person has 15 billion dollars, then in the cache, I think he has no more than several hundred million dollars. This is the maximum, but in reality it is less. Why? Yes, because these people are not just cache collectors, they are businessmen. and for any businessman, the money lying in the bank is just paper that does not generate income. yes, some of the assets are in precious metals, but I think they are small. maybe in precious stones, works of art. but the question is, to re-equip the country you need money, not diamonds and works of art. sell them? But often, these oligarchs' assets are the national treasure, even if they are in private hands.


      Quote: Alan
      for the most part it is withdrawn to the West and invested there in securities, in the economy of other countries.


      I can’t object to you specifically here. because I don’t know how much profit is being withdrawn, but how much is still invested in something. but in any case, profits are not stored in money. something is bought on it. Well, the very withdrawal of assets from the country is a normal procedure. another thing is that the state allows you to profile this procedure. but this is a question for the state, not the oligarch. nevertheless, the state sets the rule of the game

      Quote: Alan
      Therefore, nationalization will primarily allow to block the withdrawal of these funds abroad and begin to invest them in their economy



      but here I fundamentally disagree. we have many, many enterprises in which the state has a controlling stake. So what? do you think that someone from the management of these enterprises was deterred from withdrawing assets abroad? restrained no one. and state-owned enterprises also have strong "stash" offshore.
      moreover, nationalization provides that the sovereign's enterprise will be managed by a sovereign person. but the present sovereign people often manage sovereign property much less efficiently than a private owner. again remember Serdyukov and his "women's battalion" of managers.
      1. Alan
        Alan 24 July 2013 14: 03
        0
        Quote: uno
        but the present sovereign people often manage sovereign property much less efficiently than a private owner. again remember Serdyukov and his "women's battalion" of managers.

        The example of the "GOD" (and he never was and never will be a real comrade campaigner) and so his example is not indicative, since he just perceived the Ministry of Defense as a commercial enterprise, his private shop and likened the activity of the Ministry of Defense with the activity of a commercial firm (which however, it is not surprising for him) but as you know, its main goal is to get maximum profit !!! Hence the sale of "non-core" property, etc. And as for the effective managers of private traders, this is a controversial issue; and he is rather out of the plane - "On the role of personality in history." An example from personal experience - he worked at a porcelain factory while the enterprise was a state-owned enterprise; clients stood in line for products, among the clients, by the way, there was also MO. The enterprise, being a city-forming one, pulled (and pulled) the "social program". In the late 80s and early 90s, the plant was corporatized, this most notorious private trader came to the management and it went off - at first they "merged" this very "social network" then there were interruptions in the supply of raw materials, shipment of products, customers began to massively look for a new supplier and, as a result, the enterprise "went bankrupt "and now it is gone. And I think there are hundreds if not thousands of such examples here on the site. I am convinced that all strategic industries should be in the hands of the state, no private trader will invest gigantic sums - let's say in geological exploration, or the development of promising weapons systems - with the prospect of a return in tens of years. Because really during this time either "the padishah will die or the donkey will die "(remember this with Khoja Nasreddin?;)) hi
    2. a
      23 July 2013 11: 22
      +2
      Quote: Alan
      Moreover, nationalization has been practiced more than once by the "luminaries of democracy", the example of England under Mrs Thatcher in particular - I think you know


      I may be mistaken, but France should be cited as an example of large-scale nationalization in the early 80s after the socialist president, Mitterrand, came to power. however, after 5 years, a significant part of the nationalized property was privatized again.

      But Thatcher then just became famous for the privatization of state. property because of what in Britain in the early 80s there were mass strikes.
      1. Alan
        Alan 24 July 2013 14: 09
        0
        Quote: uno
        Thatcher then just became famous for the privatization of state. property because of what in Britain in the early 80s there were mass strikes.

        Here I agree was wrong) winked + You
  6. smel
    smel 23 July 2013 06: 30
    +4
    Plyusanul, although far from agreeing with everything. The task of the state (government) is not to select, but to create
    1) working conditions for all (state, private, mixed-capital) enterprises
    2) a sound and fair tax system
    3) a legislative framework that will prevent the flight of capital and the uncontrolled withdrawal of assets
    In addition, it would be necessary to conduct an investigation
    1) ways to get the starting capital of the oligarchic elite
    2) asset and cash withdrawal from the country
    3) the reasons for the destruction in the country of production, health, science, culture, the army
    Well, and, of course, to everyone, starting with the EBN, deserve to be deserved. Then not only will it be possible to revive the army, but society as a whole
    1. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 23 July 2013 09: 00
      0
      What do you think, who will do all this, those officials who are on the content of the oligarchs? can corrupt heads of law enforcement agencies? Of course they can be replaced, but ask yourself why this has not been done before? There is only one truth, there will never be justice under a market (capitalist) system of justice, we must understand this and think what is better.
    2. a
      23 July 2013 10: 47
      0
      Quote: smel
      The task of the state (government) is not to select, but to create


      but I didn’t offer to select. I wanted to show that the taking of funds from the oligarchs will not fill our treasury.

