[Ishiba Administration] Explains taxation on commuting allowances: "Commuting allowances are subject to labor" and "It's unfair that there are differences" → So incomprehensible that it causes a huge outrage!

According to Abema Times...

On the 18th, at the House of Councillors Budget Committee, Constitutional Democratic Party member Kyoko Murata questioned the issue of "commuting allowances."

In the Diet, Representative Murata asked, "Does the standard monthly salary, which is the basis for calculating social insurance premiums, include commuting allowances? If so, what is the basis for this?"

　In response to this question, Kanuma, Director General of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's Insurance Bureau, replied, "Under the law, remuneration for social insurance is defined as everything that a worker receives in exchange for work, regardless of whether it is called wages, salary, allowance, bonus, or any other term. With regard to commuting allowances, employers are not legally required to pay them, and given that there are workplaces that do not provide commuting allowances, from the perspective of fairness in the burden among insured persons, it is included in remuneration as something received in exchange for work."

(slightly)

Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Fukuoka responded, "While the payment of commuting allowances is voluntary for employers, I understand that it is included in social insurance remuneration as compensation for labor, also from the perspective of fairness in the burden between insured persons who receive the allowance and those who do not. With that in mind, excluding commuting allowances from remuneration raises issues such as the legitimacy of excluding only transportation expenses and commuting allowances, when there are a variety of other allowances such as family allowances and attendance allowances, and also issues of fairness with those people who have transportation expenses and commuting allowances included in their basic salary, and I believe this needs to be carefully considered."

　Furthermore, Representative Murata asked, "Since income tax is said to be based on actual expenses, shouldn't the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare treat it in the same way?" In response, Minister Fukuoka replied, "With social insurance, unlike taxes, there are counter-payments. In that sense, by making commuting allowances and all other things based on the burden of insurance premiums, this is reflected in the amounts of benefits such as employee pension insurance and health insurance, and compensation is generous. I think that this is one aspect to consider."

[See source for full text...]

The following is from X

【himuroPosted by:

People who commute by train simply have their company reimburse them for the amount they paid in advance for a commuter pass, but does that mean they have to pay the difference between that and tax out of their own pocket?

— Brown cat🐈 (@Chashiro1234567) March 21, 2025

引用元　https://times.abema.tv/articles/-/10169083?page=1#goog_rewarded

Recent Posts

Everyone's comments

• If you're serious about this, it's pretty damn crazy...
• My mouth is wide open...
• It seems like the tax increase justification has finally come to an end. Will there be a breathing tax next month?
• Maybe they don't understand the meaning of commuter allowances, which don't go into the pockets of salaried workers but into rail and bus companies.
• Huh?????? What's this??????
• You won't be able to go to work! Ishihara is crazy.
• We live in the countryside, so we need a car. Due to the rise in gasoline prices, we have just received a higher commuting allowance. I use that commuting allowance to pump gasoline, right? How many times are they taxing that gasoline? What's more, they're taxing my commuting allowance too, it's ridiculous!
• Don't mess with me👊😠 Stupid eggplant😠💨
• Maybe you've only ever driven a chauffeured company car in your life.
• By that logic, you should still get paid while commuting.
• If so, commuting time counts as working hours, right?
• There is no way that a member of parliament who only drives a black luxury car can understand the feelings of a worker who commutes to work on a commuting allowance. End this heavy tax administration!!
• I personally don't think it makes sense that monthly social insurance remuneration should be included in the calculation.
• People who commute from far away have to work longer hours and pay more taxes. That must be hell.
• What are they taxing and what are they using it for? There are hundreds of trillions of yen in special accounts, and they are being used for bureaucratic reassignments, politicians' jobs, and the Japan Business Federation. The people are being squeezed out of their small salaries, making life difficult. Young people need to prepare for their retirement. They cannot afford to indulge in slush funds or line their pockets like the LDP politicians and bureaucrats do!
• It's no good if we have a bunch of incompetent people who only think about squeezing us dry
• Before that happens, I think they should stop using green cars for lawmakers.
• Isn't this what they call "abuse of power"?
• As you say, commuting allowances are non-taxable expenses incurred to travel to one's workplace in order to work and live. Taxing them would be a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution (right to life).
• All members of parliament should be given an annual salary of 500 million yen, all allowances should be abolished, and they should be required to commute by train every day.

