MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Temer´s major setback: 68% don't trust him and 39% rate his government “bad” or “terrible”
President Michel Temer has not managed to convince Brazilians his government is better than that of his ousted predecessor Dilma Rousseff, and his popularity remains low, according to a poll on Tuesday. Pollster Ibope said the number of people who consider Temer's government “great” or “good” edged up to 14% from 13% in the previous survey in late June, which was conducted six weeks after he replaced Rousseff when her impeachment trial began. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesTemer has no legitimacy. I doubt that his administration will survice to the next election.
Oct 06th, 2016 - 03:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0So 61% think his government is 'good'.
Oct 06th, 2016 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Vasquez would love that sort of support as would Macri, so ignore the likes of 'Hepatitis' et al.
Perhaps the party of Lula thinks they can run him out of office?
With Lula at TENTH place in the poles it looks like they are pissing into the wind: that will get their 'own back' (for those who don't know the phrase).
When the ignorant on here keep on insisting that Temer has no legitimacy, they are just proving how little they know about Brazil. But aside from these idiots' opinions - which are irrelevant - what was the alternative ? to carry-on with Dilma, Lula and the PT, most of them either already indicted or in prison ?
Oct 06th, 2016 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 03 Jack Bauer
Oct 06th, 2016 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“When the ignorant ..keep on insisting that Temer has no legitimacy, they are just proving how little they know about Brazil.”
“Rouseff's Impeachment Was ”Democracy's Stumbling Block”, Says Supreme Court Minister
Ricardo Lewandowski,the Minister believes that the presidential model of coalition (at the moment, 35 different political parties are registered in the Superior Electoral Court) is what has led to the ousting of Rouseff.”
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2016/09/1818366-rouseffs-impeachment-was-democracys-stumbling-block-says-supreme-court-minister.shtml
@2 ChrisR
Oct 06th, 2016 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, only 14% think it's 'good'. It's in the first paragraph. Hardly an enviable level of support.
Not that Rousseff was doing any better. Are there any non-corrupt politicians in Brazil?
@4 Hill
Oct 06th, 2016 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0““Rouseff's Impeachment Was ”Democracy's Stumbling Block”, Says Supreme Court Minister”
An opinion given by a Lula appointee (and longtime friend), outside of the court, based on his personal conviction; I suppose you are now going to tell me that you know what the other 10 Supreme Court Justices would have decided, as well as the outcome of the impeachment process had it been judged in the STF and not the Senate ?
As to the 35 registered parties, while without a doubt it prostitutes the political system, that was not why the cow was ousted ; But I'm not going to hash through it again with you, or anyone else. Everyone can believe what they want about her impeachment, but it won't change the facts - she's gone, and for good. And probably so is Lula...he and his sons are in really deep shit with the Feds. Several indictments and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit beautifully.
@5 DT
“Not that Rousseff was doing any better. Are there any non-corrupt politicians in Brazil?”
If there are, it's probably because they are in their first term, still believe they can make a difference, and haven't yet been invited to join the 'gang'...they need to be 'tested' first ; although many get into politics with the fixed idea of becoming rich overnight, even most of those that don't, soon succumb to the tentation. It is, unfortunately, a trait found in 90% of Brazilian politicians.
Why Complain? The Brazilians are already accustomed to the governments which are “bad” or “terrible”!
Oct 07th, 2016 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Super-rich in Brazil are supported by the middle class and the poor
Oct 07th, 2016 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According to data from the (IMF) and the Heritage Foundation, 2014 and 2015, Brazil's average monthly tax burden ...The problem is that here we have a fiscal situation of injustice that penalizes the poor and the middle class, ”says David Grazielle Custodio, an expert on public budget and advises the (INESC).
... this unequal situation occurs ...much of the tax ..is based on indirect taxes, ie which affect the consumption of goods and services and not on income and property. ‘’’But when we relate to the salary that person receives, the proportion that the poor pay is much higher than the rich person. This sets up a fiscal situation of injustice, “says Grazielle.