      Quote: smel
      2) a sound and fair tax system
      3) a legislative framework that will prevent the flight of capital and the uncontrolled withdrawal of assets


      yes, yes and yes. this is the right way. Moreover, clear rules of the game in the tax sphere will have a good effect on our image and this will lead to increased investment in the country
      1. revnagan
        revnagan 23 July 2013 12: 34
        0
        Quote: uno
        I wanted to show that the taking of funds from the oligarchs will not fill our treasury.

        Nobody even speaks about means. It is necessary to make all their assets work for the state, all income goes to the treasury. All business. And "robbing the loot" is for fools, there are no such people here.
        1. a
          23 July 2013 12: 48
          +2
          Quote: revnagan
          Nobody even speaks about means. It is necessary to make all their assets work for the state, all income goes to the treasury. All business. And "robbing the loot" is for fools, there are no such people here.


          I agree, you need to make it work ON ..
          about the fools. so the idea of ​​writing about it was born only because many here write that in order to have enough money for rearmament, money must be taken from the oligarchs. if it weren’t, I wouldn’t write it.
          if you are not a fool, you personally plus from me
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 24 July 2013 19: 21
          0
          Nobody even speaks about means. It is necessary to make all their assets work for the state, all income goes to the treasury. All business. And "robbing the loot" is for fools, there are no such people here.

          A good example is TNK-BP / Rosneft.
          So far, the same assets were in TNK-BP - and new wells were drilled, and dividends were paid (that is, income was paid out). We moved to Rosneft - immediately the administrator. expenses grew, and dividends were greatly reduced (and this actually is the income to the treasury).
          The same will be with any enterprise. I see no reason why this will not be so.
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 24 July 2013 19: 18
      0
      The task of the state (government) is not to select, but to create
      1) working conditions for all (state, private, mixed-capital) enterprises
      2) a sound and fair tax system
      3) a legislative framework that will prevent the flight of capital and the uncontrolled withdrawal of assets


      That you actually voiced the manifesto of right-wing economic liberalism (well, or monetarism) wink wink wink

      One caveat - clause 3 in Russian conditions is not the cause of the problem, but its consequence. Now, even in the theory of finance, they are taught in good universities - a large amount of free cache on the current account is the reason for the bulk of raider attacks.
      In other words - as soon as your company has big free money - if you don’t immediately send it somewhere, where their raiders will not get it, wait for the raider collision. And as soon as it starts - both the owner and the State Duma will quickly become someone like Chekatilo + Politkovskaya + Basaev + malicious drunkards / alimony laughing - the details are unimportant, the main thing will be the reason either to close them or to force to flee the country.
      As a result, most companies ensure that the revenue ALWAYS ends up abroad (the raiders will not find it there, not our courts, after all). And here they work sometimes on credit (since the bank will protect its money before any raiders). Well, they close the debt by introducing back the revenue.
      And it’s easy to fight - a couple of dozen laws that actually stop raiding, and I think the outflow of capital will be halved. But ... raiders are actually ALWAYS connected with the leadership of the security forces or others in power.
  7. gregor6549
    gregor6549 23 July 2013 06: 36
    +8
    The fact that both the process of privatization and its results should be reviewed is unambiguous, as the lawyer’s son would say. And then it turns out that the oligarchs were simply nowhere to take. Everything that they have (two sheepskin coats, two television sets, etc.) was acquired in an overwhelming, but very dishonest way, and therefore should be turned in favor of those from whom all this was taken. And do not la la that they, the privatizers, began to effectively manage what was grabbed. Effectively manage rip-off is yes, they knew how and can not argue here. Even the Ministry of Defense and Roscosmos managed to clean up
    Well, at the same time (or first of all?) You need to deal with those who created the laws and other rules of the game they needed under these oligarchs, especially since now you can't figure out which of them is richer than oligarchs or law writers (or in law?) ... Oligarchs are even in plain sight. Some were warmed up on their chests, others were escorted to the churchyard, having previously stripped as much as possible, but the gray "writers", state. bureaucrats and other riffraffs with millions in offshores are successfully hiding in their mouse holes, perfectly doing without the stealth technology. Some no longer hide, because they imagined themselves not as mice, but as cats. And you need to start cleaning not with the oligarchs, but with these gray mice who think of themselves. If, of course, the main mice allow, which is unlikely.
    1. a
      23 July 2013 10: 50
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      And then it turns out that the oligarchs were simply nowhere to take


