Why should I share mine? Why should you share? Is it right to strive to take on the solution to all problems?

Assistant to the President of Russia Andrei Belousov explained the idea of ​​​​withdrawing additional income from metallurgical and chemical companies. He told Vedomosti that this was necessary to equalize the tax burden, and not to implement the May presidential decree. However, as Kommersant reported, Vladimir Putin has not yet given his consent to the implementation of this idea, although it is indeed being worked out in the government. The previously prepared list of companies from which it is proposed to seize “extra profits” was described by presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov as a reference. Despite this, shares of Russian metallurgists are falling in price on the Moscow and London stock exchanges.

The day after information appeared about the seizure of “extra profits” from metallurgists and chemists, the author of this initiative, Andrei Belousov, explained what he meant. “It would be advisable to create a mechanism that would allow extracting from commodity exporters part of the additional income that they receive from the weakening of the ruble - that is, changes in macroeconomic factors beyond their control - and rising world prices for their products,” Mr. Belousov told Vedomosti. He emphasized that this is necessary “not because of a lack of money to implement the May presidential decree - the required 8 trillion rubles. will be received from increasing VAT and issuing OFZ - and to equalize the tax burden.” Andrei Belousov added that “we are not talking about a proposal to withdraw 500 billion rubles from metallurgists and chemists, but only about working out such a mechanism.”

“Now this income is withdrawn from raw materials companies only through income tax, with the exception of oil workers - for them such a mechanism is provided for by the export duty and mineral extraction tax formulas, but it is not for metallurgists and chemists,” explained Mr. Belousov. According to him, such a mechanism should be linked to three factors: the weakening of the ruble, changes in market conditions and companies’ investments in their own production. A presidential aide denies that the idea came from oil workers.

“For those who like to tell jokes, I would like to remind the main law of capitalism: “You must share,” said Andrei Belousov in response to a joke by the owner of NLMK and the president of the Russian Steel metallurgical association, Vladimir Lisin.

Vladimir Putin supported the proposal to study the issue of confiscating “extra profits” from mining, metallurgical, chemical and petrochemical companies, but there is no final decision, said presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov.

As Kommersant reported on August 10, presidential aide Andrei Belousov proposed to Mr. Putin the idea of ​​“withdrawing” more than 0.5 trillion rubles from the profits of companies in these industries. In a letter to the president, he noted that it would be advisable to instruct the government to submit proposals for additional sources of income, referring to the budget’s need for funds to implement the new May presidential decrees and citing as an example the situation in 2016, when, in order to fill the state treasury, a decision was made to withdraw additional income from oil and gas companies (brought about 600 billion rubles to the budget over two years). Now, according to the official, due to market conditions in 2017, metallurgists and chemists of the Russian Federation received a total of more than 1.5 trillion rubles. EBITDA. But the tax burden on them (the ratio of taxes excluding personal income tax and social payments to revenue) is only 7%, while for the oil industry it is 28%.

According to the calculations given in the letter, the most could be requisitioned in 2017 from Norilsk Nickel (RUB 114 billion, with an EBITDA margin of 44%), ALROSA (RUB 67.3 billion, 47%), SIBUR ( 65.2 billion rubles, 37%), Polyus Gold (58.2 billion rubles, 59%). The least would have to pay, as the presidential assistant calculated, were Evraz (5.5 billion rubles, with the highest revenue in these sectors of 623 billion rubles and an EBITDA margin of 24%) and Acron (8.3 billion rubles, 32%). Also on the list of potential new budget donors are NLMK, Severstal, MMK, Metalloinvest, SUEK, Mechel, Phosagro and Uralkali. On July 28, the president put the resolution “I agree” on the letter. Deputy Prime Minister Maxim Akimov instructed the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Natural Resources to send a draft report to the government to Mr. Putin by August 17.