JapanNewsNavi Editorial Department A's Opinion

The announcement of the policy to make commuting allowances taxable has caused angry voices on X. Comments such as "There's no way this can be tolerated!" were trending, and I completely agree with this. This is because this debate is not just about money, but also about fundamental values ​​such as understanding the lives of working people and the fairness of the system.

First of all, a commuting allowance is a payment to cover the transportation costs necessary to commute to work. Traveling from home to the workplace is part of the job, but is not included in working hours. Therefore, it is natural that the company should at least cover that cost, and that is why commuting allowances exist.

However, in this discussion, it is explained that commuting allowances are treated as "compensation for labor." I cannot accept this logic at all. Commuting is a preparatory act before starting work, and is not directly related to the company's performance as a business. I feel that it is unreasonable to consider commuting allowances as part of compensation while ignoring the reality that without them, employees would not be able to commute to work.

In addition, the explanation that "it creates an unfairness between those who receive it and those who do not" is understandable in theory, but it is far from a realistic sense. People who work remotely do not receive commuting allowances because they do not actually commute, which is due to differences in occupation and working style. In the first place, for people who work on the premise that commuting allowances are provided, the fact that the allowance is taxable means a substantial reduction in take-home pay.

Moreover, it was estimated that as a result of the tax, monthly social insurance premiums could increase by more than 1 yen. This amounts to about 8000 yen per year. This is an amount that cannot be ignored by many workers. Moreover, since employers will also have to pay for this, the impact on companies will be significant. I think it is putting the cart before the horse when making employees commute to work puts them at an economic disadvantage.

It is certainly important to maintain the social insurance system, and it is necessary for all workers to pay their fair share of insurance premiums. However, it should be designed in a way that workers can accept. I feel that it is too one-sided to make commuting allowances, which are close to actual costs, subject to insurance premiums just because "there are counter-benefits."

What bothers me even more is the Minister's statement that "it is unfair to exclude only transportation expenses and commuting allowances from remuneration," and that exclusion should be carefully considered. It is true that there are family allowances and attendance allowances, but these are based on the company's own evaluation and support, and are different in nature from expenses such as commuting allowances, which are necessary for everyone to commute to work. Treating things of different natures uniformly and saying "fairness is..." seems to be shifting the direction of the discussion.

Furthermore, even if a reorganization of the system is necessary, in the current situation where household finances are being squeezed by rising prices and utility costs, it seems that there is a lack of caution in proceeding with revisions that will effectively increase taxes. With rising prices now a key word that is of concern to many families, it is inevitable that introducing a policy that will reduce take-home pay at this time will be perceived as ignoring public sentiment.

Many of us are already living on the edge. Commuting takes time and effort, and many of us have to ride crowded trains to get to work every day. Rather than rewarding such efforts, taxing commuting expenses and raising insurance premiums shows no respect for working people.

What politics needs now is not to go into the intricacies of the system, but to focus on the reality of people's lives. How many people will be affected by commuting allowances becoming taxable? How will household spending change? To what extent will the burden on companies increase? I think we need to carefully explain these realistic effects and make an effort to translate them into a form that the public can understand.

At the very least, if taxation of commuting allowances proceeds in this way, many workers will feel that "the more they work, the more they lose out." This will also lead to a decline in motivation throughout society. If fair compensation is not given for work, or if working actually increases the burden, it cannot be said to be a healthy working environment.

I am not in a position to immediately reject the tax on commuting allowances, but at the very least I have doubts about the explanation and the way in which it was being carried out. Before making excuses about fairness or consistency in the system, we should first listen to the voices of those on the ground. If we are to review the system, we should start from the actual situation in which workers find themselves, and not proceed with things based on armchair theory.

Fairness in the system is important, but what is even more important is a "realistic sense." Commuting allowances are neither a joy nor a luxury of work, but simply a necessary expense. I think more careful discussion is needed before society can accept the idea of ​​making them taxable.

Written by: Editorial Department A