      but tell me how did one Chichvarkin manage to become an oligarch? After all, he did not participate in collateral auctions, he did not have access to big state money. but he managed to earn a billion dollars from ordinary retail. to review his earnings too?
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 24 July 2013 19: 24
        -1
        Chichvarkin is a good example. It seems he created everything himself. He did a useful business for everyone - well done.
        What finished ???
        A security officer ran over him, business was taken away, he was expelled from the country wink
  8. knn54
    knn54 23 July 2013 06: 55
    +4
    -But oligarchic capital itself in our country is, of course, not very good.
    The state receives the lion's share of income in the form of taxes from state of emergency. Ie from the middle class. The oligarchs and their lobby in the government, courts and banks (they refuse to give amounts to businessmen who want to break the monopoly of the oligarchs) do not allow creating space for the growth of a smaller, but more dynamic business.
    The oligarch is not ONLY wealth, authority and recognition in society. This is ACCEPTANCE.
    Db: an independent judiciary, stricter rules for competition and business, the removal of oligarchs from politics, and officials from business. Well, you need to start with corruption and nepotism.
    - There are thoughts about alternative ways.
    The sale of military equipment, including the modernization of old equipment, or scrap metal - how much is sold, degrades the environment, but at REAL prices and TRANSPARENT.
    The rear services of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation engage in commercial activities (commercial flights of military transport aviation, shipping, resuscitation of military state farms, and maybe fishing)
    Expansion of military construction and not only that is bad in construction battalions.
    Obtaining debts in third countries for military equipment, albeit not with money, but with BARTER (lots of options). After all, someone also puts himself in his pocket for writing off debts.
    Etc
  9. sasha.28blaga
    sasha.28blaga 23 July 2013 06: 57
    -4
    Some kind of nonsense: to take away, to distribute, not to feed, to feed, to arm the army, not to arm. What plants, ships, newspapers. The shares themselves realized that they had written. Tchaikovsky wrote and wrote Swan Lake.
    1. sasha.28blaga
      sasha.28blaga 23 July 2013 10: 06
      -1
      When they minus me, it causes an unprecedented delight.
  10. Alez
    Alez 23 July 2013 07: 09
    0
    Take and share. And who will share? Who are the judges? It is not necessary to subtract and divide, but to multiply and add. It is necessary to create conditions so that the oligarchs do not keep loot in offshore, but invest here in the regions, in people, in production, in infrastructure. Do not want to invest, then you need to think about where is your homeland. First you need to ban offshore companies, foreign banks were forbidden to work directly, they could.
    1. a
      23 July 2013 12: 49
      +1
      Quote: Alez
      Take and share. And who will share? Who are the judges? It is not necessary to subtract and divide, but to multiply and add. It is necessary to create conditions so that the oligarchs do not keep loot in offshore, but invest here in the regions, in people, in production, in infrastructure. Do not want to invest, then you need to think about where is your homeland. First you need to ban offshore companies, foreign banks were forbidden to work directly, they could.


      I agree.
  11. Garrin
    Garrin 23 July 2013 07: 18
    +6
    What can be fenced in the garden? Can it be easier to introduce restrictions on prices and tariffs of natural monopolists in the energy sector, extractive industries, and transport infrastructure? Thus, to reduce costs and make production more efficient, though the oligarchs will fall less, but no one said that the whole country is obliged to fill their pockets. Better yet, nationalize all of the above industries.
    1. a
      23 July 2013 11: 33
      +1
      Quote: Garrin
      it may be easier to introduce restrictions on prices and tariffs of natural monopolists in the energy sector, extractive industries, and transport infrastructure


      prices are raised not by the monopoly themselves, but by the state. restrictions have long been introduced. every year we hear from the government that this year the prices for the services of natural monopolies will increase by no more than 5-10-15%. and it is every year. It seems to me that we have long been paying the natural monopolies more than we would have paid when there was competition. the state is the biggest natural monopoly :) the more we pay, the better this monopoly.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 24 July 2013 19: 26
      -1
      They are de facto already nationalized - control of these markets is wholly owned by the state. And what is the result? Tariffs are only growing, and at an unprecedented rate.
  12. alex25
    alex25 23 July 2013 08: 02
    +4
    What is the purpose of the article?
    To convince us that it is unnecessary to take away property stolen from the people, from thieves and scammers?
    Duck is not a ride, we all remember.
    I advise the oligarchs to come up with their own how to return it to the people, otherwise for them, in the end, everything will end sadly.
    They will not return the people, so they will give it to the bourgeois.
    In the case of an independent return to its people, you can get indulgence, and later rely on some respect, our people are easygoing, if justice is restored.

    And the article, in my opinion, is economically illiterate.
    I will take the time to sign the points.
    1. a
      23 July 2013 12: 03
      0
      Quote: alex25
      What is the purpose of the article?


      the goal is indicated in the first paragraph.

      Quote: alex25
      And the article, in my opinion, is economically illiterate.
      I will take the time to sign the points.


      OK. I am waiting for a competent economic article, with an expansion on the shelves.
  13. Denis
    Denis 23 July 2013 08: 13
    +1
    A source of additional income for the rearmament of the army was found !! The only question is how to remove all this from presumptuous oligarchs.
    Slogans, alas, are just slogans ...
    like that, very worn out:
    We need to continue to raise salaries for teachers and doctors, other state employees.
    Cheap populism, everyone? Look at the parking lot near the RONO or the pension fund, the cars there are clearly not orphaned. No words, not everyone steals, but the author is a little wrong with Sharikovsky: "Take away and divide everything"
    Stupidly shout "NADA!" without even whispering how to do it
  14. Revolver
    Revolver 23 July 2013 08: 14
    +6
    The ancient Greeks in Athens had universal conscription, for all free citizens. Poor thing? somehow you scrape together a sling, you go into the light infantry. Well, or a sailor in the galley. Richer? You will be a hoplite, be nice to buy a shield, a sword, a helmet, and everything else that is supposed to. Even richer? To the cavalry, buy a horse.
    Quite rich? Kindly equip and maintain a combat galley. You yourself can sit at home, but then hire a captain.
    Maybe something like that? If it was enough for a yacht the size of a cruiser, then at the same time be nice to pay a new destroyer with the yacht. And keep it.
    1. a
      23 July 2013 12: 13
      +1
      Quote: Nagan
      The ancient Greeks in Athens


