“Alamy, this newsletter for this month is yours! Do you already know what you are going to write about?”. Those were the words of encouragement that brought me here.
After analyzing some themes, I thought it would be interesting to analyze the proposals for a tax reform from the candidates for the presidency of the republic that appear in the main polls of voting intentions.
In a search of government proposal plans, to my surprise, I found similar words in all proposals: simplification, reduction, balance, development, etc. It felt like I was reading the same text over and over again.
The intention of the proposals is to simplify our tax system, reduce the tax burden, increase income tax and decrease consumption, balance public accounts and promote social and economic development. If the tax reform is necessary and a consensus for all government officials and those that want to rise to the federal government, if it is for the good of the country, regardless of the political party, why do the proposals “stumble”? Do we need new proposals?
The political parties contesting the presidential elections have representatives in the National Congress and could vote on one of the three tax reform proposals that were stationed there. They are: PEC (proposal for and amendment to the constitution) 45/2019, PEC 110/2019 and PL (bill of law) 3887/2020. The three bring similar concepts and could merge to be a single proposal without a political party or representative. It would be the proposal that everyone has wanted and desired for decades. Let’s see.
- The three projects bring the concept of simplification. The intention is to eliminate several taxes and remain with one. The difference between one or the other proposal is the inclusion or exclusion of one or another tax. The intention to simplify is at the base of these proposals.
- The three projects present a proposal to reduce the tax burden and increase the income tax and reduce the tax on consumption. They have different criteria, but with the same objective.
- The three projects deal with the importance of keeping public accounts balanced and preserving the distribution of revenues between the Union, States and Municipalities.
The complexity of a tax reform is greater than any candidate. Economists, jurists, tax experts, politicians, managers, etc., must participate, opine, criticize, discuss and evaluate a balanced reform. In other words, the candidates’ commitment should be with a proposal already discussed by various sectors and specialists. The 2019 PECs, for example, underwent good discussions and could be taken forward by the next president.
We don’t need new proposals. We need to vote on one of the existing ones. This could be a proposal.
