Experts told how the tax burden for the middle class will change
A progressive tax scale may come into effect as early as 2025. This was reported in the State Duma. Currently, the government and parliamentarians are looking for the optimal formula for tax fairness, which President Putin called them to in his Address. Specific parameters of the future tax scale have not yet been made public; there are only certain rumors and “leaks” in this regard. In the absence of official information, MK decided to find out the opinion of experts on whether and how exactly to change the fiscal burden in the country. The round table we organized was attended by doctors of economic sciences: chief researcher of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Igor Nikolaev, professor of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Alexander Safonov, director of the Institute of Social and Economic Research of the Financial University Alexey Zubets.
< span itemprop="height" itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/QuantitativeValue">
< p> The rich should pay more. I think this is how the president’s thesis should be interpreted. How well it will work out is another matter.
The fact is that today new large-scale strategic projects have been announced in Russia, in particular in the field of human capital development, which are very expensive. According to various estimates, they amount to trillions of rubles. The tax base that the authorities now have, both structurally and physically, is not enough to finance them. In previous years, the state has already climbed into its reserve “box” — the National Welfare Fund — in order to cover the budget deficit due to restrictions that arose as a result of sanctions. One way to cover this deficit is to introduce a progressive scale of taxation on citizens. The government has not yet offered any other source. Therefore, the main reason for introducing a progressive scale is the potentially increasing costs of implementing those projects that the president announced in his message to the Federation Council, as well as the lack of current revenues in the tax structure that the government currently has at its disposal.
There just isn't enough money. There is a hole in the budget, it needs to be plugged somehow. There are two ways. The first is to increase taxes on business and the population, i.e. income tax. The second option is to issue securities and finance the budget through this, that is, follow the path of increasing borrowing followed by Western countries, whose debt amounts to 80-90% of GDP. Another justification is due to the fact that there is not enough money for development and one of the options to solve this problem is to increase taxes. But this is the economic part of the problem. The second part is political, because this was a pass before the elections towards poor Russians, who believe that the rich should be forced to pay more. Moreover, I personally do not understand what a fair taxation system is. 13% from a thousand rubles is 130 rubles, and from 100 thousand it is 13 thousand. The rich pay more than the poor anyway. But among the bulk of the population, which is not too rich, some kind of proletarian instinct arises: they say, we should still pinch the rich. To a certain extent, the initiative for a progressive tax scale also has a slightly populist component, which, unfortunately, can lead to negative consequences.
As they say, “the devil is in the details.” The essence of the new scale is, indeed, not in the name, but in the details. What will be the rates? What scales? What percentage? Now all the conversations quite rightly revolve around these key numbers. Let's imagine what will happen if the threshold from which the already increased, 15 percent tax will be levied is set at 1 million rubles per month. The average salary in 2023 in the country was 73 thousand 709 rubles. This is despite the fact that in nominal terms wages increased by more than 14%. If this growth continues, it will be more than 84 thousand rubles this year. This does not mean that most people will automatically fall under the new personal income tax. Not everyone receives an average salary. There is one more number. In Moscow, at the end of last year, the average salary was more than 136 thousand rubles. Of course, I understand that many will be surprised: where does this average salary come from? Many people get less. But these are statistics. Hence the conclusion that if the threshold of 1 million is adopted, then a significant number of citizens will fall under the increased tax: I think 20-30 million people. I hope that the figures you mentioned will still be adjusted in the process of thinking and discussion, and the decision will still be different.
Such a decision, if it is made, affects the middle class, and these are highly skilled workers and specialists who carry out the technological development of our country. Well, of course, these are the people who manage all processes and belong to management. So why should we accept this particular cut-off point? Perhaps because this is 2/3 of the wage fund, which can be covered by an increased personal income tax rate and, accordingly, receive real income for the budget. In my opinion, this is a very dangerous story. And there is some strange approach to this logic: why, for example, are super-incomes not allocated in some separate line at all? Yes, there was talk that the rich, frightened by increased taxes, might run away somewhere, but due to the imposition of sanctions, they have fewer and fewer options for withdrawing their income. We need to think about maintaining the stability of the middle class, which ensures the development of the country, and not lowering its income level. Otherwise, people who represent something in terms of intellectual capabilities can transfer their assets to another place where there is a comfortable business climate for their personal development.