      I dare to suggest that such a system in Athens was a kind of tax. Nowadays, everyone pays taxes. if you are a poor man and you get a minimum wage, then you will pay a tax of about 700 rubles. if you are far from being poor, then you will pay a tax, well, for example, 500 million rubles, as Prokhorov did a couple of years ago. the poor man paid for the "sling", the rich man paid for the "galley". but "new Athens", that is, our state decides where exactly to put 700 rubles of the poor and 500 million of the rich.
      another thing is that the flat taxation scale has already exhausted itself and a progressive scale needs to be introduced
  15. Garrin
    Garrin 23 July 2013 08: 22
    +1
    Another article (and considerable) replenishment of the budget, I see in bringing to the logical end of corruption cases. Currently, they steal hundreds of millions and billions, and as a result - a fine of 20-30 thousand and a suspended sentence. Real landings are needed for real terms, with a view to prevention, and the complete confiscation of all movable and immovable property, and full compensation for damage caused to the state-woo.
    1. a
      23 July 2013 12: 53
      +2
      Quote: Garrin
      Another article (and considerable) replenishment of the budget, I see in bringing to the logical end of corruption cases


      I think that those whom they’ve tried for a long time have already pushed up take-off money so that you don’t find any
      but to fine foreign companies, as it does, America is a holy cause. I think there are enough violations in their work in Russia. forward to fines. America is not afraid to heavily fine (hundreds of millions of dollars) banks of its closest allies. our state to learn how to love yourself :)
  16. falcon
    falcon 23 July 2013 08: 36
    0
    You are not deceived, the article is not burdened with special meaning. But for work and fidelity to this word,
    article +
  17. falcon
    falcon 23 July 2013 08: 36
    0
    You are not deceived, the article is not burdened with special meaning. But for work and fidelity to this word,
    article +
  18. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 23 July 2013 08: 47
    +4
    Cool noodles, on fragile ears))), here is a person who either doesn’t understand the economy himself or is lying especially when hanging cool noodles. Especially about the tax of 100 billion. The profit of any enterprise, for example, we take for the 100% income tax that the oligarch pays is, well, a maximum of 20%; all other deductions are included in the costs (costs, cost), if we take 100% of the billions as 20% of the total profit, then all the profit will be 500 billion, and so, as a result, 400 billion goes to the oligarch. If a state-owned enterprise, then all profits are state property, that’s the difference. And one more nuance, the state accumulating huge amounts of money can afford to build new industrial facilities, and not small but huge ones, the private trader would prefer to take out this money and invest it over the hill, which is done with success
    1. Leisure
      Leisure 23 July 2013 08: 49
      +1
      Well, everything is short and clear.
    2. a
      23 July 2013 11: 09
      +1
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Especially about the tax of 100 billion


      The article was written 100 million rubles. I, in your opinion, do not understand anything in the economy. and you apparently do not know how to read.
      By the way, Prokhorov somehow paid 500 million rubles in tax for his personal income. it’s only for itself. Can you imagine what taxes are paid, for example, by Norilsk Nickel ??
      as for the rest of your numbers, there are many assumptions that are not supported by anything. You are talking about income tax. but you forget that enterprises pay other taxes, which in size can be significantly higher than income taxes. e.g. excise taxes, VAT, land tax, UST, etc. our state knows how to milk a profitable business. In your opinion, an entrepreneur pays 20 kopecks of various taxes per ruble of income. you forgive me, I do not like loud phrases, but if so, then it is you who are hanging the noodles. because the numbers you brought are obviously taken from the ceiling. delve into the internet and you will find that oil-producing enterprises (production, transportation, processing at oil refineries, etc.) from 1 ruble of income deduct more than 80 kopecks of various taxes.

      Quote: vladsolo56
      the state accumulating huge money can afford to build new industrial facilities and not small but huge


      I think that I will not be mistaken if I say that the state is the most important oligarch in the country. it managed, without any problems, to withdraw assets from the country in the hundreds of billions of dollars. the state has huge resources. only I hear little about the fact that it builds large, or at least medium-sized enterprises on them. instead, the state invests its money in American securities (which may be discounted at one point if America needs it). so firstly, stop hanging noodles on your ears. and secondly, do not ascribe to the state what it cannot do. or does not want.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 23 July 2013 11: 42
        0
        Well, yes, in your opinion, with 80% taxation, someone wants to run a business. It’s not worth everyone to consider yourself stupider. Not a single entrepreneur will work with this level of taxes. There is a concept of income and there are concepts of profit, these are two different things, so if we take all the profit for 100%, then there will be no more than 20% taxes. VAT is not related to profit at all. All my life I worked as an accountant, including the main one, so I know what and how much taxes a company pays no worse than you.
        1. a
          23 July 2013 12: 34
          0
          Quote: vladsolo56
          Well, yes, in your opinion, with 80% taxation, someone wants to run a business.


          Well, you can ask this question to Alekperov, for example. I think that he will not just want to run his own business, but will break into doing it. however, they are busy with it now.
          I would have such an opportunity and I would have rushed for 20 copecks from the ruble to do business.

