A proposal stirring discussion in Russia centers on tightening the personal income tax for the wealthiest residents. Boris Chernyshov, the deputy chairman of the State Duma from the Liberal Democratic Party, suggested increasing the personal income tax rate to 20 percent for individuals earning more than 35 million rubles a year. This suggestion has been reported by DEA News and has sparked a broader debate about fiscal fairness and the distribution of tax burdens across society. (Source: DEA News)
According to the report, Chernyshov formalized the idea in a written communiqué addressed to the head of the Federal Tax Service, Daniil Yegorov. The deputy framed the move as a step toward strengthening social justice, arguing that those with very high incomes should shoulder a larger share of the public funding that supports national priorities. The key premise is that higher earners contribute more to the common good, enabling the state to invest in essential services and social programs without compromising overall macroeconomic stability.
In Chernyshov’s view, the threshold he proposes targets the upper tier of wealth, describing a group whose yearly earnings exceed 25 million rubles, roughly equivalent to more than 2 million rubles per month. He contends that imposing a 20 percent rate on this cohort would not be concealment but clear recognition of the fiscal responsibilities that accompany substantial income. The deputy notes that the changes would predominantly affect affluent residents of Moscow, a city with a high concentration of top earners and a vibrant but unequal economic landscape. The framing emphasizes fairness while acknowledging practical implications for tax collection and public finance.
Beyond the revenue rationale, Chernyshov outlined that the additional funds would be allocated to concrete public goods. A portion would finance infrastructure projects and landscaping, support the maintenance and expansion of parks, and fund new playgrounds to benefit families and communities. In a separate channel, he suggested directing two percent toward programs that aid seriously ill children through the Circle of Kindness fund, and allocating three percent to development initiatives undertaken by neighboring municipalities. The vision is to connect higher tax receipts with tangible improvements in everyday life, reinforcing the social compact that underpins public services.
The discussion comes against a backdrop of ongoing fiscal policy decisions debated within the State Duma. Earlier reports indicate that at first reading, there was a separate policy move involving substantial state authorization over corporate resources. The reference notes that discussions or measures surrounding the confiscation of funds from businesses reached a figures point of 300 billion rubles in a previous policy moment. This context highlights the tense balance lawmakers seek between revenue collection, business activity, and the health of the broader economy.
Observers also note the broader questions this debate raises about how personal income tax reforms should be designed and implemented. Critics argue that tax policy must account for administrative practicality, economic incentives, and regional disparities, ensuring that any rate changes do not disproportionately burden middle-income earners or impede investment and employment. Proponents, meanwhile, emphasize the potential for a more progressive tax system to fund essential public services and social programs that benefit the country as a whole. The ongoing conversation reflects a wider, perennial political dynamic common to many nations: how to align equity with growth while maintaining trust in fiscal institutions and governance.
In terms of governance and accountability, the conversation also touches on the capacity of the tax authority to administer new rates effectively and with minimal friction. The Federal Tax Service would be responsible for implementing the changes, updating income thresholds as needed, and ensuring compliance across a diverse spectrum of taxpayers. Administrative efficiency, transparency in how revenues are allocated, and clear communication with the public would be critical components of any successful rollout. The dialogue underscores the importance of practical planning and phased implementation to avoid unintended consequences for taxpayers and for the wider economy.
For now, the proposal remains a topic of discussion among lawmakers, economists, and civic groups. The core questions revolve around fairness, the design of tax brackets, and the real-world impact on city planning and social welfare programs. As policymakers weigh the potential benefits against possible drawbacks, the public will be watching closely to see how any adjustments to the tax code might balance the need for revenue with the goal of sustaining growth and opportunity across regions. The debate continues to unfold as officials review data, consider international comparisons, and assess administrative readiness for such a reform in the future.