Taniyev A. Socially oriented taxationduring the tax system reform in Uzbekistan // Экономика и бизнес: теория и практика. – 2016. – №3. – С. 138-140.



A. Taniyev, candidate of economic sciences, associate professor

Samarkand state university

(Republic of Uzbekistan, Samarkand)


Abstract. This article discusses the tax as one of the main financial instruments of social and economic policy of the state. The ongoing tax reform is not fully conducive to the development of the social function, so the formation of the social orientation of taxation by means of objective quantitative and qualitative evaluation comes as one of the important conditions of the social function by state, and the social function and focus of taxation is characterized by: the size of the tax potential, the level of the tax burden; specific tax burden, the degree of income equality of various categories of taxpayers based on the principles of social justice and equality, and etc.

Keywords: tax burden, tax policy, the tax and fee system, welfare state, social obligations, socially oriented taxation.



Tax relations in modern society of Uzbekistan are reflection of the economic, political and social trends that are updated after the collapse of the Soviet Union, due to the country’s transition to a market-type economy. They are sort of the quintessences of social, economic and political reforms encouraged to overcome the difficulties of non-basic command economy and to design new types of socio-economic interactions. The importance of the tax relations development is determined by the role of the tax system in the lives of socially-oriented state, the significance of which is today, perhaps questioned by no one.

Implementation of the social obligations of the state to its citizens will be one of the results of the effective functioning of the tax policy as part of the tax system of the state.

One can refer to the British economist W.H. Beveridge, who believed that the tax policy of the welfare state is characterized by the quest for the common good, equality and freedom, raising the living standards of the poorer classes, the development of the social security system, social insurance, employment, control of wages and prices, the guarantee of the national average income, the availability of education and health [1].

According to the economist of the first half of the twentieth century P.V. Mikeladze, socially oriented taxation provides an effective redistribution of GDP, the implementation of the state financial and economic reproduction policy social sphere. Thus, the principal task of such a tax policy is to harmonize and meet individual and collective needs [2].

American economist R.L. Klein expressed an opinion that in the welfare state the size of the redistributed part of the national income is due, primarily, to political, rather than economic factors.

Socio-oriented tax system is a set of socialized taxes (fees) and the mechanism of interaction of equal parties of tax relationships that provide social development and protection of society as a whole and each individual citizen on the basis of the regulatory function of taxes [3].

Some scientists believe that a socially oriented tax system is proposed to consider a system of taxes and fees that are in addition to the budget process are involved in the process of social development, providing social protection of the whole society and each citizen [4].

According to A.V. Aronov, socio-oriented taxation is intended to contribute fulfill both material and spiritual needs of the people, promote the development of human capital, socially beneficial labor, the desire of citizens to increase their wealth by legitimate means. It includes targeted social protection of the people, and the best list of the state social obligations, the balance between the state social obligations and the tax potential [5].

As V.V. Simonov notes, the social orientation of tax policy should be implemented in the context of overall social policy directed, primarily, to the social orientation of the business, ensuring the movement of the economy from the interest of the entrepreneur to the centralized formation of a market infrastructure that provides and implements these interests [6].

All of the above listed, helps to reduce inequalities in income distribution. The tax policy of the state is determined by the objective strategic aim to ensure the functioning of the state and the implementation of its functions. Each state, depending on the political system and the economic situation, chooses tactical purposes and its missions that the country is to solve currently and in future.

A detailed analysis of the tax system as a social institution and as an institution of social control has been reported by the sociologist from St. Petersburg M.V. Rubtsova (Pavenkova). On the basis of her concept one can identify the following features of the tax system as a social institution.

First, tax, as the main fundraising tool, is a social phenomenon. It is characterized by certainty, regularity and obligation of payment and, in addition, has the ultimate aim of a solution to any socially significant problem.

Second, taxes are the major source of government`s revenue in the state system, which is based on the legal type of domination.

Thirdly, the presence or absence of a «feedback» between taxpayers and tax-setting authorities, providing the possibility of control by the taxpayers for the definition, collection and distribution of tax funds are one of the factors of democratization of public life.

Fourth, the tax system can be regarded as a social institution, established and functioning for the financing of social solidarity. The tax system satisfies various social and personal needs, and performs a variety of functions: financing institution of the state, the mitigation of social inequality, development of social sphere, promote social and economic development of the region, raising the profile of state authorities [7].