          Quote: vladsolo56
          income is the concept of profit is two different things


          of course

          Quote: vladsolo56
          so if we take all the profit for 100% then there will be no taxes more than 20%


          OK. write down all the taxes that will be paid. you have only one word tax. but businesses pay different taxes. write down what do you mean by tax?

          Quote: vladsolo56
          VAT is not related to profit at all


          VAT is one form of tax that everyone pays. Buying salt in the store you pay including VAT. then this VAT is paid by the whole chain from the manufacturer to the seller. (people will not be bored by writing down options if some LLC is on a simplified taxation system). you can call VAT whatever you like, but any company pays it. how to pay excise taxes, annuities, etc. and if it is a payment from the enterprise to the corresponding state fund, then it will still be a payment from the profit of the enterprise.

          Quote: vladsolo56
          All my life I worked as an accountant, including the main one, so I know what taxes and to what extent the company pays no worse than you



          what is the main thing here? the main word "worked"? that is, you are not working now? where did you work? did you work for an oil company? or in some kind of LLC?
          I did not claim that you know taxation worse than me. but I didn’t write such words to you “to hang on to your ears”. maybe you WERE a good accountant, but you should learn to culturally conduct a discussion like others do. sorry.
          1. vladsolo56
            vladsolo56 23 July 2013 13: 19
            0
            offended you about noodles and ears? Well, everything is just not worth writing about what you mean very abstractly. Let professionals do this. you may be worth listening to such experts in this field as Boldyrev, Gubanov. It may become more clear how the economy works for us.
            I do not work because I am on a health pension, and I have not been working for just a couple of years.
            1. a
              23 July 2013 13: 28
              0
              Quote: vladsolo56
              offended you about noodles and ears?


              my age and perception of the world does not allow me to be offended by the words of strangers to me :)

              Quote: vladsolo56
              Well, everything is just not worth writing about what you mean very abstractly


              I remind you that I wrote an article in the Opinions section. it is originally a discussion section. and it seems to me that for the most part nonprofessionals are writing here.
              you don’t know how to understand. therefore, your words are only your own opinion. I have nothing against the fact that you express it. if you do it correctly ..
              By the way, about your professionalism. I asked you questions about taxes. Confirm your professionalism in this area by answering simple questions.
              1. vladsolo56
                vladsolo56 23 July 2013 13: 40
                0
                and the point is, in order to list all taxes and how they are reflected in the cost and profit, for this you need to write an abstract, it is easier for you to find all this online through a search engine. And about the article, you did not express your opinion about taxes, you just argued that this is so.
                1. a
                  23 July 2013 13: 43
                  0
                  Quote: vladsolo56
                  but the meaning



                  Confirm your professionalism in this area by answering simple questions.
  19. valokordin
    valokordin 23 July 2013 09: 22
    +1
    Article Minus. There is an excuse for the oligarchs, how we take money from them, we know, this is not a problem. The problem is to cash them, and so
    Дand let’s say bluntly - our government managers are still those managers. Look what Serdyukov directed. Do you think that the rest of our managers are all exceptionally honest? I'm not so naive. Well, if the author is not so naive, let the effective manager A. Chubais be proposed as the effective minister of defense.
  20. a52333
    a52333 23 July 2013 09: 28
    0
    In my humble opinion, it is necessary to raise a tax on subsoil use (environmental fees, reclamation, etc.) + storage of working capital and company deposits in banks with the state. participation (Sberbank, VTB and VEB) and exercise strict control over taxation. Offshore storage options not to consider. Do you want to engage in subsoil use = WELCOME, but on these conditions.
  21. Andrey Peter
    Andrey Peter 23 July 2013 10: 11
    +1
    I wrote earlier that it is necessary to nationalize, but not only economically profitable enterprises, but also strategically. It’s a simple fact that, as in the exercises, they did not want to let our landing aircraft into the airfield without a commercial agreement. Well, and even the enterprise engaged in the development of our bowels and even more so. Less money will flow into private hands and abroad, more control and profit to the state.
  22. Svarog
    Svarog 23 July 2013 10: 16
    +1
    The author is somewhat disingenuous. Just to strengthen my position or obviously misleading readers, I did not understand. For example, in addition to factories and steamships, there are also luxury goods in decent volumes, movable and immovable property that can be sold to foreign businessmen. Secondly, the enterprises of the oligarchs do not pay all taxes, but use a bunch of semi-legal schemes to evade taxes. Accordingly, this situation can be changed. Well, and so on many things in the article you can "walk". Although, in general, the message of the article is correct.
    Commentators are also right in their own way. Although most of the events they write about will not bring results. All this must be implemented sequentially. To begin with, indeed, any transactions worth, say, 1 million should be held only in non-cash form. This makes them easier to track. The same goes for salaries, etc. Those. to begin to establish control over the money supply. Further, payment of taxes on the physical location of the enterprise, questions arise with branches, but I think everything can also be solved. But when it becomes difficult to steal and hide money, it is possible to introduce taxes on luxury (I also think this is more correct than income tax, which can be left the same or reduced).
    1. a
      23 July 2013 10: 41
      0
      Quote: Svarog
      The author is a little disingenuous


      the author does not dissemble. the author simply omits some things (in his opinion. not the most significant). because the article does not have to be cumbersome to perceive.

