The majority of the population considers that the management of the public budget is a serious problem and that the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva spends more than it can afford. On the other hand, most Brazilians defend the payment of benefits linked to the minimum wage and the maintenance of the Health and Education floors, which put pressure on public accounts. There is also a perception that the government should cut parliamentary amendments and super salaries for civil servants.
The data comes from research by Instituto Ideia, formerly Ideia Big Data, commissioned by Movimento Orçamento Bem Gasto and obtained by Estadão.
Last year, the movement launched a manifesto in defense of changes in public accounts. Among the signatories are economists Persio Arida, Edmar Bacha, Arminio Fraga, Henrique Meirelles, Mailson da Nóbrega, Elena Landau, Felipe Salto and Fabio Giambiagi.
When contacted, the government did not respond.
The survey interviewed 1,518 people between December 3 and 8, 2025, in all regions of the country. The estimated margin of error is 2.5 percentage points, plus or minus.
Six out of ten Brazilians consider that public budget management is a serious problem for society. For 55% of those interviewed, the federal government currently spends more than it can.
Continues after advertising
Corruption is identified as the country’s main problem by 31% of Brazilians. The economy – with topics such as inflation, unemployment, tax increases and poverty – appears in second place, with 17%.
In the field of public accounts, corruption also leads (39%), followed by poor management and waste (19%), excessive spending (15%), high public debt (8%) and insufficient revenue (4%).
The federal government’s debt, which reached 78.7% of GDP in 2025 and is expected to approach 84% of GDP in 2026, is considered a very serious problem by 58% of those interviewed.
Seven out of ten fully or partially support the creation of a rule to control the growth of public spending. Currently, the government adopts the fiscal framework, approved in 2023, but many economists estimate that the rule will only last until 2027, after which a more robust fiscal change or adjustment will be necessary.
For 78% of those interviewed, benefits paid by the government should be adjusted annually in accordance with the minimum wage. Social security benefits, the Continuous Payment Benefit (BPC), unemployment insurance and the salary bonus are linked to the minimum and are among the fastest growing expenses in the Budget.
Despite the majority support for the link, 31% fully support a change in the rule for organizing public accounts, and another 31% partially support it.
Continues after advertising
In 2024, the government proposed, and Congress approved, a rule that maintains the link to the minimum wage, but limits real growth (above inflation) to 2.5% per year – the same ceiling provided for in the fiscal framework.
A similar situation occurs with the constitutional floors for Health and Education, which link expenses to collection and grow above other expenses submitted to the framework, reducing space for other expenses.
Among those interviewed, 63% defend the existence of a mandatory minimum investment amount. At the same time, 60% fully or partially support changes that give the government more freedom to reallocate these resources.
Continues after advertising
‘Account does not close’
For economist Fabio Giambiagi, associate researcher at FGV/Ibre, the research highlights the need for the government to explain the necessary measures to the population, including during elections.
“If you ask anyone: do you want to pay more or less tax? They will say: I want to pay less. Do you want the government to spend more or less on Health and Education? They will say: spend more. When you put all this together, the math doesn’t add up”, says Giambiagi.
Continues after advertising
Recently, he prepared a study proposing an adjustment in the primary result – the balance between revenues and expenses, not counting debt interest – of 1.3% of GDP in the next presidential term (2027-2030) and 2.5% of GDP by 2035.
The plan foresees zero real growth in public spending in the first year of the next government, elimination of “extra-ceiling” expenses, reduction of the framework’s growth limit from 2.5% to 2% and the floor, from 0.6% to 0%.
Mandatory expense
Continues after advertising
Furthermore, the economist advocates changing the rule for linking mandatory health expenditure, so that expenditure follows the framework ceiling, and promoting the real stabilization of personnel expenditure and transfers to the Basic Education Development Fund (Fundeb), which would then be corrected only by inflation.
“The government has the pedagogical role of exposing these issues to society, defining the agenda and establishing priorities. It will not be the Legislature that will guide this agenda. This begins by treating people, voters and citizens as adults capable of perceiving contradictions and the need to make choices”, he says.
Amendments and super salaries
In the survey, 76% of Brazilians said they fully or partially supported reducing the value of parliamentary amendments. Congress approved R$62 billion for 2026, but President Lula vetoed part of it and blocked another part to restore the ministries’ cash flow.
The Budget foresees R$50 billion in amendments directly controlled by congressmen in 2026, the election year. They represent around 20% of the federal Executive’s discretionary expenses.
Another expense under question is the super salaries paid above the constitutional ceiling for public service. The Federal Supreme Court (STF) ordered the end of the so-called “penduricalhos” – funds that exceed the limit – and is discussing with Congress a transition to implement the measure.
More than half of the population (55%) would fully support the creation of a law to limit super wages. Also considering those who would partially support, the percentage reaches 73%.
According to Giambiagi, the amendments have a relevant impact on expenses and need to be reviewed. Super salaries have a smaller impact on the Budget, but their limitation is important to give legitimacy to other measures.
“Cutting super salaries will not be the solution to the fiscal imbalance. However, from the point of view of the legitimacy of the proposals, it is impossible to touch controversial topics without addressing this issue”, says the economist. “The worker who earns a minimum wage, and who, according to some of us, cannot have readjustments at the current speed, will ask: ‘You insist that I not receive R$20 more per year, but why don’t you go after those who receive half of their income outside the paycheck?’.”
Zero tariff
Another topic discussed was the possibility of the government financing free public transport throughout the country. President Lula commissioned the Minister of Finance, Fernando Haddad, to carry out a study on the measure.
Experts estimate a cost of more than R$90 billion for public coffers. The ministry’s Economic Policy Secretariat issued a favorable opinion on a project that paves the way for benefits, but highlighted that there is no official position from the department on the topic.
The zero tariff has the support of 73% of Brazilians, between favorable and very favorable. Still, 40% would not accept paying more taxes to finance the measure. Another 24% would accept if it was proven that the initiative improves the city, and 17% would agree as long as the additional value was small.
