Financial statistics

In Russia <..> the origin and formation of individual city cash offices did not occur as early as in other countries. They originate only with Empress Catherine II, who for the first time positively and clearly defined, in her City Regulations of 1785, the need to cover local city expenses with local city fees, through municipal administration and under the close supervision of the highest government. Legislations of subsequent sovereigns <..> established forever the order of financial management in cities that exists in our country at the present time. On the basis of these laws <..> each Russian city is allowed to have its own separate economy and borrow funds to satisfy its local needs from special sources of income that exclusively belong to it. Our legislation lists these sources of income as: 1) income from public property of the city; 2) direct tax on private land property and settled residents in general; 3) direct taxes for the right to trade and fishery; 4) some taxes are indirect; 5) auxiliary income from outside sources, and finally 6) various random incomes. As for city expenses, they consist of: 1) paying off the city’s debts; 2) in the content of city government; 3) in the maintenance of city buildings and institutions intended both for housing government agencies and for other needs; 4) in the external improvement of the city; 5) in benefits to educational and charitable institutions; 6) in the quarters of troops and in various expenses for the military unit, and finally 7) in benefits to various outside departments. The responsibility to collect city revenues and use them for expenses determined by law is assigned as usual to local dumas, which are composed of people elected from the city population and act under the direct supervision of the provincial authorities and under the supreme supervision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The annual determination of both the needs of the city and the means of satisfying them is done through the publication of urgent plans or estimates (budgets), which are drawn up in the thoughts and approved either by the provincial authorities, or the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and in the capitals by the legislative branch itself.

Using the paintings of St. Petersburg and Moscow for 1847 that have now been published, we will try to extract from this rich source information that is interesting to the public, and, comparing them with similar materials published in the past, to present a brief outline of the social economy of the two capitals. This subject, with all its specialty, deserves all the more attention because they have always been, so to speak, a prototype for Russian cities, and, therefore, by examining their social life, we will point out the general features of our urban structure. To be convinced of the importance of capitals, it is enough to remember that their incomes together account for more than 2/3 of the total urban income of the Empire.

So let's start with income. Their budget amount in 1847 was:

In Petersburg	1 910 119 rubles. 711/4 k. secret
In Moscow	1 127 940 rubles. 91 k. secret

These incomes were supposed to be derived from the following sources:

	In Petersburg	In Moscow
From public property	RUB 130,171 883/4 k.	RUB 51,909 75 k.
Tax on personal and private land property	RUB 766,716 433/4 k.	RUB 506,513 67 k.
Taxes from industrialists	589 288 r. 481/2 k.	RUR 436,889 5 k.
Indirect taxes	RUB 122,861 193/4 k.	RUR 66,053 54 k.
Benefits from the treasury	RUB 259,703 93/4 k.	RUR 18,258 71 k.
Random income	RUR 41,378 603/4 k.	RUB 48,279 19 k.

Both revenue budgets, both St. Petersburg and Moscow, begin with collections from city public property. The existence of these fees is based on the fact that the city society, as a legal entity, is recognized as capable of having and acquiring rights to property. Therefore, in our legislation it is decreed that all lands, gardens, fields, pastures, meadows, rivers, fishing, forests, groves, bushes, empty places, mills, baths, houses and all kinds of quitrent articles properly belong to the city, by any legal acquisition. are assigned to him as inviolable property with the right of peaceful and eternal use of both them and all possible income from them.

In Moscow <..> it is not the commercial character of a port city, but another, more characteristic of it. Moscow derives its main income from the common people's baths, of which there are up to seven in its possession. St. Petersburg provides this trade to private individuals, and, despite the rivalry that arose from it, despite the abundance of water and other local amenities, St. Petersburg baths are not distinguished by either grace or comfort. Moscow, without assigning itself a monopoly in this industry, promotes the extreme cheapness of baths for the common people, and, despite the fact, derives more than 16,470 rubles of income from this article.