      Quote: Svarog
      there are still luxury goods in decent volumes, movable and immovable property that can be sold to foreign businessmen


      there is. something can be sold. I agree. but how much does a conditional oligarch possess such wealth with a wealth of 15 billion? I think, a maximum of several hundred million. Maximum!! but in reality, probably less. so you don’t get much money from this. but the sale of objects of art is generally bad. this is art. let's then sell the Hermitage, the Tretyakov Gallery.

      Quote: Svarog
      oligarch enterprises do not pay all taxes, but use a bunch of semi-legal schemes to evade taxes



      from the point of view of the state, enterprises pay all taxes. tax optimization (what you call legal tax evasion schemes) is already a state problem. because it sets the rules of the game. well, come on seriously, think government managers will not optimize taxes ??? yes then you are just naive, sorry
  23. Max otto
    Max otto 23 July 2013 10: 48
    +1
    ... talk of taking wealth from domestic oligarchs is extremely harmful.
    I do not agree, the way of obtaining property of the former USSR should be unambiguously reviewed and verified, and in case of suspicion of corruption schemes - institution of a criminal case, sentence, confiscation (I just guarantee: if there are at least some kind of sale and purchase agreement, then the amount of they will be ridiculous, and this is corruption, even if there was a certain agreement and the missing amount was paid in cash, then this is the owner’s problem, it was necessary to honestly draw up the contract). As for banks, it’s also not a problem to trace everything from the beginning.
    And the property is worth real money; selling a football club two yachts to several mansions abroad is not a problem.
    As for the effective management of state-owned enterprises, I see no difficulties in linking the salary of a top manager with a profit, and efficiency will appear and honest millionaires will also appear.
  24. tank64rus
    tank64rus 23 July 2013 11: 11
    +3
    Everyone remembers where the oligarchs got their capital. When they plundered the USSR, taking advantage of their proximity to the feeder and power, no one thought about law and morality. And now what all the righteous are calling for the law. This system was born with the help of the State Department of States. Having the oligarchs in Russia, they have at their disposal people whom Russia is only interested in as a source of income. Everyone knows that the money received from the sale of raw materials does not settle in the banks of Russia. Further, a flat tax scale does not meet all international standards. We wonder why innovative technologies are not being developed in the Russian Federation, because all oligarchs and officials are tied to an oil and gas pipe. Therefore, the innovative development for them is similar to death, because a change of elites may occur. Therefore, it is better to declare the Academy of Sciences ineffective. to disperse, divide property and receive favor from behind the hill.
  25. ed65b
    ed65b 23 July 2013 11: 36
    +3
    It is interesting to buy a club in Abramovich than to pay with Shares? And what about villas, islands, yachts, Boeing, apartments for 120 mulens paid by the land? Fat-bellied have money and not small, and just a cache. All profits of enterprises are withdrawn from the country to the west, as are funds that should be spent on modernizing enterprises.
  26. Igarr
    Igarr 23 July 2013 12: 56
    +1
    Minus, from myself, I set.
    The reason is the simplest.
    Dear uno perfectly understood what the previous article was about. The fact that the public heritage should work for the people, for the country.
    Instead, - he told us a fairy tale here - about what to select stolen NIZZA.
    Firstly, nothing and no ... these are all palaces, steamboats, mines, towers. Sometimes - stocks. But in small quantities, and say that ... in scrap.
    Secondly ... these poor, impoverished oligarchs - are solely concerned that Aunt Masha from Zadrochinsk gets her bread and butter. And so that she had gas, heat, social welfare and that miserable 5% of the pension went to communal services.
    Thirdly, no one in the world does this. And if he does, then he does it wrong.
    Fourth, what kind of fable for the little-groovy little little bundles tied up with cowboy gum? Is it for whom it’s intended - for Buratin, or what?
    .
    And the chest opens simply.
    Created by the people - must be reliably protected. Right here, on the spot, in Russia.
    And not to be somewhere in the control of effective managers, in Cyprus, for example. In the Cayman Islands.
    Money, of the Russian people, of the citizens of Russia — must BE and WORK in Russia.
    And not in the branch of the Fed, called the Central Bank of Russia.
    ..
    And will we select them? Or we’ll ride a file in the teeth .. Deripaska all sorts - I do not care much.
    Until they called me to drive a file .. I will drive my hands on the clave.
    I think so.
    1. a
      23 July 2013 13: 11
      0
      Quote: Igarr
      Dear uno perfectly understood what the previous article was about. The fact that the public heritage should work for the people, for the country.


      I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn’t write based on a specific article. the motives for writing are outlined in the first paragraph.

      Quote: Igarr
      that select stolen Nizzya.


      poorly read. I did not write that. I wrote that from my point of view it will not be useful. do you feel the difference?



      Quote: Igarr
      these poor, impoverished oligarchs are solely pleased


      this is not in the article. do not invent.

      Quote: Igarr
      Thirdly, no one in the world does this. And if he does, then he does it wrong


      this is not in the article either. Once again, do not invent
      for discussion, right there in the comments I mentioned the experiences of nationalization. read carefully.