Socialization of the tax policy of Uzbekistan as a social state implies: a combination of social and economic interests of all levels of the tax-budget system in the division of costs and revenues, the transition from the budget based state to a tax-budget based social state that contributes to the maximum possible social justice, reducing counter financial flows, tax distribution on a regular basis (in whole or in fixed proportion) between the links of the budget system that provides the required level of it`s own revenues of the regional budgets, covering the costs of social obligations; alignment through tax and budget adjustment to the minimum required level of per capita budget incomes of region without a sufficient taxation potential; compensation to budgets through increased taxes of social spending as a result of decisions made by public authorities, and in the case of local budgets by the bodies of state power of local entities.

During the taxation of income principle of social orientation can be achieved by applying the so-called «social differentiation» of tax rates by type and size of income. Any kind of taxes within the minimum standard should be subject to the minimum tax, or exempted from tax.

The main problem of the modern taxation system is the unevenness of the tax burden. The same level of income is accompanied by different levels of taxation and, conversely, unequal income level is subject to the same level taxation. Cross-industry, intra-and inter-regional differentiation is 20 to 40 times. Sectoral and regional level of profitability is not differentiated in a finite amount of direct taxation affecting the implementation of the social functions of the state. In a low incomes of housingutilities, textile and garment industries, the majority of public institutions of subjects of the republic tax revenues do not cover social needs. Also not balanced with the needs of the welfare state: the tax burden, the level of the tax burden, types and amounts of benefits.

Analyzing inter-regional differentiation of VAT, fully entering into the state budget and becoming main budget-making tax, we can say that it`s collection is placed unevenly across the country. In 2012, only 6 subjects in Uzbekistan had 64.2% of revenues.

The situation is similar for corporate income tax, the tax base of which is mobile and is unevenly distributed between the territories.

In the 2012 fiscal direction of tax policy in the country enabled to ensure the provision of social policy billions of sums, which corresponds to one of the largest items of expenditure of the state budget.

High tax rates do not create incentives to work, improve the efficiency of production, do not encourage investment and innovation activities. At the same time tens of billions of dollars of revenue from the growth of the stock market in Uzbekistan, mostly sold outside the country, is not taxed in Uzbekistan. Income from privatization amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars has not been taxed till now and is not being taxed yet. Foreigners in Uzbekistan, employed or engaged in other legal and illegal activities, are in fact exempted from tax. The establishment of equal tax rates for all sectors of the national economy has led to the creation of “greenhouse conditions„ for some companies and toohard„ for others.

Calculations show that more than two thirds of all income of Uzbekistan created not by labor nor by capital, but at the expense of the natural rent. At the same time, in contrast to small businesses oriented to the domestic market, large enterprises operating in the export and appropriating natural rent, have preferential taxation system. Socialization of the tax policy of the state, social-oriented to taxation, should be based on balanced, effective sectoral and local taxes.

Approach also require changes to indirect taxation. It is important to use it actively with respect to the luxury goods and services, the consumption of which is limited by the state on the basis of social goals. A significant increase of excise tax on tobacco leads to the greatest reduction of smokers than prolonged propaganda about the dangers of smoking, and cigarette smoke will not only poison the air for non-smokers, but also it will work on the budget.



1. Great Soviet Encyclopedia: Vol. 30 — Moscow, 2003.

2. Mikeladze P.V.: Sketches of the financial institutions in the united and federated states / P.V. Mikeladze — Leningrad, 1996.

3. Bobrova A.V.: Theoretical and methodological basis for the formation of social oriented tax system in Russia / A.V. Bobrova — Yekaterinburg, 2007.

4. Aronov A.V.: Conceptual basis of tax policy of social states / A.V. Aronov — Moscow, 2008.

5. Aronov A.V.: Improving tax policy as a factor in resource provision of social obligations in Russian Federation / A.V. Aronov — Moscow, 2008.

6. Budget and taxes in the economic policy of the state / V.V. Simonov – Moscow, 2008

7. USAID Project LINC / Economics and mathematical methods — 1977. V. 13 (May-June).





А. Таниев, канд. экон. наук, доцент

Самаркандский государственный университет

(Узбекистан, г. Самарканд)


Аннотация. в статье посвящена вопросам теоретико-методического обоснования особенностей трансформации и адаптивности налогов, и разработке на этой основе практических рекомендаций по дальнейшему реформированию элементной базы налогов и совершенствованию механизма их функционирования в нестабильной рыночной среде.

Ключевые слова: налогообложение, акцизный налог, акцизно-налоговая модель, подакцизный сектор экономики.