The government needed to own up to the shortfall.
Diante de um rombo fiscal de R$27 bilhões, o Brasil recorre a uma estratégia antiga: transferir o ônus para setores em ascensão. O senador Renan Calheiros apresentou um projeto que dobra a tributação sobre plataformas de apostas e eleva os impostos das fintechs, prometendo arrecadar R$18 bilhões em três anos para financiar a isenção do imposto de renda até R$5.000 — uma promessa popular que o governo não conseguiu pagar sozinho. O episódio revela uma tensão permanente nas democracias modernas: o custo político de dar sempre encontra, cedo ou tarde, quem pague a conta.
- O governo Lula prometeu isenção de imposto de renda para quem ganha até R$5.000, mas a medida deixou um buraco de R$27,1 bilhões no orçamento de 2025 — e 2026 promete ser ainda mais grave.
- O senador Renan Calheiros rompeu publicamente com a versão da Câmara, acusando-a de violar a neutralidade fiscal e de esconder o verdadeiro custo da isenção.
- A solução proposta é cirúrgica e politicamente calculada: dobrar a fatia do governo nas apostas online e aumentar a contribuição social das fintechs, poupando os grandes bancos de qualquer mudança.
- A disputa acendeu uma guerra velada entre bancos tradicionais e fintechs sobre quem realmente paga mais impostos, com Nubank alegando alíquota efetiva de 34% e os bancos contestando a métrica.
- Com 21 emendas já protocoladas e o relator sinalizando ajustes, o projeto enfrenta um caminho incerto no Senado — mas o governo precisa de sua aprovação antes do fim do ano para fechar as contas.
O Brasil vive um problema recorrente: promessas tributárias que o orçamento não consegue sustentar. Quando uma medida fiscal temporária expirou em outubro, o governo Lula se viu diante de um déficit de R$27,1 bilhões para 2025. A isenção do imposto de renda para quem ganha até R$5.000 — aprovada por unanimidade na Câmara — era politicamente irresistível, mas matematicamente problemática. Quando o relator da Câmara retirou as compensações previstas, o buraco ficou exposto.
Foi nesse cenário que o senador Renan Calheiros entrou em cena. Veterano da política nacional, ele aceitou a isenção, mas apresentou um projeto paralelo para cobrir o rombo: aumentar drasticamente os impostos sobre apostas online e fintechs. A proposta dobra a participação do governo nas receitas brutas das plataformas de apostas — de 12% para 24% — e eleva a contribuição social das fintechs de 9% para 15%. Empresas maiores de crédito e financiamento passariam de 15% para 20%. Os grandes bancos, que já pagam 20%, ficam de fora. A estimativa é arrecadar R$18 bilhões em três anos, sendo R$13,3 bilhões só com as apostas.
O projeto acendeu uma disputa entre bancos tradicionais e fintechs sobre equidade tributária. Roberto Campos Neto, ex-presidente do Banco Central e hoje na Nubank, defendeu uma alíquota uniforme de 17,5% para todas as instituições financeiras, argumentando que as fintechs já pagam mais do que os bancos em termos efetivos. A federação bancária rebateu: as margens de lucro das fintechs são maiores, o que lhes permite deduzir mais despesas mesmo com alíquotas nominais mais altas. A Nubank afirma ter pago 34% de alíquota efetiva em 2024.
O governo quer os dois projetos aprovados antes do fim do ano — a isenção precisa ser sancionada em 2025 para valer em 2026, e os novos impostos são indispensáveis para fechar as contas. Com 21 emendas já apresentadas e o relator no Senado sinalizando que ajustes serão necessários, o desfecho ainda é incerto. O que está claro é que alguém terá que pagar pela generosidade fiscal do governo — e Calheiros já escolheu quem.
Brazil's government faces a familiar problem: it promised tax relief it can't quite afford. In early October, a temporary tax measure expired, leaving the administration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva scrambling to find roughly R$27 billion to close the 2025 budget gap. Enter Senator Renan Calheiros, a veteran operator from Alagoas, who has engineered a solution that kills two birds with one stone—and in doing so, has exposed the real cost of the government's income tax exemption.
The government proposed exempting Brazilians earning up to R$5,000 monthly from income tax, a popular move that sailed through the Chamber of Deputies with unanimous approval. But the math didn't work. When the Chamber's rapporteur, Deputy Arthur Lira, stripped out compensatory measures like taxes on agricultural and real estate credit instruments, he left a fiscal hole. The Finance Ministry and Lira both insisted the numbers still balanced. Calheiros, the Senate's rapporteur on the same bill, disagreed publicly. He argued the Chamber's version violated fiscal neutrality—the principle that taxes shouldn't distort markets—and that the government needed to own up to the shortfall.
