According to an unprecedented study by the Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA), the collection of property taxes (IPTU and IPVA) and social security contributions go to eat a large proportion of the income of poor families in the case of the richest. By Estadow / Broadcast.
Personal Income Tax (IRPF), although it has rates that increase salaries, loses its progressive character in higher levels of the population, who are exempt from profits and dividends.
The so-called tax “regressiveness” (i.e., when the tax is weighed more on the poorest) is surveyed by the researcher of the idea Pedro Humbarto Carvalho, based on data from 57 thousand households obtained by the Survey of Family Budget (POF) is. In the field by IBGE in 2008–2009 and 2017/2018.
Four taxes were analyzed: IPTU (municipal), IPVA (state), social security contributions and IRPF (both federal). Of this group, the most regressive, which weighs more in the pocket of the poorest, is IPVA.
To find out whether the tax structure is regressive or not, the researcher cut only those households that were effective contributors to each tax.
In the study, Carvalho also gives suggestions on how to deal with problems. After more than a year of work by the mixed commission and discussing whether or not to include states and municipalities in the ambit of reforms, Congress finally resolved a few days before the tax reform proposal for progress in Congress did. The Mayor, Arthur Lira (Progressistas-AL), promised to release the report on next Monday, 3 May.
Among IPVA collectors, the tax consumed 2.2% of the income of those who earned up to three minimum wages, a percentage that dropped to only 0.7% of those with incomes above the 36% minimum income. According to Carvalho, the regression of IPVA was already present in the POF of 2008–2009, but was pronounced with an increase in the acquisition of motorcycles by lower class families in the most recent period. Among the poorest 43% of households, 19% owned a motorcycle or car in 2008–2009, a percentage that jumped to 38% over the next decade.
The biggest problem, says the researcher, is that the Supreme Federal Court (STF) understands that the collection of rates according to the vehicle’s contribution capacity or value is unconstitutional, which would make the tax more progressive (that is, it would weigh on the poor. Less)). Today, only car class discrimination is allowed.
“Today there is selectivity, not progressivity. And there is no tax on boats or private jets or planes. The rich are not paying until the end. Then in tax reform, it would be possible to expand the IPVA calculation base”, he says . . An initiative within the reach of governors to try to reduce incidents on low-income families would be to raise rates and give certain discounts to all.
In the case of IPTU, families with incomes up to three minimum wages are allocated 1.1% of their income to pay tax, compared to 0.7% of those earning 12 minimum wages or more.
According to Carvalho, many families do not collect IPTUs because they live on rent, are in rural areas, are exempt or may be in default. But the design of the tribute is unconvincingly supportive of those who live in valuable areas and, as a result, possess assets of greater value.
“To update a general scheme of values, the municipality needs approval of the chamber, a political process that is still subject to judiciary scrutiny. It is politically very difficult. Apart from a delayed collection, it ends Happening. Unreasonable “, he says. For that, every four years, a solution will be taken in the Generic Value Plan for the constitutional studies from time to time.
According to the study, social security contributions were also shown to be regressive. For families with income up to three salaries, 4.5% has been allocated for Social Security, families with income above 36 (3.4%).
IRPF is the only tax that did not show regressive structure. There is no tax, up to three minimum wages. Subsequently, the percentage of income earmarked for payment has reached 2.9% at 12 minimum wages, 9.1% in 36 floors.
However, this progressivity only comes to a standstill when the maximum 1% of the population is reached. The main reason, according to the researcher, is pejotização (high-earning liberal professionals and those who pay tax as a legal entity), exempt from profits and dividends, dissemination of income that does not come from work (rent, capital gains, financial investment )) And easy to avoid.
Carvalho still draws attention that the richest 1.2% IRPF in Brazil has an effective rate of 7.2%, while in the United States this percentage is 26.8%. For him, the correction of distortions includes the taxation of profits and dividends and the regulation of tax on large fortunes, which can be charged at small rates (1% to 2.5%) with an annual adjustment declaration.
Information is from the newspaper s. State of Paulo.