We now turn to the second category of income, to taxes on settled residents and their property. These taxes are levied: firstly, from persons registering in the city philistine register, in an amount determined by the city society, but not exceeding 30 silver rubles per family, and, secondly, from owners of real estate, according to the assessment and in the amount, assigned to each city by special regulations.

The third category of city revenues consists of direct taxes levied on industrialists. In terms of their importance, they occupy second place in the budgets of both St. Petersburg and Moscow, amounting to 31 in the first city and 38 percent of the total amount of current income in the second.

The income of this category is distributed among three main types of industrialists:

traders of all kinds,

tavern keepers

and people living in the employ of others.

It is known that, according to our laws (Charter on Passports), people who earn their living in the capitals by filling private positions for hire must register with the Address Expedition and receive a residence permit from there. Upon receipt of such a ticket, a certain tax is paid, which goes to the benefit of the city. In St. Petersburg and Moscow, this tax is charged differently. In St. Petersburg, all persons subject to registration in the Addressed Expedition are divided into five categories, so that in the first category men pay 7 rubles per year. 15 k., women - 4 rubles. 29 k.; in the second category, men pay 4 rubles. 29 k., women - 2 rubles. 15 k.; in the third, men 2 rubles each. 86 k.s., women 1 rub. 43 k.s.; 4 men 1 rub. 43 k.s., women 72 k.s. and finally in the fifth, men at 86 k.s., women at 29 k.s. The first category includes by law teachers, tutors, solicitors, clerks, clerks, managers, etc.; to the second - uncles, butlers, treasurers, markers, housekeepers, etc.; to the third - valets, cooks, gardeners, carers, artisans, nannies, seamstresses, etc.; to the fourth - coachmen, footmen, janitors, laundresses, cooks, nurses; to the fifth - cooks, postilions, laborers in houses, apprentices, peddlers, etc.

The same persons are registered in the Moscow Address Expedition as in the St. Petersburg Expedition, but with the difference that in Moscow they are divided into two branches, and those in the first pay 3 rubles. (men) and 1 rub. 50 k. (women); and those in the second - 90 kopecks (men) and 30 kopecks (women). The first department includes persons classified in St. Petersburg in the first three categories; to the second - persons classified as the last two.

Another item (tavern establishments), in terms of its profitability, occupies, quite the opposite, first place in the Moscow budget and third in St. Petersburg. However, in both cases this article is especially important for the accuracy of income and ease of collection. In St. Petersburg it turns out to be 105,441 rubles. 53k. with 46 taverns, 50 hotels, 67 restaurants, 75 taverns, 12 coffee houses and 5 cafe-restaurants, with a total of 255 tavern establishments.

In Moscow, the city treasury receives 174,010 rubles from tavern establishments. 73 k.s. There were 289 of these establishments in 1843, and in 1844. 297, and in 1845 306.

In general, compared to St. Petersburg, Moscow has a larger number of tavern establishments and receives more income from them. If we compare the number of these establishments with the population, it turns out that in St. Petersburg there is one establishment for every 1,735 people; in Moscow there is one for every 615 residents. If we compare this number with the amount of income itself, it turns out that in St. Petersburg, on average, each establishment pays the city 413 rubles per year. 50 k., in Moscow 568 rub. 66 kopecks (not counting inns; some of these establishments pay a huge sum annually both in Moscow and St. Petersburg: 1200 rubles. In general, from the figures we have written out, it seems possible to draw the conclusion that in Moscow tavern life is developed much more than in St. Petersburg.

The remaining fees from industry are negligible: from brewers and cab drivers in both capitals and from bathhouses and fish ponds, from ships and steamships, from stock exchange employees and artisans - in St. Petersburg itself. It is remarkable that in Moscow a special tax has been established from factory owners, according to the number of workers; This tax amounts to 30 k.s. from a worker, brings in a little over 8,700 rubles. With. (Consequently, the total number of workers in Moscow factories is no more than 30,000).

Indirect taxes in St. Petersburg bring 122,861 rubles. 193/4 k.; in Moscow 66053 rub. 54 k. In both cities they amount to about 6 percent of the total amount of current income.