..The other obstacle to fair taxation, says Grazielle is related to how to tax the income in the country. ”We have a situation where the middle class, the track gets between 20 and 40 minimum wages, it is the one that pays more income tax... Already the recipient, for example, above 70 minimum wages, virtually unpaid tax, …. since the income arising from the distribution of profits and dividends are exempt from income tax. And others, such as financial or capital gains are subject to exclusive rates, ... Because most of them [the rich] receives for profits and dividends, and when we evaluate how much they pay in income tax, normally reaches 6%. Look at the situation: a group, which is the middle class, paid 27.5% of IR. And who earn much more than this group often paid only 6%, there is an exemption from levying income tax on profits and dividends, ”..in 2014, a group of about 71 000 Brazilians won nearly R $ 200 billion without paying Income Individual tax (PIT). ... ”Among all the countries of the (OECD), only Brazil and Estonia have this exemption. ...
http://cartacampinas.com.br/2016/02/super-ricos-no-brasil-sao-sustentados-pela-classe-media-e-pelos-pobres/
@8 Hill
Oct 07th, 2016 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you saying that to earn USD 100 thousand plus, per year, isn't fair ? fair it is, what isn't fair is that those on the bottom of the ladder earn less than 10% of that. But what do you suggest, that those who earn high salaries donate part to those poor bums ? I don't think so. In any case, these salaries pay income tax equal to 27.5% on net earnings, and one expects the Govt to redistribute them in a just manner - if it doesn't, and the social and political situation keeps on deteriorating, who's responsibility is it to fix ?
It's a known fact that the super-rich have always had ways of getting around paying their fair share (and not only here), and if one considers the indirect taxes - which affect all individuals in the same way - the tax burden fluctuates to as high as 39% of one's earnings...or, the average Brazilian works roughly 4.5 months just to pay taxes.
@6,9 Jack Bauer
Oct 07th, 2016 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess corruption really is entrenched in the system then. And they use the money to fund their campaigns too right? So anyone who doesn't join in is at a disadvantage.
It's not earning lots of money that's unfair, it's then paying less tax than someone earning less. Unfortunately as you say, the super rich are usually able to avoid taxes. Just look at Trump.
Ideally the people at the top would pay their workers more instead of taking such large profits for themselves. Much better than the government taxing them and then giving handouts.
Better for the economy too to have people spending the money in Brazil rather than leaving it stashed in some tax haven.
9 Jack Bauer
Oct 07th, 2016 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Are you saying that to earn USD 100 thousand plus, per year, isn't fair” No! I have never said such a thing, you're hallucinating again. I believe the author Grazielle is relating to “how to tax the income in the country. … Because most of them [the rich] receives for profits and dividends, and when we evaluate how much they pay in income tax, normally reaches 6%.. While the majority of salaried tax-payers pay 27.5%. She is suggesting that such a situation is inequitable, ”Among all the countries of the (OECD ), only Brazil and Estonia have this exemption, contrary to the other thirty-five members of the Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
@ 5 DemonTree
Oct 08th, 2016 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“39% rate his government “bad” or “terrible”...”the number of people who consider Temer's government “great” or “good” edged up to 14% from 13% in the previous survey in late June“...”But the number who rate it as “bad” or “terrible” was unchanged at 39%, according to the poll commissioned by the National Industry Confederation (CNI).”
It seems at least two 'polls' were jumbled together and I admit I failed to see that. :o(
@12 ChrisR
Oct 08th, 2016 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think there must have been a lot of people who rated him neither good nor bad, or had no opinion. Probably true of most governments, especially those who have not been in power for long.
@10 DT
Oct 08th, 2016 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I guess corruption really is entrenched in the system then. And they use the money to fund their campaigns ...So anyone who doesn't join in is at a disadvantage.” Exactly.
“It's not earning lots of money that's unfair, it's then paying less tax than someone earning less.”
While, at first glance, that would seem totally correct, it is not really. But I will address why I think so, below (in my reply to T.Hill).
@11 Hill
I asked a simple question : ““Are you saying that to earn USD 100 thousand plus, per year, isn't fair”
Your reply : ”No! I have never said such a thing, you're hallucinating again.“
You could have replied just ”NO“; but OK, I understand that you had one of your moments, and threw a wee tantrum.
As to the Grazielle's report, ”Because most of them [the rich] receives for profits and dividends, and when we evaluate how much they pay in income tax, normally reaches 6%.. While the majority of salaried tax-payers pay 27.5%”. ,
Unless I'm missing something, it would seem that way....however before I carry-on, I presume we are talking of indviduals, whose only source of income is a salary.
In my # 9, I said that high-earners pay 27,5% income tax on their net salary (and which is lopped off at source). Low salaried personnel contribute with 15% , or less.