“There really was such a letter, it was marked “for official use”, an expert point of view was indeed expressed,” confirmed Mr. Peskov. “And indeed it bears the president’s resolution “I agree.” The President agreed that this topic would be studied by the government and appropriate proposals would be presented, taking into account the need to preserve the investment opportunities of these companies.”

At the same time, there is no planned meeting of the president to discuss the initiative with representatives of the companies indicated in Mr. Belousov’s letter, Dmitry Peskov clarified, explaining that “the president has not yet given consent to any decisions.” He called the list of companies “reference information” and not part of the letter. According to Interfax, following a meeting held on Friday at the Ministry of Industry and Trade, it was decided that the list of companies for which additional tax exemptions are possible can be expanded.

Despite Mr. Peskov’s messages, against the backdrop of news about the approval of the seizure of “extra profits” from metallurgical and chemical companies, shares of Norilsk Nickel, Polyus, ALROSA, MMK, NLMK and Severstal are falling on the Moscow Exchange within 3-5%. Securities of Russian metallurgists are also becoming cheaper on the London Stock Exchange (LSE).

Andrei Belousov’s proposal has already been criticized by the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP): “The initiative does not contribute to increasing the competitiveness of the country’s economy and will lead to a massive exit of investors from the Russian market.” The RSPP also raised questions regarding the methodology for calculating the volume of withdrawn funds and input data. According to the members of the union, it is incorrect to compare the income and payments of the manufacturing and extractive industries. Earlier, the president of the Russian Steel association (the lobby of large metallurgists), the owner of NLMK, Vladimir Lisin, had questions about the methodology for calculating the “excess profits” specified in the letter.

Olga Nikitina, Alina Sabitova

Soul binding 25.11.2015

Dear readers, today there will be an article on the blog - a reflection on our communication with loved ones and our environment. Each of us has something going on in our lives. We worry, we rejoice, we look for a way out of the current situation, we support someone else, and we leave someone, perhaps, just in peace - what if they don’t need our help, or the person doesn’t ask for it. And many of us remember the boomerang rule.

We probably ask ourselves in our hearts: “Do we hope to get something when we help others? Should I share with others? Today Elena Khutornaya, the host of the column that opened not long ago on my blog, will reflect on this topic. I give the floor to Lena.

Hello, dear readers of Irina Zaitseva’s blog. Today, in our “Soulful Binding” section, we will set off on another journey through the nooks and crannies of our souls, and with you on this journey again I, writer and blogger, Elena Khutornaya.

We have all been convinced many times that we need to share with others. This is right, it turns out to be good for us, it makes the world a better and kinder place.
However, when we talk about sharing, we usually mean sharing the good. And we strive for exactly this, because what we give to others comes back to us, and we, of course, want more good things to happen in our lives. But like every process, exchanging something with others has a downside. Which one?

The other side of the desire to share good things

Mom doesn’t like to share her problems, she says, why should I burden others. Partly it can be understood - no one likes people who, as soon as they see you, begin to dump all their negativity on you. You shouldn’t communicate with such people – it will cost you more.
However, our life consists not only of joys and pleasures - this cannot be denied either. And one conversation, when it comes to superficial acquaintances, we are not particularly interested in their joys or their problems. But when it comes to people close to us, will anyone say, don’t burden me with your problems, I only want to hear good things from you? Of course not. We ourselves will begin to ask a person what happened to him if we see that he is feeling bad.

It’s not difficult for us to support loved ones in difficult situations, and we don’t avoid it; on the contrary, we always want to help, listen, sympathize, and even if not actually help, then at least take on some of the negative emotions, dissolve them, neutralize them. It doesn’t cost us that much effort, but it makes it a little easier for the person who has problems.
So, it turns out, it’s not so scary if we share our worries, or even just our moods, with someone - sometimes I just talk it out, and it doesn’t seem like the situation has changed because of this, but still somehow everything has become less terrible seem.

Recent life incident

Here is another nuance related to the same process of exchange with others.

