Everyone wants to help lower-income workers. The fight is over how to pay.
Em um momento em que a desigualdade tributária permanece uma ferida aberta na sociedade brasileira, a Câmara dos Deputados se prepara para votar uma proposta que retiraria cerca de 10 milhões de trabalhadores da base do Imposto de Renda, elevando o limite de isenção para R$ 5.000 mensais. A medida, gestada no governo Lula como promessa de campanha, busca reequilibrar o peso fiscal entre quem vive do salário e quem acumula renda por múltiplas fontes. O custo de R$ 28,5 bilhões anuais seria coberto por uma tributação mínima sobre os que ganham acima de R$ 50 mil por mês — uma escolha que revela, mais do que números, uma disputa sobre quem deve sustentar o Estado.
- A votação na Câmara, marcada para quarta-feira, coloca em jogo uma das maiores reformas tributárias para a base da pirâmide salarial brasileira em anos recentes.
- O ponto de tensão não está na isenção em si — há consenso sobre ela —, mas na proposta de taxar mínimos de 10% sobre os rendimentos totais de quem ganha mais de R$ 600 mil por ano, hoje tributados em média a apenas 2,54%.
- Relator do projeto, o deputado Arthur Lira admite que o verdadeiro nó está em como financiar o benefício, com diversas exceções já negociadas para rendimentos de investimentos, aposentadorias e seguros.
- Se aprovado na Câmara e ratificado pelo Senado, o novo regime entraria em vigor em 2026, transformando a declaração daquele ano no primeiro reflexo concreto da mudança para milhões de contribuintes.
A Câmara dos Deputados pautou para quarta-feira a votação de uma proposta que elevaria o limite de isenção do Imposto de Renda de R$ 3.036 para R$ 5.000 mensais, retirando cerca de 10 milhões de trabalhadores da obrigação tributária. Para quem ganha entre R$ 5.000 e R$ 7.350, um sistema escalonado de descontos garantiria economias que variam de R$ 600 a R$ 4.356 por ano. Acima de R$ 7.350, as alíquotas atuais permanecem inalteradas.
O custo estimado da medida é de R$ 28,5 bilhões anuais — e é exatamente esse número que tornou a proposta polêmica. Para compensar a perda de arrecadação, o governo propôs uma tributação mínima sobre rendimentos acima de R$ 600 mil anuais, chegando a 10% para quem supera R$ 1,2 milhão. O mecanismo somaria salários, aluguéis, dividendos e outras fontes de renda, excluindo heranças e vendas de bens. Segundo o governo, apenas 0,13% dos contribuintes seriam afetados — justamente aqueles que hoje pagam, em média, 2,54% de imposto apesar dos altos rendimentos.
A proposta foi enviada ao Congresso em março pelo governo Lula, para quem a ampliação da isenção foi compromisso central de campanha. Na véspera da votação, o presidente reuniu os presidentes da Câmara e do Senado para discutir o avanço do texto, já aprovado em comissão especial em julho. Se a Câmara der sinal verde, o projeto segue ao Senado, com a expectativa de que as novas regras estejam em vigor a partir de 2026.
Brazil's Chamber of Deputies was set to vote on Wednesday on a proposal that would reshape the country's income tax landscape, lifting roughly 10 million workers out of the tax rolls entirely. The measure would raise the exemption threshold from the current R$3,036—equivalent to two minimum wages—to R$5,000 monthly. For those earning slightly more, a graduated system of partial discounts would apply, extending benefits up to R$7,350 in monthly income.
The math behind the proposal is straightforward on its surface. A worker earning exactly R$5,000 would save R$4,356.89 annually in taxes. Someone at R$5,500 would keep R$3,367.68 more per year through a 75 percent discount. The reductions continue in steps: 50 percent off for those at R$6,000, 25 percent for those at R$6,500, and smaller savings for those between R$6,500 and R$7,000. Above R$7,350, the current tax brackets remain unchanged. In total, the government estimates the exemption and discounts will cost the public treasury R$28.5 billion annually.
That figure is not incidental. It is the reason the proposal has become contentious in Congress. To offset the revenue loss, the federal government proposed a minimum tax on high earners—those bringing in more than R$50,000 monthly, or R$600,000 annually. The mechanism would work by summing all income sources for the year: salary, rental payments, dividends, and other earnings, though inheritances and asset sales would be excluded. Anyone crossing the R$600,000 threshold would face a graduated minimum tax rate climbing to 10 percent for those earning R$1.2 million or more. The government's own analysis suggests this would affect just 0.13 percent of all taxpayers—those who currently pay an average of only 2.54 percent in income tax despite their high earnings.
The compensation measures have proven to be the sticking point. Deputy Arthur Lira, the project's rapporteur, acknowledged in a recent interview that there is consensus around expanding the exemption and discounts themselves. The real challenge, he said, lies in reaching agreement on how to pay for it. The high-income tax proposal includes several carve-outs: certain investment returns, savings account gains, insurance payouts, retirement pensions, and disability pensions would not count toward the minimum tax calculation. For those living abroad, a flat 10 percent minimum tax would apply to dividend remittances. And if a taxpayer's combined minimum tax and corporate tax already exceeds 34 percent—or 45 percent for financial institutions—no additional levy would be imposed.
The proposal itself is not new to Brazilian politics. It emerged from the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and was submitted to Congress in March. Expanding the income tax exemption was a central campaign promise, and the president underscored its importance by hosting a lunch on Tuesday with the heads of both the Chamber and Senate to discuss the measure's progress. The Chamber had already approved the proposal in July through a special committee and was moving it forward under an expedited procedure.
If the Chamber votes to pass it on Wednesday, the bill moves to the Senate for consideration. The government is banking on a relatively swift passage there as well, with the aim of having the new tax rules take effect beginning in 2026. That timeline would mean workers filing their 2026 returns would be the first to benefit from the expanded exemption, while high-income earners would simultaneously face the new minimum tax obligations. The outcome of Wednesday's vote will determine whether this reshaping of Brazil's tax burden moves forward or stalls.
Notable Quotes
There is unanimity to approve the exemption and discounts. The challenge is finding balance on the compensatory measures.— Deputy Arthur Lira, project rapporteur
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the government need to tax high earners to pay for this? Why not just accept the revenue loss?
Because R$28.5 billion a year is not a small number in a country managing its fiscal position carefully. The government is trying to say: we're going to help 10 million lower-income people, but we're not going to blow a hole in the budget doing it. The wealthy will contribute more.
But the high earners currently pay only 2.54 percent in tax. How are they paying so little?
That's the real question. It's because of all the exemptions and deductions built into the system—investment income, rental gains, dividends. The minimum tax is meant to close that gap. Even with the new 10 percent floor, they'd still be paying less than middle-class workers in many cases.
Who actually opposes this? Is it the wealthy, or is it Congress?
Congress is split on the compensation side. Everyone wants to help lower-income workers—that's politically easy. But taxing the rich is always harder. Lira said there's unanimity on the exemption itself. The fight is over whether the high-income tax is the right way to pay for it.
What happens if Congress rejects the high-income tax part but keeps the exemption?
Then you have a R$28.5 billion hole in the budget with no offset. That's probably not sustainable, which is why the government tied them together. But Congress could theoretically separate them and find a different way to compensate.
When would people actually see this in their paychecks?
If it passes this week and the Senate approves it quickly, the new rules would apply to 2026 income. So someone filing taxes in 2027 for 2026 earnings would be the first to benefit. That's why the government is pushing for speed—they want to deliver on this promise before the next election cycle.