My point is that AFTER having the monthly income tax lopped off their salaries, they are free to apply what's left over in any investment they want, and dividends received are taxed at source, at far lower rates - only on “those” investments, which are available to all alike, to high and to low-income individuals...NB: “after” they've already paid their fair share of their salary to the IRS.
But if you're referring to the fact that the super-rich, who own businesses, mix-up their personal life with at of the company, in order to obtain tax benefits, not available to those who only receive a salary, that's a whole different ball game.
14 Jack Bauer
Oct 08th, 2016 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I asked a simple question : “Are you saying that to earn USD 100 thousand plus, per year, isn't fair.” No you asked a stupid question, as my post in its entirerty was the product of another author, hence the citation. But, if you're asking me as a personal question, my answer is no I don't.
”But if you're referring to the fact that the super-rich, who own businesses, mix-up their personal life with at of the company, in order to obtain tax benefits, not available to those who only receive a salary, that's a whole different ball game.” That's exactly what the author is referring to, that's abundantly clear, and as a professional writer he doesn't require any reinterpretations from you.
@15 Hill
Oct 08th, 2016 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Right, to YOU, stupid, because you probably haven't earned that in your whole miserable life....I was well aware that you were referring to a 'citation' by someone else, as it seems to be the story of your life - you don't have any ideas or opinions of your own to offer.
Ah, and of course, the “professional” writer doesn't require...bla bla..” can you just listen to yourself ? You are incapable of discussing anything sensibly. What an asshole you are...but you must feel you've just hit the ball out of the stadium. Keep it coming numbnuts !
16 Jack Bauer
Oct 08th, 2016 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You probably haven't earned that in your whole miserable life.” I passed that plateau by 1980. Along with the title 'The legend,' so I was both well rewarded and appreciated. I guess dipshit, you weren't quite so well endowed, or recognised on the 'inward' or 'outward' 'goods department'?
@14 Jack Bauer
Oct 09th, 2016 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +127.5% is the higher rate? That's really low.
But why do you think it makes sense to tax income from investments at a much lower rate? It's disingenuous to say investments are available to both high and low income people alike, since to invest you need to have money left over after paying your expenses, and enough that you don't need to keep it readily available for emergencies too.
Given this, it's obvious that the ultimate effect will be that the wealthy pay a lower rate of tax overall, as the article says. And this is considered undesirable by almost everyone.
In any case, whatever you do with your salary after it has already been taxed, whether it's spending, saving, or investing it, you'll always have to pay more tax. So there's really no reason income from investments should be treated differently to income from a salary.
The super rich are really a different problem, as they tend to have an undue influence on the government that lets them keep loopholes in the tax laws to benefit themselves, as well as being able to take advantage of tax havens etc.
@17 Hill
Oct 09th, 2016 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you passed that 'plateau' in 1980, that implies 1) you are now an old senile fart, and 2) your “fortune” didn't do much for your education; I've never seen anyone as idiotic as you, not having an opinion of your own and asking everyone else to prove theirs.
“The legend” ? so you must be the original “Long Dong Silver”...really suits you, as I always thought yr brain was somewhere between yr legs.
@18 DT
If you consider the 27.5% alone, as the highest tax bracket, compared to the developed countries, you're right...But, when you consider, besides the 27.5% in income tax, plus at least another 15% in indirect taxes (which affect both rich and poor alike), plus the fact that the social services we get in return are non-existent, forcing people to pay 1) high fees for private schools if they want to give their kids a decent education, 2) to pay high premiums for private health plans because the public health system is a disgrace, 3) to pay for private security because public safety is a disaster, the 27.5% which ends up being nearer to 39%, is completely out of proportion to what the average Brazilian earns....
“It's disingenuous to say investments are available to both high and low income people alike,....” ....not really...while, as you correctly say, the poor don't have access to all funds (in which you can earn more - but with a much higher risk, if you are willing to take it), the poor can use the traditional savings account which pays 6% interest per year, plus a percentage based on monthly inflation, giving a total return of approx. 9 % p.a., on which they pay NO tax.....
I agree however, that the present tax system favours the better off, but it is not exclusive to Brazil.
Also agree that whatever you do with yr money after having paid income tax, it's always going to be taxed again...and that does not even consider the 500% plus, one pays on oustanding debt in checking accounts...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!