We ordered printed materials here from one company. It was important that it was printed well, so I found out everything, asked about everything - what file to send, in what format, what quality, and whether everything would be exactly as in the picture. The picture, by the way, was such that no matter how it is displayed on different monitors, there is always a familiar original to which everyone can accurately focus - five thousand dollar bills. The picture showed them falling beautifully from above - such a motivational thing.

They printed poorly - the bills and the background, which should have been white, came out frankly yellow, not even yellowish, but yellow. I started communicating with the artist, there was talk that the colors are always not accurate, the perception is subjective, that I should have ordered a sample, that I should have talked about it myself, since printing accuracy is so important to me, and in general you won’t print better anywhere anyway .

Yes, this is all clear, I say, we can argue endlessly, but what are we going to do, your suggestions? I had the idea to take one copy out of twenty, show it to the end customer, maybe, really, everything is not as bad as I thought. Although, knowing the customer, one could with a high degree of probability expect just the opposite - that everything would seem even worse to him than to me. In this case, we would simply take the advance payment and reject the product as defective.

In response to this, the contractor offered to take me all twenty pieces without paying extra for them, that is, they would cost us half the price.

My first thought is that the proposal is, of course, interesting, but what about this boy? He tried, he printed, he invested money—at least these expenses paid off? It was very difficult to internally agree to this option, although it was fair, given the current situation. In addition, he himself proposed this, which means that for him this outcome of the matter was relatively acceptable.

Is it right to strive to take on the solution to all problems?

But no, there is a restless feeling in my soul - how can it be, he won’t get half the money for his work, I was almost ready to pay him myself, if only he wouldn’t be upset and would get what he was counting on.

The most interesting thing is that I myself have been in this situation so many times - when an order was placed for you, the work was completed, but you were not paid for it. And it’s okay, it’s unpleasant, of course, you get upset, but in the end you let go and move on. This is life, you win somewhere, lose somewhere, and that’s normal, that’s the way it should be.

And then where does this desire to take on all the negativity come from? Do you have to cover everything at your own expense? For what?

We need to share the bad things among ourselves too. Well, of course, we are used to being good, comfortable for everyone, God forbid we hurt someone’s feelings, deprive them of something... And, of course, the ability for empathy, compassion, makes itself felt - after all, you can perfectly imagine what it’s like for a person, who does not receive what he deserves, even if the work is not done as perfectly as he would like.

However, in life one is balanced by the other. Lost somewhere, found somewhere. Trying to resist this, trying to take everything upon yourself, means harming both yourself and those around you. Everyone has their own lessons to learn, and just as you can’t avoid the need to deal with your tasks, you also can’t deprive other people of this opportunity, thereby doing them a disservice.

So we need to share not only the good. We also have to share not-so-pleasant experiences with others. And there is no need to interfere with maintaining this balance, which life always strives for - this is definitely not our task. You need to calmly accept and calmly let go when the time comes, and only then everything in life will be right.

With warmth, Elena Khutornaya, blogger, writer, author of the blog Books, literature, self-motivation. Elena Khutornaya's blog

I thank Lena for her thoughts. I’ll say this about myself: I always like to have a heart-to-heart conversation, to understand a person, and in a conversation you can always see whether he needs help, whether he needs help. I like to give without demanding anything in return, to share warmth with everyone who is dear to me.

We'd love to hear your comments.

And for the soul we will listen today Autumn Elegy. Edgar Tuniyants In the last days of autumn, let's enjoy the mood. What a wonderful melody, soulful, although perhaps a little sad.

see also

50 comments

Vladimir Shebzukhov
27 Sep 2018 at 13:58

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

Answer

The city of Tver now has every chance to enter the modern history of Russia. Half of the local city council was recently officially recognized as an organized crime group (OCG). The jury found the guilt of 13 deputies out of 14 accused - members of the factions "United Russia", "For Justice" and "For Holy Rus'" - proven guilty. The criminal case against three more was temporarily suspended due to their illness. The defendants are accused of receiving bribes totaling more than 4 million rubles. The paradox is that wealthy people, in general, did not disdain amounts even with two zeros. To unravel the mysterious deputy soul, the Izvestia correspondent went to the crime scene.

