Maxim Kadakov serves as editor-in-chief for Za Rulem and recently weighed in on the idea of scrapping the transport tax in Russia. He expressed strong doubts about the feasibility of such a move, explaining on his Telegram channel why an outright abolition would be impractical for the budget and the funding of road infrastructure.
According to Kadakov, while the transport tax accounts for only about a fifth of the overall revenue, the budget depends on stable, predictable income, especially for critical road funds that pay for maintenance, repairs, and capital projects. He noted that removing this revenue source would create a financial gap that would be difficult to bridge through other channels, at least in the near term. The journalist emphasized that the revenue from the transport tax underpins a network of road improvements and safety initiatives that communities rely on daily. This context makes the possibility of eradication unlikely in the current fiscal environment.
Earlier reporting indicated that deputies from the LDPR faction, led by party chairman Leonid Slutsky, were developing a legislative measure to completely abolish the transport tax. The draft law was forwarded to the Russian government for review and commentary, triggering a broader discussion about tax reform and the funding of essential transport services.
The explanatory note accompanying the proposed bill argues that the transport tax is disproportionately burdensome within the wider tax system. It contends that the tax is excessive when compared with other duties and suggests that reform should consider the broader landscape of consumption taxes. In particular, the note points to excise duties on fuel as another mechanism that feeds into fuel costs. It argues that a portion of the transport tax may be embedded in the price of fuel used by vehicles during operation. As a vehicle travels farther, the cumulative tax burden could rise, making the tax feel increasingly onerous for drivers and fleet operators alike, especially for those with high mileage requirements.
In related developments, previous coverage reported that the State Duma rejected a separate initiative to compensate for damage under compulsory motor liability insurance due to incidents such as icicles falling on cars, a reminder of the wide range of risks that policymakers must balance when shaping transport policy. This broader conversation reflects ongoing tensions between allocating budgetary resources, protecting road users, and pursuing reforms that could alter the cost landscape for drivers across the country.
From Za Rulem’s perspective, the debate over the transport tax is not merely about a single levy. It touches on the philosophy of how transit infra- structure is funded, how revenue volatility is managed, and how public priorities intersect with the everyday costs faced by motorists, businesses, and communities. Analysts observing the discussion point to several practical implications: potential shifts in road maintenance schedules, adjustments to municipal transport projects, and the possibility of introducing alternative revenue streams that could compensate for any reduction in transport tax revenue. The discussions also raise questions about how reform might affect fuel prices, vehicle usage patterns, and the broader economic climate that influences transportation demand across Canada, the United States, and neighboring markets, where cross-border trade and mobility increasingly shape policy considerations. In this nuanced setting, Kadakov’s reflections offer a grounded assessment of fiscal viability and the political realities that govern tax policy decisions in Russia. (citation: Za Rulem)”