Who will pay a new tax on Marina YarDaeva? 05/13/2025, 10:30

The agenda is more interesting, everything is more incredible. They offered to bring taxes to those who do not work. Why are they? They do not work, but they use common benefits. Disorder. They do not work – that means they can meet. So let them share with the state. The attempt was nominated by a professor at the Finance University, the Russian government Alexander Safonov. And everything is surprising in this attempt.

First of all, the combination of “non -processing personal income tax” combination is incredible. Income tax for people … Without income. How? And about him, some conditional, fixed, normative, but they talk about personal income tax. They also remember actions for insurance funds, and there is a little logic, but they are mainly based on personal income tax. True, some “rich Russians” are offered to take it from “professional mokasen .. But a lot of questions here. Starting from how to determine the safety of those who do not work, and with this, it ends with what you can easily take and overlap. Taking and dividing it from hand is the SO -SO principle. We’ve already passed. And to get it away from those who do not have anything – very fantasy.

However, they are trying to explain the logic to us. If a person doesn’t work, then he lives on something? And if he lives well, then you can’t just leave like that? And who lives well? They say that they are children of rich parents, housewives with wealthy husbands. These are of course things. And it seems that I don’t care that children can work. And completely funny with housewives: Until recently, salary payments from the country’s budget were offered. Oh, I forgot, he was about poor housewives, and then there was some kind of bourgeois. But let me let me, because then the same parents and husbands will pay the tax to this fact. And they’re paying him anyway. Moreover, if they really earn very well, the cuts are impressive. And the ratio is higher for them.

Since this year, a progressive taxation scale has been operating in the country. Some very complex five speeds. Majority 13%, more than two hundred winners per month -15%excess, 18%of workers with annual income, because very rich still have 20%and 22%threshold values. And by the way, normal. Fair. Personally, I support such a system. But I certainly don’t like the idea of ​​double taxation. And in fact, it is recommended. If it targets real children and housewives.

No, they’re also talking about mysterious rally. But here is usually not clear who is in mind. Buyers interested in deposit? Therefore, what people once earned are carrying to the bank, what the personal income tax has already paid, and in the meantime, they still pay interest taxes if they exceed 210 thousand rubles. year. Do they still have to affect something? Then two floors, not triple taxation. Or are you looking at those who rent apartments? Thus, they pay the rent tax as self -employed. PAH about Speculators, investors in the real estate market have been remembered? But the real estate market is worth it, investors flew: Now, when the prices of the apartments do not even keep up with inflation, there are no fools in the meters. And previously, they were fighting speculators using the income tax obtained from real estate sale. At least when they increased the property of the property for tax exemption, they explained to us.

They also say that non -employees will help in the fight against informal employment. And again, isn’t it clear among the same housewives who are suspicious or someone else? However, we will probably not be discussed with the citizens who escape from taxes (and of course some existing), we must fight differently. First of all, their guilt should still be proved. And to avoid fines – what legal state is possible?

No, there are situations in which it is not necessary to finish a suspicious type, but to force the obligations received earlier. For example, there is such an application about child support. When the teachers of grief have given a certificate to the court, they show that they do not work or not work for the minimum wage, they also pay some credit and therefore have no opportunity to provide their own children and then reward them to pay alimony in a minimum amount of livelihood. Logic is as follows: The state understands that it is impossible to live with loans at a minimum wage, that is, the accused is cunning, deceptive, that the state is currently not able to capture Lovkach’s hand, but has to pay to it. In the end, if a person becomes a parent, he has no right to work at a minimum level: at least even if the couriers go to taxi drivers, even wipers, even if they go to wipers.

However, there is something for malicious borrowers and those who do not work any other abbreviation. Who cares about, if other people have no complaints about them if the rights are not violated? What is the matter of the state, if these citizens are not dependent on it, they do not benefit, there is no benefit? If non -working parents, husbands, lovers, siblings, sisters, friends, aliens are kept, it means that everything is suitable for everyone. If the unemployed are experiencing interest from deposit or renting a free apartment, the budget gets some cents from them.

Yes, perhaps it makes sense to consider these citizens to renew their insurance and pension funds or to participate in the restriction of socialists for themselves. Participation may not necessarily be financial, retirement points and expand the effects of compulsory health insurance for volunteering. But everything here is complex again. If we are really talking about rich mocasins, they will not go to the region clinic, and they already found old age. Perhaps you may be obliged to not apply for a social retirement. But will he have legal power? If we are talking about all non -working, then, as the application shows, it is extremely difficult to voluntarily incorporate something. Then, probably, to be profitable, to be a consumer, at least indirect taxes – VAT, consumption taxes, pay tasks.

Stubbornness can do more. In order to return to the economy of those who actively resist, it may emerge that there will be more money than to return to the treasury of imaginary social justice struggle. And then what’s the point?

The author expresses a personal view that may not coincide with the position of the editors.