Conversation with a corrupt official about poetry

“The postman in the Ford is pressing the pedal to the limit. He’s probably in a hurry to get to Lazurny. Yes, he drove from a bridge into an oil depot with a hangover. And the Ford is undergoing repairs...” - this is a quote from a song by the master of Russian chanson Mikhail Krug, native of Tver. “Pochtar” is Viktor Pochtarev, until recently a major entrepreneur and chairman of the City Duma, and now the leader of a parliamentary organized crime group. "Lazurny" is a restaurant where local authorities and friendly businessmen liked to gather in the 90s. And the “oil depot” is a deep image. Next to it is the city pre-trial detention center, where Pochtarev is now imprisoned. At the time when the song was written, its hero had never been behind bars, but that’s what a poet is for, to have a prophetic gift.

The chorus of the song is: “We pour vodka. We drink vodka. We only live on vodka.”

Not “Pochtar in a Ford,” but “Bochtar in a Ford,” the defendant Alexei Sadov, the head physician of city hospital No. 6 and Pochtarev’s accomplice, objects to me. - I know this for sure, because Krug and I were friends. Once Victor asked him in front of me: “Why did you disgrace the whole country?” And he answers him: “Yes, listen better. It’s not about you at all.”

That day I specially bought a Krug CD and listened to the song about vodka 20 times. The letter “P” can be heard very well there.

Alexey Sadov is under recognizance not to leave. He, of course, is better off than those deputies who are sitting in a pre-trial detention center, but the transformation from a “servant of the people” into an “enemy of the people” in the wild also looks hard.

It’s amazing how many people who just yesterday called every day with the humblest requests, today pretend that they never knew you,” the head physician bites his lips. - Phone calls are dropped. They vilify us for no reason.

A particularly unpleasant story happened to Sadov’s son. His classmates began to turn away from him. It turned out that their parents give their children instructions: don’t communicate with this boy, his dad is a criminal. At one time, Sadov Jr. even had to sit at his desk alone. It was he who was the first to be called into the teachers' room for questioning when someone "mined" the school. Dad had to urgently take the child from the lyceum and send him and his wife on vacation to Turkey.

Sadov thinks for a long time, sighs, groans:

I’m not trying to justify myself at all, but do you know what analogy suggests itself to me? Have you ever traveled from Moscow to Tver by car? You are walking along the highway - the speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour. And every few kilometers there are populated areas. In them you have to slow down to 60. But no one slows down. And if you start following the rules, you risk creating an emergency situation. Headlights start flashing behind you, huge trucks pass you on the left and honk their horns in displeasure. That's why you drive the way you were driving - at a speed limit. And in an inconspicuous place there is a traffic cop with a radar. Whoever is caught is a criminal, and whoever is not caught is an honest person.

Money loves x-rays

The furnishings in Sadov's office are modest to the point of disgrace. To the right of the head physician there is an impressive crack in the gray wall. On the left are icons, mountains of some documents, old Soviet furniture, everything is shabby and neglected. In this very office, in November 2005, deputies committed one of the atrocities charged to them.

The jury found the head of Tver Utility Systems OJSC Roman Boev to be the bribe-giver, one of the prosecutors of the Tver Regional Prosecutor's Office, Vitaly Voronin, told Izvestia. - Utility companies decided to pay parliamentarians 2 million rubles so that they would not reduce consumption standards for housing and communal services - the income of TKS OJSC directly depended on this.

And the backstory is this. In the fall of 2005, on the eve of the heating season, deputies, for populist purposes, launched an active campaign for rent reduction, which seriously alarmed utility workers. Passions in the City Duma became so intense that it seemed that the people's representatives were ready to die for their voters. But after a financial injection from TKS OJSC, the deputies “leaked” the vote. The battle for the interests of the people turned into a banal combination of “hitting and rolling back.”