Among indirect taxes, the first place in importance belongs to the tax on contracts, bills and letters of loan, certified in the capitals by notaries and brokers, a tax received, on the basis of our laws, in favor of the city treasury. In 1847, it was expected to receive 96,453 rubles from this item of income in St. Petersburg. 131/2 k., in Moscow 58,266 rub. 49 k. Another indirect tax, which exists in all Russian cities, is levied for the branding of weights and measures by city councils and brings the city of St. Petersburg 1,488 rubles. 263/4 k., in Moscow 3,996 rub. 40 kopecks. The same category includes income from auction sales, from lotteries and the existing fees in St. Petersburg alone from ships passing under the Nevsky Bridges and along the Obvodny Canal. The latest collections bring the city quite a significant amount: 14,552 rubles. 83 k.

As for auxiliary income from the treasury, in St. Petersburg it is considered 259,703 rubles. 93/4 k., or almost 14 percent, and in Moscow only 18,258 rubles. 71 k., or 11/4 percent of the total current income. This difference is sufficiently explained by the fact that St. Petersburg, as the center of state activity, requires greater assistance from the treasury.

Expenses are divided in the budget into current, one-time and emergency. The latter are not included in annual income, and therefore need to be discussed separately.

The total amount of current expenditure should be in 1847, according to budget assumptions:

In Petersburg	1,696,292 rubles. 901/2 kopecks.
In Moscow	1,071,712 rubles. 15 kopecks

These amounts were distributed among various expense items as follows:

	In Petersburg	In Moscow
To pay debts	RUB 74,069 961/2 k.	RUB 70,705 161/4 k.
For the maintenance of the city administration	RUB 681,257 801/4 k.	RUB 341,796 451/4 k.
For the premises of the city administration and in general for the maintenance of city buildings and institutions	103 911 r. 523/4k.	RUB 75,790 87 k.
For external improvement of the city	285 693 r. 413/4k.	RUB 191,589 301/4 k.
To the troop premises	RUR 209,871 74 k.	RUB 184,908 463/4 k.
Benefits for educational and charitable institutions	RUB 203,507 521/2 k.	RUB 119,463 641/4 k.
Benefits to various outside agencies	RUB 122,980 921/2 k.	RUB 75,458 251/4 k.
For petty and unforeseen expenses	15,000 r.	12,000 r.

The first place in the expenditure budget is occupied by the cost of paying off debts. In St. Petersburg, interest and repayment of capital are 41/4; in Moscow 7 percent for the entire amount of current expenses.

In St. Petersburg, until 1847, the debts on the city were considered to be 720,458 rubles. 63/4 k.; this year it was planned to contribute 59,171 rubles to pay these debts. 961/2 k. (including for repayment of capital 18,323 rub. 99 k. and interest itself 40,847 rub. 971/2 k.). Moreover, in 1847 it was supposed to add 14,898 rubles to this amount. to pay capital and interest on two newly concluded loans, one of which took place in the State Loan Bank for the reconstruction of rental houses and a former prison in Demidovsky Lane, and the other in the local order of public charity for the construction of the embankment of the Fontanka River and the banks of the Obvodny Canal.

The cost of maintaining city government is the most significant of all current expenses. In relation to their overall total, it is 45 percent in St. Petersburg (almost half), and 30 percent in Moscow.

The numbers show that the biggest cost to cities is policing. In St. Petersburg, the amount allocated for the maintenance of the officials of this department is 25 percent of the total city revenues, while the maintenance of the public department, which annually collects more than 2 million silver rubles in city revenues alone, costs less than 5 percent. True, absorbing more than a quarter of the city's income for its benefit, the police department, in return, ensures the city's safety of persons and property, monitors cleanliness and order, stops fires and other hostile acts of nature, prevents and suppresses crimes. So, this consumption corresponds to the results. There is, of course, not a single corner on the entire globe (with the possible exception of uninhabited places) in which there would be as much silence as we find in St. Petersburg and Moscow - in these huge and crowded capitals: