The state will punish the departed Russians with an income tax of 30%

The economy doesn’t really need it.

It seems that the Russian state has once again confused economics and politics, or rather, placed them on the same “patriotic” board. As State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said on his telegram channel, deputies are working on a bill to abolish preferences and increase the tax rate for those citizens who left the Russian Federation after February 24.

According to him, such persons should not be encouraged, but, on the contrary, should be punished. And the ruble. “So it will be fair… After all, those who left not only work remotely in Russian companies, but also enjoy all the benefits that it gives them in accordance with the legislation of our country,” Volodin noted. Well, overall a good point. But there are important nuances.

To take a closer look at these subtleties, not to cut off the shoulder, are called not only by independent analysts, but also by the most sovereign people. For example, according to the head of the Duma Committee on Labor, Social Policy and Veterans Affairs Yaroslav Nilov, possible restrictions for Russians who went abroad (after the start of the SVO and partial mobilization) “should be very carefully discussed at the site of a tripartite commission with the participation of employers, trade unions and members of the government “. True, Nilov had in mind another, no less punitive bill in essence (it was previously announced by Senator Andrey Klishas) – a ban on remote work for tax non-residents of the Russian Federation in a number of specialties, primarily government officials, transport workers and employees from the field of information security.

Commenting on Klishas’ remark “we cannot understand whether they pay all taxes,” Nilov recalled that personal income tax and social contributions are paid by the enterprise, regardless of where the employee is located: in the country, in another city or abroad. “The employer sends wages to his card. All taxes are withheld and contributions are paid for the worker.”

At the same time, according to the law already in force, if a person lives outside the Russian Federation for more than 180 days a year, he is not considered a tax resident. Accordingly, income tax is levied on him in the amount of not 13%, but 30%. After February 24 and September 21 (the dates of the beginning of the special operation and the announcement of partial mobilization), hundreds of thousands of citizens left Russia, they moved mainly to neighboring countries – Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan. At the same time, many of them de jure remain in Russian companies and work remotely.

Is it possible to influence such a contingent economically? And how to separate those who ran away from the draft, from those who left for purely industrial or career motives? There were quite a few of them in the old days, without any special operations… After all, no one has yet canceled the constitutional right to freedom of movement, travel outside the Russian Federation and an equally unhindered return home. People who have moved abroad can be treated differently, but one must understand that they all have certain competencies and knowledge, which will be difficult to replace in the near future, and in some cases even impossible. An increased tax of 30% is fraught with a final rupture of all relations between relocators and their employers in the Russian Federation: neither of them needs such a fiscal burden. Those who left will start working exclusively for foreign companies, and the domestic economy will lose valuable, irreplaceable personnel, which is absolutely sad in a crisis.

Draconian measures will not confuse a person who has already left or is just planning to do so: in his actions he is guided by the risks that exist for him in Russia. As for maintaining relations with the employer, much depends on the interest of the latter. If it exists, the parties will look for workarounds by mutual agreement, conclude fictitious contracts. For example, with the wife of the fugitive who remained in the Russian Federation or with his parents. Or, at worst, with some intermediary – for a certain commission. Another option: the employer fully bears the costs. Perhaps, in some cases, companies will either hide the fact of working with tax residents, or formally open other legal entities to register remote non-resident employees as self-employed. And so on, the options are countless.

Here the principled position is important: whether to list those who left as “enemies of the people” and do everything to cut off their way back to their homeland, or still leave the gate open so that these people can make their contribution, including tax, not to foreign but our economy.