Brazil plans to cut tax breaks, curb education spending in fiscal package, say sources
BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazil's government is negotiating a package of fiscal measures with congressional leaders that includes cuts to tax exemptions and limits on the growth of transfers to an education fund, according to sources familiar with the talks.
After initially signaling the measures would be unveiled on Tuesday, Finance Minister Fernando Haddad said they would be disclosed only after further discussions with party leaders on Sunday.
First reported by local newspaper Valor Economico and confirmed by three government sources who requested anonymity, the package is being prepared as an alternative to the controversial hike in the financial transactions tax (IOF) announced last week, which drew broad backlash from lawmakers and business sectors.
The plan focuses heavily on reducing tax benefits, a longstanding target of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's leftist administration, said three sources.
His economic team often criticizes the volume of tax exemptions that weaken public revenues, though previous attempts to roll them back have seen limited success in Congress. That includes a payroll tax break for companies, which remains in place without due compensation.
One of the sources said the new package includes a proposed constitutional amendment that would establish rules to curb growth in transfers to the Fund for the Development of Basic Education.
A similar initiative in last year's fiscal package was watered down by Congress, which blocked efforts to redirect more of the fund's resources to full-time education spending.
The new measures aim to create fiscal space for the government to revise the recent IOF tax decree, which increased rates on a range of credit, foreign exchange, and pension transactions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
S&P 500, Nasdaq hover near record highs on September rate cut hopes
By Johann M Cherian and Sanchayaita Roy (Reuters) - The benchmark S&P 500 and the Nasdaq hovered near record highs on Wednesday as investors were increasingly confident that the Federal Reserve could restart its monetary policy easing cycle next month. Signs that U.S. tariffs on imports have not fully filtered into headline consumer prices came as a relief for investors this week as they scour for insights on the impact trade uncertainty has had on the economy. Despite data showing underlying price pressures were on the rise, markets also factored in recent weakness in the job market and a shake-up at the Federal Reserve as they leaned in favor of a potential dovish move by the central bank in September. Traders are now fully pricing in a 25 basis points interest rate cut, according to the CME's FedWatch Tool, up from 89.2% last week. The central bank last lowered borrowing costs in December. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said he thought an aggressive half-point cut was possible given recent weak employment numbers. Stagflation "was the first word that came to my mind when I saw this CPI report yesterday," said Mark Hackett, chief market strategist at Nationwide, referring to Tuesday's data coming on the heels of a number of other reports pointing to a cooling economy. "The slowdown that we're seeing is probably fairly temporary, at least at this point. So inflation is something that we're absolutely worried about because we saw that uptick." At 12:18 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 363.26 points, or 0.82%, to 44,821.52, the S&P 500 gained 9.34 points, or 0.15%, to 6,455.15 and the Nasdaq Composite advanced 15.77 points, or 0.07%, to 21,697.97. The blue-chip Dow was within 1% away from an all-time high and the Russell 2000 index, which tracks rate-sensitive small-cap companies, added 0.1.3% to hit a six-month high. Investors were also taking notice of other sectors following the recent tech-led rally in U.S. stocks that have pushed valuations of the S&P 500 above long-term averages. Healthcare stocks, which have been beaten down for much of the year, led gains among the 11 S&P 500 sectors with a 1.4% rise, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 index was marginally lower. Later in the day, investors will scrutinize remarks of a number of policymakers, especially Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee. CoreWeave, which is backed by Nvidia, slumped 17.6% after the AI data center operator reported a bigger-than-expected quarterly net loss. Eyes are also on developments surrounding the China revenue-sharing deal the U.S. government signed with top chipmakers, which the White House said could be expanded to others in the sector. Paramount Skydance jumped 30%. The company won exclusive broadcasting rights to the Ultimate Fighting Championship for seven years earlier this week. In geopolitics, traders also were keen on a meeting between Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin on the Ukraine conflict scheduled on Friday. Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by a 2.96-to-1 ratio on the NYSE and by a 2.28-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq. The S&P 500 posted 37 new 52-week highs and two new lows, while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 131 new highs and 49 new lows. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Federal authority over DC is nothing new, and it is needed again