Rather than block the income tax exemption, Calheiros accepted it largely intact. But he also introduced a companion bill, presented on October 29, that would generate an estimated R$18 billion over three years by dramatically raising taxes on two industries the Lula administration has long viewed with suspicion: online betting platforms and fintechs. The bill doubles the government's take from betting revenue, from 12 percent to 24 percent of gross gaming receipts. For fintechs and other payment institutions, it raises the corporate social contribution tax from 9 percent to 15 percent. Larger credit and financing companies would jump from 15 percent to 20 percent. Banks, already paying 20 percent, see no change.
The numbers are substantial. Betting taxes alone would generate R$13.3 billion through 2028. The corporate tax increases on financial institutions would add another R$4.74 billion. The bill also includes a debt refinancing program for individuals earning up to R$7,350 monthly in 2024, allowing them to restructure obligations to the tax authority in installments of at least R$200. The Senate's Economic Affairs Committee, where the bill now sits, has already received 21 amendments. The rapporteur, Senator Eduardo Braga, signaled this week that calibrations would be needed before a vote.
The government wants both bills passed before year's end. The income tax exemption is a centerpiece of Lula's reelection strategy and must be signed into law in 2025 to take effect in 2026. The betting and fintech tax increases are equally urgent: without them, the administration faces either larger budget cuts or admitting it cannot meet its fiscal targets. In late October, Lula signed a law allowing the government to aim for the lower bound of its fiscal band this year, accommodating a R$31 billion deficit. But even that cushion leaves a gap. Independent fiscal analysts project 2026 will be worse, with a primary deficit approaching R$96.6 billion—far above the government's stated target.
The proposal has ignited a proxy war between traditional banks and fintechs over who actually pays more tax. Roberto Campos Neto, the former central bank chief now leading public policy at Nubank, proposed a uniform 17.5 percent rate for all financial institutions, arguing that fintechs pay a higher effective tax rate than the big banks. The banking federation countered that effective rates are misleading: Nubank's profit margin in 2024 was 23 percent, compared to 9.5 to 15 percent for Bradesco, Itaú, and Santander, meaning fintechs can deduct more expenses even at higher nominal rates. Nubank claims it paid a 34 percent effective rate last year. The dispute reflects a deeper tension: as fintechs have grown, they've begun to rival banks in profitability, and the government's tax code hasn't caught up. Calheiros' bill is an attempt to do so—and to make the income tax exemption politically palatable by ensuring someone else pays the bill.
Notable Quotes
The senator can contribute by approving a complementary project to avoid putting the income tax proposal's fiscal neutrality at risk, but only after we verify the calculations with the tax authority.— Finance Minister Fernando Haddad, after meeting with Calheiros
Some calibrations will be necessary, taking into account the amendments presented by senators and requests for public hearings on the topic.— Senator Eduardo Braga, rapporteur on the fintech and betting tax bill
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Calheiros need to create a separate bill instead of just accepting the Chamber's version of the income tax exemption?
Because he wanted to be honest about the cost. The Chamber stripped out the compensatory measures, and the Finance Ministry claimed it didn't matter. Calheiros said it did—that the exemption wasn't fiscally neutral. Rather than fight over that, he accepted the exemption and created a second bill to cover the gap.
So this is about political cover?
Partly. But it's also about arithmetic. The government needs the income tax exemption for 2026 elections. It also needs to close a R$27 billion hole this year. Calheiros found a way to do both without blocking either bill.
Why target fintechs and betting platforms specifically?
They're visible, they're growing, and the Lula administration has already signaled they're fair game. Betting platforms are relatively new and politically weak. Fintechs are more powerful, but they're still smaller than banks and lack the political infrastructure banks have built over decades.
But the banks are claiming fintechs already pay more in real terms.
That's the argument, yes. Nubank says it pays 34 percent effective tax. But the banking federation says that's misleading—Nubank's profit margins are so much higher that even at a lower rate, banks pay more in absolute terms. It's a genuine dispute about what fairness means.
Does the government care who's right?
Not particularly. The government needs R$18 billion. If it comes from fintechs and betting platforms, that's politically easier than raising taxes on banks or cutting spending. The fairness question is secondary.
What happens if the Senate doesn't pass this bill?
Then the government faces a much harder choice: either cut spending significantly in an election year, or admit it can't meet its fiscal targets. Neither is attractive.