Let's start with the fact that business never refused such a mechanism, and if it was possible to carry out non-cash payments with staff painlessly and with impunity, it did it. Take, for example, self-employment. In 2018, there were officially 800 thousand self-employed people in our country. In 2023, self-employment increased to 8.5 million people. The Ministry of Finance has already announced that it is losing 1.5 trillion rubles a year on this format. What will happen next? Firstly, no one has canceled the “voluntary” transition to self-employment. They have translated, are translating and will continue to translate — for the sake of saving on taxes. But other formats of civil law relations will be added to this. As they say, “the need for invention is cunning.” Take, for example, salary cash. It still exists, despite the fact that the Central Bank is fighting it.
Today in Russia there are a number of employment options that offer lower wages. For example, you can switch from full-time employees to self-employed. We understand that this will be perceived by the tax service as a form of tax evasion, but, nevertheless, such options are possible. And this is one of the headaches of the Ministry of Finance: enterprises, with an increase in the fiscal burden, will transfer employees to self-employment. The second option for tax evasion is to take some division of the company and register it as a simplified LLC, where there are no social taxes and where you can save money. It is clear that if taxes rise, the number of people who will be registered as self-employed will increase. But if we talk about the future of other social payments, their formats will not change. That is, it will most likely not be possible to avoid increased taxes using these deductions. And the options I spoke about will remain: self-employment and simplified LLC. I have a feeling that the Ministry of Finance doesn’t really know what to do with them yet.
Yes, such a risk exists. Moreover, this is a very likely scenario. Let's remember the times when Russia had a progressive scale. So, immediately after its abolition, tax collection increased by tens of percent. That is, the amount of money that people hid was colossal. As a result of the reduction in the personal income tax rate to 13%, this money ended up in the visible zone, which led to an increase in tax collection. Now the exact opposite story may happen. We have already said that progressive taxation is in many ways a populist story, because more than 80% of the country's population wants the rich to pay more. But at the same time, the bulk of the country's population does not understand that as a result of this, the rich will pay less. Because in addition to the methods of tax evasion that we have already named, there are others known to business. From my point of view, the government in vain succumbed to populist pressure from that part of the population who remembered the proletarian slogan “Rob the loot.” These people have forgotten that the rich tend to work more, have less free time, and have studied for a long time to earn their fortunes. For some reason they believe that money falls from the sky, and someone is lucky enough to put their hat in the right place. I believe that this populism, unfortunately, will have a negative impact on our economy.
Personally, I feel very good about this proposal. This is true. In fact, a progressive tax scale then turns out to be logical and complete when we not only increase taxes for those who earn more, say, 1 million a month or 5 million a year, but reduce them for those who earn very little, below the subsistence level . Now we have it for about 20 thousand rubles. This means that there should be no taxes for such people, otherwise their income will automatically go below the subsistence level.
By the way, I would draw attention to the fact that the authorities have not yet said a word about the tax future of those citizens who receive incomes at the subsistence level. The question arises: why in this case is not a complete waiver of personal income tax considered as a measure of support for the population for these low-income groups? The Ministry of Finance has always had a lot of explanations on this matter. They thought that this would somehow undermine the development of the regions because they would not collect enough taxes. But it’s strange: trying to cut something else from a sheep that has very little wool.
But here I have a doubt. Indeed, questions arise: if we exempt part of the population, even the poorest, from paying income taxes, what will happen to the capacity of regional budgets, and so on and so forth. I'm afraid that we will be able to hear such arguments again.
: If inflation rises in Russia and taxes begin to increase, but wages do not rise, then the population will be forced to save. We have repeatedly encountered this model during crises, so, of course, we must understand that this is not just a change in some abstract macroeconomic indicators, but a serious blow to the economy. This means that not only will the rate of economic growth not increase, but the country will also be in danger of falling into recession.
There are several options. Depending on where you work, the specifics of tax avoidance vary. If we are talking about large companies or the civil service, there are no options: everyone will pay in full. If you are a small and medium-sized business and you want to receive some kind of allowance, then ask, for example, to increase your family health insurance by the amount of the increase, or to pay the amount of the increase in bonuses. Such options also exist and they are quite legal. But, I want to say again, most likely, this threshold of a million per year will not happen. Ten million sounds more or less adequate. And then this whole fiscal story takes on some reasonable meaning.