The day after the treacherous vote, the head of TKS OJSC, Roman Boev, called the courier and gave him a red briefcase with money. The money was taken by a certain Korovin, a local businessman and friend of the defendant deputy Igor Makarov, who asked Korovin to meet with the courier.

There will be a black bag in the briefcase,” Makarov told him. - Take the package and return the briefcase - it’s worth a lot.

According to the official version, Korovin did not know that he was participating in a criminal plot. And judging by the way he frivolously handled the precious package, this seems to be true. Having taken the contents of the orange briefcase from the courier, Korovin arrived at his store called "Meat Hunter", left a bag with two million in the back room and left on business. The money, covered with plastic, lay in plain sight for 7 hours. Utility workers, salespeople, and cleaners walked past them, but no one was interested. In the evening, Korovin took the money and went to the hospital to see Sadov. Here, in the office of the head physician, their faction has already gathered almost in full. Each received 5 thousand dollars - this is the largest of all bribes charged to deputies. Out of the goodness of our hearts, we decided to give money even to those who voted against it. Immediately the servants of the people began to wash their unearned income. During the second hour of drinking, deputy Boris Neverov suddenly had an idea:

Stop! - said the former policeman. - What if the money is marked?

Another glass stuck in my esophagus.

“Listen,” Neverov turned to the chief physician and Duma colleague Alexei Sadov. - Do you have x-rays here in the hospital?

“There is an X-ray,” Sadov answered. - But he won't help. Ultraviolet light is needed here. But I don’t have it.

Well, since there is no ultraviolet light, let’s at least illuminate it with x-rays. Or ultrasound?

Guys, have you gone crazy?! Even if the word “bribe” is there, an X-ray will not see it, and even less so an ultrasound. Better enlighten yourself.

But no one listened to Sadov anymore. The deputies forced the head physician to open the X-ray room, turn on the machine, and scanned all the bills on it. Naturally, we didn’t see anything there, but we calmed down. As it turned out, in vain.

Office N 234

Alexey, did you really go to the 234th?!

Well, yes, I did,” Deputy Alexey Kulikov from the “For Justice” faction took 2 thousand dollars out of his pocket and waved them in the air. - But I'm not some kind of rat. I'll share it among everyone.

Four green pieces of paper were placed on the conference table in front of each “just person.” Kulikov’s colleagues, who were just ready to spit in the face of their comrade for selling his vote, obediently took the money. At the trial, they learn that during another vote, another of their comrades - Evgeniy Semenov - turned out to be freer from prejudices. He took money for everyone - even those who did not vote at all - but simply did not share it with his colleagues. In response to the belated indignation of the deputies, Semenov, with an expression of sincere torment on his face, said: “Well, I trembled, I trembled!”

The second paid vote, which is charged to parliamentarians, concerned a very unpopular issue in the city - whether or not to give the Tver water supply system to the private company Rosvodokanal LLC. After expressing their will in favor of “giving,” the deputies flocked to office No. 34, owned by Viktor Pochtarev. The combination of three numbers that was on this door had long been synonymous with the word “accounting” in the City Duma. In total, Viktor Pochtarev divided 22 thousand dollars among the deputies for voting correctly.

But in this episode of the criminal case there remains a lot of uncertainty. Firstly, the bribe-giver has not been identified. Secondly, at the trial it was repeatedly said that it was not only Pochtarev who distributed money in the City Duma for voting in the interests of Rosvodokanal. The name of another “accountant” was even mentioned - deputy Alexander Mosievsky. Allegedly, Pochtarev distributed money among his friends, and Mosievsky among his own. At the trial, the defendant deputy Zhgutov even told how his colleague Blinovsky patted himself first on one pocket, then on the other, and boasted that he had managed to take money from both Pochtarev and Mosievsky. But the investigation and the court decided to act on the principle “a good witness is better than a bad accused” and concentrated on the more vulnerable group of Pochtarev. In informal conversations, law enforcement officials do not hide that with a little more luck, the entire City Duma could be in the dock.

