“15% are dribs and drabs!” The new taxaton system will not reduce the inequality in the country

Sociologist Grigory Yudin doubted the effectiveness of the change in the Russian taxation system announced by Putin:

“When I wrote a couple of weeks ago that a flat taxation scale will inevitably be canceled in the near future, the only question is who will propose it - I did not have any insiders about this. It’s just that Putin’s team knows the same thing that we’ve been talking about for the last couple of years - that inequality, injustice and the lack of a social state are growing rapidly on the agenda, crowding out the enemies around us around it. Hence the indexation of pensions in the Constitution, the promise of free breakfast, a tax on deposits and + 2% on orphan diseases.

I also said that if this is voiced by Putin, then he will never take any measures to combat real inequality, but uses it to plug a hole in the agenda. Of course, an additional 2% on income from above 5 million a year is not insufficient, but simply no measure to reduce inequality. The problem of Russia is not in those who earn 5 million a year. The problem is those who earn hundreds and thousands of times more.

Once again: the middle-ranking United Russia businessman Shaposhnikov declared income of 2 billion rubles over the past year. The whole gain from today's grandiose “reform” is the annual income of only thirty such United Russia members. That is, it's just crumbs from the table - the Putin elite spends more on tips.

Of course, for a real reform, the tiny rung that Putin glued to his flat scale today is not enough - now he has two flat scales. When Sechin and the owner of a small business pay 15% each, this is a mockery.

Real reform will require a sharp increase in tax for the super-rich (at least up to 25% starting at 30 million and up to 32% from 50 million), introducing a progressive tax on large property / luxury, federalizing the tax system (so that taxes remain in place) and introducing inheritance tax. But Putin will never do that. And not because "everyone will go offshore" (they have already gone there), but because only one percent of the population owns 58% of wealth - 58% of the whole country. And of these 58%, half (29%) belong to his immediate environment - people from the Forbes list of billionaires. Because his regime is that of a hundred families. And Putin will never touch them.

So the real reform should be offered to the one to whom the interests of Russia are more important than the interests of Putin's oligarchs. There is definitely a request for this in the country, and further it will only be stronger. And to find 60 billion for Russian children, there are many simpler ways. For example, withdraw from allowance Margarita Simonyan..."

***

With figures in his hands the publicist Mikhail Makogon also demonstrates that something is unlikely to come out of this venture:

“Firstly, personal income tax is a regional and municipal tax, not federal, not a fund tax. What kind of mechanics “extra income” will be allocated in a targeted way for the treatment of children with rare diseases - only Putin knows.

Secondly, 60 billion rubles a year is nothing at all. This is 0.06% of GDP, i.e. 6% of 1%. This is approximately 0.15% of the consolidated budget (it makes sense here, once again - the tax is not federal).

Thirdly, even this completely ridiculous amount, the expenses of the Moscow budget for the week, it is not clear where he got it at all. 15% is supposed to be taken from annual income in excess of 5 million rubles.

The progressive income tax scale, in principle, makes sense; it works in all developed economies. But there are details on which the intersection of developed economies and the Russian Federation passes.

If we look at European and American rates, then, plus or minus, they consider 2-3 average salaries a year to be “wealth”.

A sharp jump in rates in the United States, from 24% - immediately to 32% - is 157 thousand dollars a year, with an average salary of 56 thousand

150-200 thousand per year is the cut-off level for the normal upper middle class. Moderate success lawyers, dentists, engineers, developers. This is about half the salary of the surgeon.

150 thousand dollars a year is not a luxurious, but a very good and confident life, even in places like Boston or New York. You, in general, are rich enough. You can consume, save, invest - you fulfill the minimum qualification requirements for success.

If we apply a similar logic to Russia, then the cut-off level for “wealth” will be 100-150 thousand rubles, about one and a half million, 20 thousand dollars a year.

That is, the “wealth” in the logic of the developed world will begin at the point where you can support one child, pay a loan for VW Polo Sedan and a mortgage for odnushka on Vykhino. Without savings, without investment, once again go to the bar, where a beer is worth 0.3-0.5% of your monthly income - this is still to be considered.

As soon as a person ceases to feverishly search for yellow price tags in Magnet - already, as it were, the rich are already suitable for the increased tax burden.

But to be clear, about 4% of all workers in the Russian economy, according to Rosstat, correspond to this picture of absolute luxury.

Even if we consider people with wages before the personal income tax of 100-150 thousand rich, then they are so small that the meaningfulness of the increased rate (which, in itself, costs money due to the complexity of administration) is already a huge question.

The number of people in the country whose declared income subject to personal income tax (this is important) significantly exceeds 5 million rubles (and so that the idea of a progressive scale makes sense - the excess should be significant, not 200 thousand rubles) - I do not know, I did not find relevant statistics . But from other figures, it can be understood that we are talking, in the best case, of a few hundred thousand.

The only ones who benefit from such an increase will be the budgets of Moscow and St. Petersburg, which credit themselves the entire personal income tax. What does it have to do with children with rare diseases, as it is supposed to be administered, and most importantly - where did the imagination draw 60 billion additional fees - a special question..."