The government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) reopened the discussion on charging tax on international purchases of up to US$50, known as the “blouse tax”. The review gained strength after the Minister of Planning, Simone Tebet, stated that the fiscal impact of a possible withdrawal would be limited. The investigation is from the newspaper The Globe.
According to Tebet, revenue from the measure was close to R$2 billion last year, an amount considered manageable within the federal budget. “With or without, this does not have a major impact on the budget,” said the minister, indicating that the issue can be taken to Congress.
The resumption of the debate occurs in a context of political exhaustion. A survey by AtlasIntel in partnership with Bloomberg shows that 62% of Brazilians consider the tax to be a mistake by the government, while 30% consider it a success. Internally, the measure appears among the points of greatest rejection of the government, alongside issues such as public security and the fight against corruption.
The discussion is led mainly by the political wing of Planalto, with the participation of the Minister of the Communication Secretariat, Sidônio Palmeira, and support from the Minister of the Civil House, Rui Costa. The possibility of issuing a provisional measure to extinguish the charge is under analysis, although there is still no formal decision.
The measure was sanctioned in 2024 and established a 20% rate on international purchases of up to US$50, in addition to ICMS. For higher amounts, taxation reaches 60%, with a fixed discount of US$20. At the time, the government defended the rule as a way of balancing competition with national retailers.
The eventual retreat faces resistance from sectors of industry and commerce, which pushed for the creation of the tax. These groups argue that removing the charge could increase the competitive advantage of foreign platforms.
Continues after advertising
In Planalto, the assessment is that the review of the measure can contribute to improving the perception of the cost of living, at a time of concern about family income and debt. At the same time, the decision involves the risk of friction with the productive sector, which keeps the issue open within the government.
