Poor people exist everywhere. The South and Southeast have more of them.
Em um momento em que o Brasil busca modernizar seu labiríntico sistema tributário, Minas Gerais emerge não como adversária da reforma, mas como voz que exige que a justiça distributiva acompanhe a simplificação fiscal. O vice-governador Mateus Simões articula uma tensão antiga na federação brasileira: a de que riqueza regional e pobreza absoluta raramente habitam regiões distintas, e que políticas compensatórias precisam enxergar além das médias para alcançar as pessoas. O que está em jogo não é apenas a fatia de um fundo de 40 bilhões de reais, mas a pergunta mais profunda sobre quem, afinal, a reforma serve.
- A reforma tributária promete acabar com as guerras fiscais entre estados, mas abre uma nova batalha: a disputa por quem recebe compensação e quanto.
- O fundo de desenvolvimento regional de R$ 40 bilhões é visto pelos governadores como insuficiente — eles exigem R$ 75 bilhões e contestam os critérios de distribuição.
- Simões desafia a narrativa de que pobreza é privilégio do Norte e Nordeste, argumentando que Sul e Sudeste concentram o maior número absoluto de brasileiros pobres.
- Minas Gerais, responsável por 10% do PIB e da arrecadação nacional, reivindica participação proporcional no fundo como condição para não prejudicar seus cidadãos mais vulneráveis.
- Governadores do Sul e Sudeste articulam suas bancadas no Congresso como moeda de pressão, transformando um debate técnico em uma negociação de poder federativo.
Na manhã de uma terça-feira de junho, o vice-governador de Minas Gerais, Mateus Simões, concedeu uma entrevista que revelou as fraturas por baixo do consenso em torno da reforma tributária. Minas apoia a proposta federal, disse ele — mas apoio não significa resignação diante de perdas.
A reforma em discussão na Câmara, conduzida pelo deputado mineiro Reginaldo Lopes, propõe substituir cinco tributos por um sistema dual de IVA: o IBS, que unificaria ICMS e ISS, e o CBS, de competência federal. O objetivo é encerrar décadas de guerra fiscal entre estados. O problema é que estados como Minas, grandes arrecadadores de ICMS, perderiam receita significativa nessa transição.
Para suavizar o impacto, o governo federal propôs um Fundo de Desenvolvimento Regional de R$ 40 bilhões, a partir de 2033. Mas governadores de todo o país já exigem R$ 75 bilhões — e a disputa sobre como distribuir esse dinheiro tornou-se o verdadeiro campo de batalha da reforma.
Simões rejeitou a ideia de concentrar os recursos no Norte e Nordeste sob o argumento de que seriam as regiões mais pobres. Em termos absolutos, ponderou, Sul e Sudeste abrigam mais pessoas em situação de pobreza do que todas as outras regiões somadas. Minas, com 10% do PIB e da arrecadação nacional, reivindica ao menos 10% do fundo — não como privilégio, mas como proporção justa para proteger quem mais precisa dentro do estado.
A posição mineira não é isolada. Governadores do Sul e Sudeste começam a se articular, prontos a usar suas bancadas congressuais como instrumento de pressão. O que nasceu como uma reforma técnica transformou-se em uma negociação sobre poder, recursos e a geometria da desigualdade brasileira.
Mateus Simões, Minas Gerais's vice-governor, sat down for an interview on a Tuesday morning in late June and laid out a position that would soon become central to one of Brazil's most contentious legislative battles. The state, he said, backed the federal government's tax reform proposal. But there was a problem: Minas stood to lose money in the transition, and the compensation mechanism being discussed might not be generous enough to protect the state's poorest residents.
The tax reform itself was straightforward in concept, if not in execution. A working group in the Chamber of Deputies, led by Reginaldo Lopes, a congressman from Minas, was drafting legislation to simplify Brazil's notoriously complex tax system. The plan called for eliminating five separate taxes—three federal levies, the ICMS (a state-level sales tax), and the ISS (a municipal service tax)—and replacing them with a dual value-added tax. One component, the IBS, would consolidate the ICMS and ISS. The other, the CBS, would be collected by the federal government. The promise was an end to the fiscal wars that had long pitted states against each other in competition for investment.
But simplification came with a cost. States like Minas that currently collected substantial ICMS revenue would see that income disappear. To cushion the blow, the federal government proposed creating a Regional Development Fund. The initial budget: 40 billion reais, beginning in 2033. It sounded substantial until you considered what governors across the country were demanding—75 billion reais—and until you looked at how that money would be distributed.
This was where Simões's concern crystallized. Some voices in Congress were arguing that the compensation fund should flow primarily to Brazil's poorest regions—the Northeast and North. Simões found this logic both incomplete and unfair. "Poor people exist everywhere," he said during his radio interview. The South and Southeast, he pointed out, contained more people living in poverty in absolute terms than all other regions combined. To restrict the fund to the poorest regions would be to ignore the scale of need in wealthier states.
Minas Gerais, Simões argued, deserved a proportional share. The state generated roughly 10 percent of Brazil's total tax revenue and contributed 10 percent of the nation's GDP. Therefore, it should receive at least 10 percent of the compensation fund. Anything less would harm Minas's poorest citizens by depriving the state of resources needed to attract jobs and investment to areas where neither existed. The logic was simple: a development fund that failed to account for the actual distribution of poverty across the country would fail to develop anything.
Simões was not alone in this position. Governors from other southern and southeastern states shared his concern, and together they were beginning to mobilize. The compensation fund had become the central point of contention in the entire reform. Governors were preparing to use their congressional delegations as leverage, threatening to block or delay the legislation unless the fund was enlarged and distributed according to their specifications. What had begun as a technical discussion about tax simplification had become a negotiation over regional power and resources, with Minas Gerais positioning itself as a key player in determining the outcome.
Citas Notables
Poor people exist everywhere. In absolute terms, the South and Southeast have more poor than all other regions combined.— Mateus Simões, vice-governor of Minas Gerais
We represent about 10% of Brazil's tax collection and GDP, so we must receive 10% of this fund. Anything less is a loss for Minas's poorest residents.— Mateus Simões
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Minas Gerais care so much about this compensation fund? Isn't the tax reform itself supposed to help everyone?
The reform does simplify the system, but it redistributes who collects what. Minas currently collects the ICMS—a big revenue source. Under the new system, that goes away. The fund is supposed to replace that lost income, but only if it's large enough and distributed fairly.
And Simões thinks it won't be?
He thinks the current proposal is too small and too narrowly targeted. If the fund only goes to the poorest regions, Minas loses money even with compensation. The state has poor people too—just not concentrated in one region.
So this is about Minas protecting its own interests?
It's that, yes, but also a genuine argument about how poverty works in Brazil. Simões is saying the Northeast and North aren't the only places that need development investment. The South and Southeast have 10 percent of Brazil's poor in absolute numbers.
What happens if governors don't get what they want?
They can block the legislation. They control enough congressional votes through their state delegations. So the compensation fund becomes the price of passage.
Is there a middle ground?
Probably. Increase the fund size, distribute it more broadly, and let states like Minas claim their proportional share. But that costs the federal government more money, which is why the negotiation is so tense.