But with the same success there might not be anyone on the same bench. If it were not for a fragile woman with a modest name Elena Illarionovna.

Bug in bra

And here comes our Pavlik Morozov! - when the former deputy, and now the main witness for the prosecution, Elena Lebedeva, entered the courtroom, the wife of one of the defendants lost her temper. While Elena Illarionovna was answering questions, a relative of the defendant was quietly but clearly swearing. The judge tried to calm her down, but to no avail. And in some ways a woman can be understood.

Elena Illarionovna Lebedeva began her political career as chairman of the house committee. She knows how to speak well, so she was elected to the City Duma with a minimal budget, leaving her previous position. And then strange events began to happen - the houses entrusted to Lebedeva began to regularly underpay significant sums for heat and hot water to TKS OJSC. By some strange coincidence, it was at this time that the deputy began to build herself a beautiful mansion.

What do you know about the theft of 1 million rubles from the Yuzhny Homeowners Association? - Defendant Roman Boev, former director of TKS OJSC, asked Lebedeva a direct question about this at the trial.

There was no theft,” the witness answered indignantly.

Have you offered me your work as a deputy on a paid basis? - Boev continued.

Never! - Elena Illarionovna was indignant.

Whether there were embezzlements and blackmail on Lebedeva’s part or not, by some strange coincidence it was at that time that she began to cooperate with law enforcement agencies. In informal conversations, her former parliamentary colleagues unanimously assert that it was Elena Illarionovna’s numerous sins that allowed the Ubopovites to hook her.

In November 2005, did you have your own personal voice recorder? - Deputy Evgeniy Semenov asked Lebedev at the trial.

Questions about the voice recorder were addressed to Lebedeva more than once at the trial, and for good reason. Many deputies, while still free, found it strange that their colleague would approach them and start asking clearly provocative questions. The deputy herself now claims that she carried a voice recorder with her to record City Duma meetings for her personal archive. But no one believes her. And how can you believe it if Elena Illarionovna comes to all court hearings accompanied by UBOP officer Comrade Nazarov? And the daughter of the defendant Pochtarev, Elena Goretskaya (the wife of a police officer), publicly declares to Tver journalists that Lebedeva kept a hidden audio recording of conversations with colleagues within the walls of the City Duma for two months, thus working off her own sins before law enforcement agencies. Some city newspapers even wrote, citing unnamed sources, that Elena Illarionovna hid the recorder in her bra. But it is now impossible to establish this reliably.

From burning eyes to swollen faces

The remaining two episodes differ from the above only in the names of the bribe-payers, the amounts and the questions for which the deputies raised their hands. Having paid 18 thousand dollars for everyone, the director of Lazurstroy LLC Fedor Onokhov received a preferential tax rate from the people's representatives. And businessman Igor Savin brought 40 thousand “greens” to the City Duma, and for this the deputies wrote off the administrative building in the city center in his favor. There was no fixed “tax” in the City Duma. They took on the principle of “who can take as much as they can.” They received from 200 dollars to 3-5 thousand.

Everyone at the trial was very amused by the story of deputy Valentina Potapova, head of the Tver City Bank. Her share for the next vote in the amount of $500 was brought to her by parliamentarian Neverov - the same one who X-rayed the banknotes. The money was wrapped in some kind of paper. Potapova turned it around and almost dropped it from her hands - it was a decision to initiate a criminal case against her. Fake. Deputy Neverov joked.

“You’re a fool, and your jokes are stupid,” said Deputy Potapova, but she took the money. If Neverov had known what a serious trump card he would give to the prosecution with this joke, he would have behaved more seriously. Potapova failed to prove to the jury that her colleague was simply returning the money she had borrowed.

One of the most influential political observers in the city of Tver is Viktor Bogdanov, he works for the Tverskaya Gazeta. Maybe he at least understands what’s going on in the parliamentarians’ heads?