President Trump this week moved from rhetoric to action in his push for more federal control of Washington, D.C. Citing a ' public safety emergency,' he is deploying National Guard troops to support federal officers already in place, taking direct control of the city's police department under a provision of the 1973 Home Rule Act, and pledging to 'get rid of the slums.' Democrats' reaction has been swift and condemnatory. They cast the move as the latest instance of his authoritarian overreach. 'This is what dictators do,' California Gov. Gavin Newsom proclaimed on X. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the move had ' no basis in law.' The New York Times ran the headline: 'Trump threatens federal takeover of Washington after Member of DOGE is Assaulted.' In reality, the Constitution not only allows this but anticipates federal intervention in the capital's affairs, at least in some circumstances. That's because the District of Columbia was created precisely so that the seat of government would not depend on any state for its security, funding or order. Washington is not a state and never has been. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to 'exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the District. This is a sweeping authority that has been used repeatedly. Local self-government in D.C. is a modern experiment, not an inalienable right. Until the 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the city was run directly by federally appointed officials. The 1801 Organic Act placed Washington under congressional control; in the 1870s, Congress briefly allowed a territorial-style government, but after mismanagement and debt spiraled, it reimposed direct federal rule. Even under home rule, Congress has retained authority to override local laws, control the District's budget, and, in emergencies, reassert direct control, as it did from 1995 to 2001 through a Financial Control Board during a local fiscal crisis. A president cannot unilaterally abolish home rule, but he can press Congress to act, and he can invoke his existing emergency powers. Trump's actions pursue those avenues and certainly don't defy the Constitution. For example, the Home Rule Act explicitly allows the president to assume control of the police if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Trump's order triggers that provision. Although Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser argues those conditions do not exist, the statute leaves it to the federal government's discretion. The case for intervention is straightforward: D.C. has an image problem utterly unfit for its role as the nation's capital. It consistently ranks among the most dangerous cities in America. Annual homicides were just under 200 last year and more than twice their level in 2012, despite Bowser's rote claims of 'declining crime.' What decline there is mostly reflects the nationwide post-COVID drop in crime rather than any uniquely successful policy. High-profile incidents underscore the issue. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) was carjacked at gunpoint near Capitol Hill. Around the same time, the Secret Service vehicle assigned to Naomi Biden — the granddaughter of the then-president — was broken into in Georgetown, which is arguably the nicest part of the city. Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) was assaulted by a homeless man in the elevator of her apartment building. Federal employees, foreign diplomats and tourists face the same risks as residents. Many residents and much of the press speak as if the city belongs exclusively to its 700,000 inhabitants and their mayor. But the capital was never meant to be insulated from national accountability. Congress intended the District to be a showcase of national governance, and the question is whether the current model of home rule without meaningful federal oversight is meeting that standard. Such disorder compels one to ask whether Congress's responsibility to 'exercise exclusive legislation' has been neglected. Precedent shows that when D.C. cannot ensure stability against, as Trump described Monday, 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,' federal reengagement is both lawful and at times necessary. If opponents reject Trump's vision for federal involvement, they should make the substantive case for how home rule can be reformed to meet the moment. But it is disingenuous to suggest the Constitution forbids such intervention. If Congress refuses to act, the city's fate will rest on whatever limited tools the executive already possesses. As for Newsom's lecture on 'what dictators do,' perhaps the first governor to lock down his state during COVID and the last to reopen schools — the man who turned the nation's largest state into a poster child for woke dysfunction — should sit this one out. Trump has answered the question of whether he'll use his constitutional tools. The progressive left must now decide whether to produce a plan for home rule that works or just keep shouting 'authoritarian' while the capital continues to decline.
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump looks to extend DC police takeover beyond 30 days
President Trump on Wednesday said he'll seek 'long-term extensions' from Congress to extend his federal takeover of the Washington, D.C., police amid his crackdown on crime in the nation's capital, declining to rule out the possibility of a national emergency. 'Well, if it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,' Trump said, when asked about whether he's talked to the House and Senate about extending the takeover. He added that he expects to be before Congress 'very quickly' and snag Republican support. Trump on Monday put the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under federal control and activated National Guard troops, painting the district as being ravaged by violent crime. To do so, he invoked an emergency provision of the Home Rule Act, which lets the president take temporary control of the District's police in emergency conditions. Congress must pass a joint resolution to extend it beyond 30 days. Speaking to reporters at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday, Trump said he's aiming to go before Congress with a crime bill that will 'pertain initially to D.C.' but serve as a 'very positive example' for elsewhere. 'And we're going to be asking for an extension on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days. Thirty days is, that's, by the time you do it — we're going to have this in good shape. … We're going to do this very quickly, but we're going to want extensions,' Trump said. 'I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will. But I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) has hit back at Trump's move, calling it an 'authoritarian push' by the administration. The Democratic Mayors Association called it a 'political charade' that doesn't match up with the actual crime statistics in the District.