      Quote: Igarr
      Money, of the Russian people, of the citizens of Russia — must BE and WORK in Russia.


      for some reason, the money of Russian citizens do not want to be in Russia and do not want to work in Russia. and money is not only rich citizens of Russia. even the money of low-income citizens of Russia do not want to be here and do not want to work here. examples of the mass. huge mass. many millions of examples.

      Quote: Igarr
      Until they called me - to drive a file .. I will drive my hands on the clave



      What do you need a call for? But you yourself can’t do anything? are you waiting for the leader?
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 23 July 2013 13: 52
        0
        Tell me where to drive.
        So be it, I'll start myself ... with exs like Stalin.
        1. a
          23 July 2013 13: 56
          0
          Quote: Igarr
          Tell me where to drive.


          that is, all the same, you can’t do it on your own? do you need a finger pointing to some object?
          1. Igarr
            Igarr 23 July 2013 21: 46
            0
            Can. And I can.
            But according to your comments ... it’s immediately clear that you know how to .... - confuse, stir up, confuse ...
            for ... and ... shorter ...
            every kind of turbidity.
            Like your entire article, unfortunately.
            One thing I can say - you are behaving with dignity. And with the answer ... and with the comments ... although they swore - that you all ....
            .
            ".. We will go the other way ..", - V.I. Lenin.
            Pray to God that this does not turn out to be Trotsky's way.
        2. lexe
          lexe 23 July 2013 21: 44
          0
          Exs ... now more in electronic form. No need to drive anywhere laughing
          There is another way-exchange. You can bend at least the whole Wall Street.
          So sit comfortably in a chair in front of the computer and collect money for a new revolution laughing
          1. Igarr
            Igarr 23 July 2013 21: 54
            0
            AAAAA, Mr. Comrade Barin ... lexeus ...
            do not get sick to you ..... sincerely ...
            and then .. victory over the frail enemy - as if it doesn’t count ...

            .
            I don’t take myself ... to ... hell cool ..
            and I would advise you ... - ..no need to be clever ... my correspondence .... partner ...
            .
            without bias .. sinserrelli.
  27. serge
    serge 23 July 2013 14: 13
    +1
    The author of the article deliberately confuses two things - the legal review of the results of privatization and the illegal withdrawal of money from large owners. During privatization, the oligarchs with the help of fraudulent schemes and many crimes (murders during the seizure of the means of production in the 90s were an ordinary occurrence) received practically no money, but the means of production, i.e. factories, real estate, etc. They should be returned to state ownership from foreign jurisdictions, where they got fraudulently. There is an Accounts Chamber, let it calculate the left privatization schemes. The more Jewish oligarchs travel to Kolyma in a rigid carriage, the more it will be useful for the budget. There is a vivid example - Khodorkovsky. They planted it - the money of his former enterprises replenishes the budget, for the most part, anyway. There can be no ideal reprivatization scheme, but it needs to be developed.
  28. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 23 July 2013 14: 19
    0
    The oligarchs are the offspring of capitalism. And indeed any market. A simple redistribution of funds is not solved. It is necessary to change the socio-economic system. Let philosophers think about it.

    For example, the Japanese mentality would be very suitable for socialism. They would be the best socialist country in the world. Natural born hard workers with a clear structure of society.
  29. True
    True 23 July 2013 14: 59
    +1
    it turns out that we took away the shares of the enterprise from a Russian businessman, and sold it to a foreign businessman. That is, the shares of factories, newspapers, ships were ours, will be theirs
    Unfortunately, ours is not there. The oligarchs are sitting on their suitcases. They have TAM and children and money and real estate- HERE a feeding trough.
  30. datur
    datur 23 July 2013 15: 14
    0
    ops = where to put denyushki to our oligarchs everywhere they haw !!! and in their beloved America, and in the European Union
  31. Mosen6Ish
    Mosen6Ish 23 July 2013 15: 15
    +3
    Do not forget that these figures, being the owners of the steamer factories, quietly hide from taxes a big piece of income in offshore companies or buy another factory.

    I would take it and plant it. For nefig, when the crisis, do not pay wages, buy mines with this money and buy the shares of the plant on a cheap basis ...
    Yeah, he's the "owner" now. And my parents, grandfathers, who were they who built the plant? ...
    1. Magadan
      Magadan 23 July 2013 16: 09
      0
      Quote: Mosen6Ish
      And my parents, grandfathers who built the plant, who are they?


      1000 pluses! And these oligarchic officials are afraid of these issues. And something else about the revolution mumbled, if they say start to select stolen goods. Interestingly, the security services will probably arrange a revolution for the oligarchs? Or do the oligarchs themselves come to the barricades?
    2. a
      23 July 2013 16: 23
      0
      Quote: Mosen6Ish
      Do not forget that these figures, being the owners of the steamer factories, quietly hide from taxes a big piece of income in offshore companies or buy another factory.