When they took this money, most likely, they were not even thinking about its material value. For them, a bribe has long become just a compliance factor. A means of communication. Not taking means reproaching your neighbor. It's like when you're drinking - no one seems to want to get drunk, but they still drink and get completely drunk. So as not to offend each other. So as not to hear: “What, old man, don’t you respect me?!” Here, after the arrest of deputies, many former enemies call us - those whom the newspaper once offended, spoiled their election campaign, and did not allow them to be re-elected for a new term. And they thank you: “If it weren’t for you, we would now also be sitting in the dock!” Everyone understands that no matter how good a person you are, the desire to “be your own” is still stronger than the desire to be honest.

Viktor Bogdanov himself was once a deputy. It was the romantic period of the mid-90s, the first convocation. The people's representatives sincerely tore their ties, left the meeting room in protest and even hit each other in the face. They didn’t take money then, although the first calls had already been made. Bogdanov could not be re-elected for a second term - he lost to Pochtarev. This was no longer a competition of people, but of budgets. Residents of Tver began to willingly sell their votes.

Exactly! Lebedeva also told me that she was terribly disappointed in the people. Since people are ready to sell their vote for 100 rubles, is it any wonder that deputies are ready to sell it for 100 dollars?

Well, of course,” Bogdanov answered me. - The powerful are always to blame for the powerless. It was as if people were coming to the candidates and seducing them. They themselves seduced their voters, and now they find moral justification in this. But when I lost to Pochtarev, I was also terribly offended by the people. I couldn’t sleep peacefully for two years. VIP infection is a terrible thing. Now, after their arrest, five of the defendants began to have serious health problems. One of the deputies, for example, has the last stage of cancer, and I sincerely feel sorry for him. Still, the person did not deserve the death penalty.

I spoke about this topic with police officers and prosecutors. They also deeply sympathize with this deputy, but they do not see their guilt in what happened. This is rather a topic for scientific research - why our grandfathers went through the war, concentration camps, blockade and live up to 90 years. And our contemporaries burn out completely within a year in prison.

What is there to explore? And so everything is clear. It was war. Heroism. Homeland. And here is a moral breakdown. He was everything, but became nothing. In general, this is a terrible thing - what a path Russian parliamentarism has traveled in 15 years. From burning eyes to swollen faces. Cirrhosis. Complete cirrhosis.

P.S. The Tver newspaper "Karavan+Ya" reports: "The Transport Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal case against Ostashkovsky district deputy Daniil Kiselev. "Servant of the People" was caught red-handed while stealing railway tracks. By the time of his arrest, he had managed to cut 33 linear meters of rails. When asked, Why do he need them? The parliamentarian replied: “Don’t you really understand? You drive the rail into the ground and attach a pole to it. Such a pole can stand in a dacha for centuries. What, you don’t have a dacha, or what?”

“We need to share,” I hear and think: Who needs this? To someone who wants to take something? Probably yes.

You can often hear this phrase from parents who teach their child not to be greedy.

At the same time, they take away his toy and give it to another child, without asking permission and desire from their own, and without noticing that they are thereby depriving him of something more important than a toy.

"We must share", - I hear and think: And who needs it? To someone who wants to take something? Probably yes.

But does the person from whom they take it need it? Was he even asked? No, they didn’t ask, they decided for him that if he didn’t want to give something away, it was definitely because of greed and there were no other reasons. And if so, then greed must be nipped in the bud...

Only, guys, greed is your interpretation. And at the moment you have not at all understood what the child really feels and why he is not always ready to share, and that this (most important) is normal behavior for a person.

For anyone, not just a child.

It’s just that a child is closer to God and nature, so a lot of things happen naturally in his behavior, until he is hammered with various dogmas for the benefit of others, but not himself.

I suppose that if not from the very beginning, then at this point the phrase of someone reading may definitely be heard: Well, yes, let's educate the greedy or the stingy! These psychologists are always writing all sorts of nonsense! And so on.

