Brazil's central government posts higher-than-expected primary surplus in April
The figure represents an increase from the 11.6-billion-real surplus in the same period of last year, driven by higher tax collection, as well as a jump in revenues coming from dividends and the exploration of natural resources, specially oil.
Year-to-date, the central government primary surplus reached 72.4 billion reais, more than double the 31.8-billion-real surplus posted a year earlier.
The improvement has been helped by a favorable base effect, as the government chose to push a hefty bill for court-ordered payments to the second half of the year, whereas those payments were made in the first half in 2024.
In the 12-month period, the primary deficit stood at 5.3 billion reais, or 0.02% of gross domestic product (GDP).
Speaking at a press conference, Treasury Secretary Rogerio Ceron said the central government will probably post a 12-month primary surplus in May.
The government targets a zero primary deficit this year, with a tolerance margin of 0.25% of GDP, meaning it can record a deficit of up to 31 billion reais and still comply with fiscal rules.
($1 = 5.6574 reais)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Daily Mail
When will you be able to retire... and will it be with a state pension?
A stark warning has been sounded that the state pension age could have to rise to 74 for those under-30s. The Institute for Fiscal Studies' pronouncement in the same week that the government announced a state pension review set the cat amongst the pensions. But would Labour - or any party - really hike the state pension age that high? Wouldn't it be political suicide and spark protests in the street? The IFS warning hinged around the triple lock and balancing the books, but it's clear that the risk of the state pension age rising from its current timetable's maximum 68 is high. On this episode of the This is Money podcast, Georgie Frost, Helen Crane and Simon Lambert, discuss what could happen to the state pension, when we might be able to retire and what we all need to do to get there. Pension saving is also under the spotlight and the team discuss how to make the most of your work scheme or a Sipp. Plus, a double tax hit on inheritances is on the way, as pensions are pulled into the net. Does the government need to change tack rather than plough on with a levy that will reach 64 per cent for many affected? The FTSE 100 finally broke through 9,000 this week, is 10,000 on the cards and why is the UK stock market doing well? And finally, buy and hold is the traditional investment mantra, so why does one bitcoin expert say you shouldn't do that and should trade it instead? Listen to the This is Money podcast We publish the podcast every Friday on This is Money and at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music and more. Search for it at your favourite podcast platform. To download Apple Podcasts go to the App store. On Android devices, go to the Google Play store to download the podcast app of your choice. You can press play to listen to this week's full episode on the player above, and wherever you get your podcasts please subscribe and review us if you like the podcast. You can also listen to the latest episode, find the archive and join in the debate in reader comments on the This is Money podcast page.
The Independent
15 hours ago
- The Independent
There won't be a wealth tax – but Rachel Reeves can't afford to rule it out just yet
Normally, when politicians decline to rule something out, a sceptical media and public believe they are about to do it. But there should be one exception to this rule. Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and other ministers are refusing to rule out introducing a wealth tax in this autumn's Budget, when the chancellor is likely to raise taxes by at least £20bn to stick within her fiscal rules. I'm told Starmer and Reeves will not bring in a new wealth tax, such as the 2 per cent levy on assets of more than £10m advocated by a growing number of Labour MPs and Neil Kinnock, the party's former leader, to raise £10bn. A wealth tax is an easy slogan and fits on to a banner. It would do nicely for the Starmer allies hoping to nudge him in a more progressive direction as he seeks a long overdue 'story' for his government. But Reeves and Starmer are not convinced. The chancellor thinks wealth taxes don't work. Twelve developed nations had them in 1990s but only three remain; only one, in Switzerland, brings in lots of money. Reeves burnt her own fingers by targeting non-doms – a process begun by Jeremy Hunt, the outgoing Tory chancellor. I'm told Reeves privately dismissed fears the rich would respond by leaving the UK, saying: "They always say that, but it never happens." It is happening, and she is now considering changing her plan to make worldwide assets, including those in foreign trusts, liable to inheritance tax. One government insider told me: 'People can choose where to pay their taxes. It's very easy to move countries and they are doing it.' A new wealth tax would be complex, take years to introduce and probably not be worth the candle. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said its study found such a tax would 'lower long-run growth and employment, thanks to a decline in foreign and domestic investment. It would make UK businesses more fragile and less competitive, and create strong incentives for capital reallocation and migration.' Why not just say no to a wealth tax now? Reeves offered one explanation to her Tory predecessor Norman Lamont at a Lords committee hearing this week. He told her he found it 'a bit strange' the government has not ruled out the move. Reeves replied that if she ruled out one tax rise, the media would move on to the next option, and assume that one was going to happen if she failed to rule it out. A fair point – but not her only reason. Reeves and Starmer need to build bridges with the parliamentary Labour Party after it filleted their welfare legislation, so rejecting a wealth tax now would inflame tensions. I suspect that when the Budget comes, Reeves and her allies will whisper to Labour MPs they are introducing a form of wealth tax through other measures, while avoiding headlines about implementing a specific one. Another reason not to rule out a wealth tax is to help message discipline. Labour certainly needs more of that: ministers unwittingly fuelled speculation about tax rises in media interviews by giving different definitions of "working people'. Far easier to say taxes are a matter for the Budget and we don't comment in advance. Some senior Labour figures think Reeves's reticence is because she is considering proposals that are close to being a wealth tax – for example, increasing property-based taxes. I think she should bring in higher council tax bands for the most expensive properties. It's ludicrous that this tax is based on 1991 property values, and that in England, people in homes valued at more than £320,000 pay the same amount in their local authority. Reform could be sold as a genuine levelling up measure the Tories flunked as it would cut bills in the north and Midlands while raising them in the south. Alternatively, Reeves could increase capital gains tax for the second Budget running, perhaps by bringing it into line with income tax rates, which are higher. Some in government favour a rise in income tax with the money earmarked for defence, as I have suggested. Another option is to raise the top rate of income tax from 45 per cent to 50 per cent. But both ideas would leave Labour open to the charge of breaching its manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. Reeves could argue that circumstances had changed in a more dangerous world. But breaking its promise might be a step too far for an already deeply unpopular PM and party. I don't think there will be a wealth tax. However, the rich shouldn't celebrate. The Budget will increase existing taxes on the wealthy, in line with the government's mantra of protecting "working people", while ensuring 'those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden'. Health warning: creating losers is not pain-free for them or the government, as Reeves discovered when she brought in the ' family farms tax '. But reforming some taxes under a better banner – 'fair tax' – is her best shot.