      maybe sheltered. but I don’t remember lately that one of the oligarchs should be tried for concealment. it means that they use legal means to withdraw their money to offshore.
      By the way, state-owned companies also have good money in offshore companies. I think that if you take the factory under the state control from the oligarch, then this will not change much. the money as it was in offshore, it will remain there. at the factory, just the sign will change. no more.
  32. fisherman
    fisherman 23 July 2013 15: 24
    -1
    it’s time to raise taxes, we won’t lure anyone else from abroad, so I think - it’s time to move on to the Scandinavian rate, slowly but steadily

    the main scourge is not a form of ownership (often it’s just a sign confusing an inferior observer), and not even the amount of money in the form of taxes, but the number of people who are ready to flush to the West as soon as they have denyushki

    the main problem of Russia is the temporary workers, for them Russia is a foreign country in which there is an opportunity for the quick (revolutionary) implementation of their secret hotunchiks
    1. a
      23 July 2013 16: 17
      0
      Quote: fisherman
      taxes it's time to raise


      if corporate taxes are raised, they are already not weak. if you increase taxes on individuals, you can look at the example of France. we will see how a considerable part of the citizens of France rushed to buy property in Belgium. Britain and other European countries to take the citizenship of these countries and pay taxes there. Here's where to go to non-poor Depardieu if we raise taxes so? In Sweden, which was previously viewed by many as a socialist paradise, taxes were 66%. Now I really don’t know how much.
    2. Alan
      Alan 24 July 2013 14: 49
      0
      Quote: fisherman
      the main problem of Russia is the temporary workers, for them Russia is a foreign country in which there is an opportunity for the quick (revolutionary) implementation of their secret hotunchiks

      With this, at the present stage, it is difficult to disagree !!!
  33. Magadan
    Magadan 23 July 2013 16: 05
    +1
    "After all, if some company paid taxes of 100 million rubles, then having passed into state ownership, this company will not pay taxes of either 500 million or 200 million. And he will pay the same 100 million rubles. That is, the budget from the transfer of ownership of the enterprise to state ownership will not be particularly hot"

    What the hell? What taxes ??? State then net profit will have, not pathetic taxes! In my opinion, the author generally lives somewhere in a parallel world, if such a simple thought did not occur.
    1. a
      23 July 2013 16: 13
      -2
      Quote: Magadan
      What the hell? What taxes ??? The state then will have a net profit, not pathetic taxes! In my opinion, the author generally lives somewhere in a parallel world, if such a simple thought did not occur.


      dear, if you are a state, you must also live according to the laws of the state. Thus, there are two forms of relatively honest taking of money by the state from its own enterprises, taxes and dividends ..
      if you don’t have any thoughts whatsoever, then do not rave here :)
  34. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 23 July 2013 19: 42
    +1
    It is physically impossible to withdraw money from the oligarchs, these assets have long been located not in the territory of the Russian Federation and they will be withdrawn over time, but not representatives of our state, you can withdraw financial assets in our territory but the problem arises, and under whose leadership they later give away? State corporations are a good example to everyone.
  35. lexe
    lexe 23 July 2013 21: 15
    0
    I think that our people have not tasted the meaning of ownership of shares, property rights.
    All that Chubais taught is to get to the nearest reception point. As color.
    If the author believes that if he received the shares again with the same sequence of actions he received, he sold right away ... then he will be right. And if Western funds will also be bought up ... then he will be doubly right. This smacks of a complete loss of economic sovereignty.
    But there is no other way out. And the main thing is that the new shareholder is the people did not sell them!And let's say I handed it over to the bank, received a loan for an apartment \ car \ education \ insurance, etc. Why are bank loan rates high? Assets for loans in the form of deductions from salaries are not reliable. Another thing is ownership of the plant, the loan rate will immediately fall and the credit yoke of the people will fall.
    The bank, accumulating a lot of shares from ordinary owners, will start its game akin to an icebreaker in the Arctic, to issue loans to plants in advanced industries.
    We need a developed securities market - which is the largest icebreaker - "Lenin" in the new realities. The oligarchs now quote their securities on western platforms -how long?After all, the exchange also needs a shaft, the more liquid securities, the greater the influx and interest of investors.
    Why does the Pentagon have such a budget? Yes, because there is Wall Street and the involvement of the American people in the work of redistributing the gross product conducted by US traders and brokers.
    Gosplan will never catch up with the hungry trader of the West laughing The fact is that greed is put to the benefit of the economy, that’s all.
    I get the feeling that they do not want civilized capitalism in Russia only because of domestic political goals. Although I must admit that competitors are pushing and it's not so simple.
    Even in theory (war games) we want to beat the Americans to smithereens with the least losses and with the most modern weapons? -Only through Russian Wall Street. Otherwise, we will only catch up or worse, we will be left behind and June 22 is provided.
  36. ia-ai00
    ia-ai00 23 July 2013 22: 10
    0
    ... This is a pipe, a rocking chair, a plant. These are means of production. Only. To get a lot of money from this, then, after the withdrawal, you must immediately sell it ...

    Why hang "noodles" on the ears? Well, just really "poor" our oligarchs.! What was distributed to every citizen in the USSR from this "just a pipe, a rocking chair, a factory" - in the form of free medicine, education, free apartments, good pensions, cheap communal flat payments, etc., etc., now flows into the pocket of a handful "poor" people! So don't, sorry - POWDER BRAINS!
  37. ia-ai00
    ia-ai00 23 July 2013 22: 15
    0
    Our "poor" oligarchs are already acquiring their own armies, apparently from the PEOPLE, let's say they won't arrange a "color revolution" for him ... there is only one enemy left - the PEOPLE!
  38. The comment was deleted.