I will explain the meaning of what it means to “share” when you were not asked, and how this contributes to the blurring of a person’s personal boundaries.

For a child (and for many who managed to become parents without having time to learn many important truths), words about rights are rather complicated. It is enough to understand that You can’t take something that’s not yours without asking, and that you can only give what’s yours when you want it..

And when a person is not forced to share, he grows whole and undivided. He is not tormented by contradictions from the field - why am I worse than others? What else? This is the only conclusion that can come to a child’s head when something is taken from him and given to others without asking and guided by the good idea of ​​“not raising a greedy person.” After all, if someone needs to give what is mine, taking it away from me, it means that the other person is somehow better: he is worthy to be given back to him, and I am not worthy to have something of mine left to me. Do you understand?

The foundations of duality in a person are laid by such simple actions, when “sharing” occurs against the will of a person, and no matter how old he is. And personal boundaries are destroyed, thanks to which a person can withstand some surprises that one way or another happen to each of us in life (after all, the world is unpredictable). Then the person will develop the understanding that he is obliged to “share” himself – his strengths, his feelings, although at times he will feel that he does not have these strengths left for himself. This is how dialectics turns out.

I hope the reader understands that the point is not that sharing should not be done and that it is bad. It is about teaching a person to respect not only others, but also himself. True respect for others begins with self-respect. From the respect of your boundaries by others and vice versa - from your respect for the boundaries of others. With the ability to ask permission. With the ability to recognize the right of another to refuse and not accept it as a personal tragedy. And parents can teach this. Using such simple examples as “sharing” something, taking into account the important conditions of this sharing.

So far, in most of the examples from practice that I know of, people have been taught not to put themselves in anything. That’s why they don’t see the boundaries of others, and demand something from everyone every time, because they themselves are not greedy. Is this a familiar picture?

I won't continue. In my opinion, everything is quite obvious.

And (as my favorite psychotherapy experts say) let your unconscious itself draw the necessary conclusions from this.

And as a postscript - an excerpt from “Heart of a Dog” by M.A. Bulgakov:

“Yes, I don’t agree.

With whom? Engels or Kautsky?

With both,” answered Sharikov.

This is wonderful, I swear to God. ...What could you offer for your part?

What is there to offer?.. And then they write, write... Congress, some Germans... My head is swelling. Take everything and share...

That’s what I thought,” exclaimed Philip Philipovich, slapping his palm on the tablecloth, “that’s exactly what I thought.”

This passage is usually cited as an ironic commentary on the position of supporters of “equalization,” that is, a primitive approach to solving complex socio-economic problems. published

Algorithm for Success. Ten Commandments Shiring Victoria

Why is it necessary to share?

Why is it necessary to share?

We have understood that there are no static states in the Universe. Everything in it is constantly in motion, this is either a path of development, or a movement in the opposite direction - towards degradation. The same applies to the energy of money. Money should not stagnate. If you simply put what you earn into a box, gradually the source of income will dry up. You will have unexpected expenses, and the contents of the jar will quickly begin to melt. By sharing your benefits with those in need, you launch money into a cycle colored by positive emotions. Most rich people argue that money should not just lie there, but should work. That's right, it also feeds them with energy, but on a different level. This seems to give them the possibility of mechanical movement. But in this case, their movement can be colored by any emotions. There may be greed, a thirst for profit, or simply calculation. Which ultimately affects the result. Remember: what you give is what you get. In the case when you give your benefits to those in need voluntarily, coloring it with your positive emotions, you receive back exactly the benefit, the good. That is, not profits, not expenses and not dividends. And the good that you need. And if you need money, you get money, and in a way that is pleasant for you.

Most successful people understand this. That's why they all do charity work.

Real charity must have distinctive features - the giver must share his benefits completely disinterestedly, with the best intentions of helping someone, and do it incognito. Advertising your name when participating in charity means engaging in self-promotion. And this is personal interest and completely different motives, which completely excludes the first rule - to share unselfishly.