The government rejected the idea of a 50 percent reduction in the transport tax for drivers who were not found at fault in traffic violations during the year. Reports on this matter indicate that the decision came from the Council of Ministers and were later summarized by TASS. The proposal, if adopted, would have meant meaningful tax relief for responsible drivers, a move that supporters argued could encourage safer driving habits by rewarding exemplary behavior on the roads.
A bill introducing this cut was presented by Vladislav Davankov, who serves as Deputy Chairman of the State Duma and represents the New People party. Proponents of the measure argued that increasing the share of drivers who follow traffic rules would likely reduce the number of road accidents and, as a result, lower the overall costs to the budget related to medical care and emergency response. In other words, the potential savings from fewer incidents could offset the revenue loss from the discounted taxes if the program attracted more compliant behavior across the driving population.
In the formal response from the Council of Ministers to the bill, it was stated that tax benefits should not be tied to the required legal conduct of road users as outlined in Article 24 of the Federal Law on Road Safety. The government clarified that the aim of tax policy is not to reward compliance with traffic rules, but to structure fiscal policy around broader economic considerations. This position emphasizes that tax measures are not designed to act as behavioral incentives for road safety, but to reflect broader fiscal priorities and budgetary constraints while maintaining the integrity of existing road safety laws.
Historically, public discourse has sometimes linked policy changes to visible symbols, such as drivers placing square numbers on their cars as a sign of protest or support for policy shifts. While such gestures are not official indicators of compliance, they illustrate how road user behavior and public sentiment can intersect with regulatory debates. The broader takeaway is that tax policy for transportation remains a delicate balance between encouraging responsible driving and ensuring straightforward, predictable revenue streams for funded public services, including road maintenance, traffic enforcement, and medical readiness in the event of accidents. Citations to official statements from the government and reports from news agencies can provide additional context for stakeholders seeking to understand the nuances of this issue.