While the national government lowers taxes to try to alleviate the consequences of inflation, several municipalities in the country —especially in the province of Buenos Aires— are moving in the opposite direction: increasing local taxes calculated on gross income, without deducting costs, which ultimately have a direct impact on the final price paid by the consumer. In practice, they function as a disguised consumption tax framed as a “service fee.”
This problem becomes most visible in hypermarkets and supermarkets.
In Lanús, the municipal tax reaches 6.36% of total sales. In Hurlingham, it is 4.5%; in Pilar, 4.5%, plus a new Environmental Protection Tax of 2% that is also reflected in the receipt; in Quilmes, the rate is 3.74%. In Villa Mercedes, San Luis, it climbs to 4.5%. These are not abstract percentages: they are costs passed on to the final price by the chains. Every time a family buys bread, milk, or oil, they are already paying that municipal cost, often without even realizing it.
The problem does not end at the shelf.
For those wanting to open, maintain, or expand a business, the pressure is even greater. In Pilar, the combined burden of the Health and Hygiene Inspection Tax, the environmental tax, road maintenance, and other concepts easily exceeds 6.5% of sales. In Luján, it hovers around 5.7%: 4.2% for Health and Hygiene plus 1.5% environmental. In Villa Carlos Paz, Córdoba, the tax applied to the industry reaches 3.6%. All these burdens have something in common: they are calculated on gross sales and accumulate at every stage of the production chain, from the supplier to the final retailer. The result is obvious: higher prices, lower profitability, and fewer incentives to invest or generate jobs.
The contrast between municipalities also exposes how far these decisions condition private activity. Just a few days ago, the former mayor of Tres de Febrero and current senator Diego Valenzuela legally denounced that La Matanza charges companies rates up to four times higher than neighboring districts. The case he presented is telling: two identical sweater factories, separated by just Avenida República. In January 2025, the one located in Tres de Febrero paid $234,000 in municipal taxes; on the other side, in La Matanza, the same company paid $8.9 million. The difference is also evident per square meter: $308 versus $1,100. This is not a technical detail: it is the kind of pressure that defines where a company establishes itself, invests, or leaves. This is why banks like Santander and Nación moved to Tres de Febrero, and companies like Mercado Libre and FEMSA chose to set up there.
While the nation eliminates distortionary taxes and seeks to signal fiscal relief, many mayors continue to burden the private sector with more pressure, more bureaucracy, and more costs.
This is not a problem of lack of resources. It is, above all, a problem of priorities. Instead of reviewing political spending and improving the efficiency of local government, they prefer to maintain schemes that penalize consumption and hinder activity.
The industry and commerce in Buenos Aires already bear one of the highest local tax pressures in the country. And, as always, the final cost is not absorbed by politics: it is paid by the neighbor. They pay it when they shop at the supermarket and they pay it when trying to maintain a business. There are also exceptions, like Tres de Febrero, which show that another path is possible: lower rates, attract investments, and generate jobs.
If we really want prices to drop and for more businesses to open, the solution does not only depend on Casa Rosada. It also depends on the municipalities. Mayors who continue to raise rates in a country trying to emerge from inflation are not looking out for the neighbor: they are making their lives more expensive.
If you want, I can now create an even sharper and more editorial-style version.
Comments