The Independent
4 days ago
- The Independent
MPs call for local authorities to be handed control of council tax
Councils should be given control over council tax as the current broken link between the local charge and the quality of services risks undermining local democracy, MPs have warned. An inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government concluded that councils should be given interim powers ahead of reform of 'the most unfair and regressive tax in use in England today', which it said should be more of a priority for the Government. This would include giving individual authorities the power to revalue properties in their area, define property bands, set the rates for those bands, and apply discounts, the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee said. The report said a broader devolution of fiscal powers, such as applying tourist tax, should also form part of fixing local government finances, which have been under growing strain since the onset of austerity in the 2010s led to reduced funding. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner recently said she wanted 'more push' towards fiscal devolution as part of the Government's pledge to transfer central decision making to local areas. The committee also recommended that central government ringfencing of funding be replaced with 'a rigorous outcomes-based system of accountability', so that local authorities are held accountable for achieving against a set of agreed outcomes within their overall budgets, not for meeting spending targets. Council tax bill rises hit 5% in April for the third year in a row, as almost all councils increased bills up to, or close to, the maximum permitted. The revaluation of properties has long been called for, with council tax bands in England still based on property values in 1991. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the most expensive properties (Band H) attract three times as much tax as the least valuable (Band A) despite being worth more than eight times more now, as prices have risen most in affluent areas. 'Council tax is therefore both increasingly out of date and arbitrary, and highly regressive with respect to property values,' it added. A recent analysis commissioned by the County Councils Network found allowing councils to administer and retain taxes generated locally would boost funding for services by more than £4 billion in many areas and 'supercharge' economic growth. Florence Eshalomi, Labour chair of the committee said: 'When residents are paying more and more in taxes but seeing less and less in regular, everyday services, such as libraries and fixing potholes, then trust in local democracy is at risk of being undermined. 'Government in England is overcentralised. The current financial pressures on local government are also driven largely by mandatory, high-cost, demand-led services, such as social care and special educational needs or disabilities, where councils have little control over these needs. 'Councils are trapped in a straitjacket by central government, with local authorities lacking the flexibility or control to devise creative, long-term, preventative solutions which could offer better value for money. 'If, as a country, we are going to deliver growth and improve local services, Westminster needs to ease its grip and let councils have more power to control their own affairs and be accountable to their own electorates.' The report also called called for the Government to reconsider its decision to freeze local housing allowance rates and extend its support for local authorities to acquire new housing stock through the local authority housing fund. Responding to the findings, the Local Government Association (LGA) said the findings provide further evidence of the fragile state of local government finances. Pete Marland, chair of the LGA's economy and resources board, said: 'Greater financial certainty and a simpler funding system are important. However, all councils remain under pressure and face having to increase council tax bills to try and protect services at the same time as making further cutbacks. 'A sustainable, long-term financial model for local government must lead to all councils having adequate resources to meet growing cost and demand pressures.' London Councils, which represents the capital's 32 boroughs, said the report shows 'change is long overdue', but raised concerns over the Government's plans for changing the way funding is distributed. Claire Holland, chair of London Councils, said: 'The Government's plans to reform council funding are pivotal for ensuring local areas receive funding that genuinely matches their levels of need and enables them to cope with fast-rising costs and pressures. 'It's right that the Government is targeting deprivation in the new formula, but we are concerned that the measures used in the current proposals will not sufficiently account for London's extreme housing poverty. This could mean London is left without the funding we need to deliver vital local services and return to financial stability.' A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'The Government is taking decisive action to fix the broken council funding system, so local leaders can deliver the vital public services their communities rely on. 'We have announced over £5 billion of new grant funding for local services on top of the £69 billion already made available this year to boost council finances, and we will go further to reform the funding system to make it fit for the future. 'This will ensure councils get the support they need and protect residents from further costs by keeping a 5% limit on the amount council tax can be raised without a referendum.'
