Montero: Migrants Don't Steal, Mercadona and Blackrock Do

Montero blames Mercadona and Blackrock for theft in neighborhoods

Irene Montero argues that migrants and racialized people are not stealing from neighborhoods; rather, large retail chains and investment funds are driving prices through the roof. The statement, circulated in a video by her party, has peine a debate far beyond political anecdote: who actually takes money from the pockets of families doing their grocery shopping?

The minister's argument has specific economic traction. Large supermarkets and funds controlling land, housing, and energy have the power to set prices in uncompetitive markets. Here, Montero is right about the general diagnosis. The problem is that this diagnosis does not absolve those who commit crimes. And that is where consensus breaks down.

VAT and Tax Pressure on Consumption

One of the most repeated arguments in public discourse is that the State takes a much larger share than commerce. The circulating calculation is stark: from a gross salary of €2,000, the worker keeps around €1,000 after income tax (IRPF) and social contributions, and VAT takes another 25% of that €1,000 in the shopping basket. The final tally leaves the employee with about €750 and the public sector with €1,250. Whether or not the proportion is exact, the order of magnitude explains why many people view with suspicion any discourse that points solely at the private sector.

VAT on basic goods functions as a regressive tax: the tighter the budget, the more it hurts. And here, the Government has room to maneuver that it does not always use.

Housing Costs and the State's Effect

There is a second front where the official diagnosis falls short. In every property transaction, the buyer assumes taxes, notary, and registry fees that can increase the final price by between 15% and 20%. This extra cost is not charged by Mercadona or Blackrock: it is charged by the administration. If you add money printing and its effect on prices, the picture becomes complicated.

Housing is the best example of how the State participates in the rising costs it later denounces. It is not the only culprit, but neither is it a neutral observer.

Diagnosis Omitting Neighborhood Safety

The third point generates the most tension. Denying that there are coexistence problems in certain neighborhoods does not help those who live there. There are testimonies from residents describing occupation of public spaces, sale of substances, and conflicts in sports facilities. That does not make any group collectively responsible, but it also does not disappear by decree.

The discussion becomes poisoned when two planes are mixed: legitimate criticism of immigration as an economic phenomenon and the attribution of crimes to an entire group. The former is analysis; the latter is prejudice.

The Unanswered Question

What exactly does Montero propose? Her party promised to sit down with electricity companies to lower bills. The result was not what was expected. Now she promises something similar with food distribution. Without price controls or direct intervention, the real margin of a ministry is limited.

Montero's diagnosis points to major economic actors. Her problem is that the list of culprits held by the street includes also the State, taxes, and safety issues that her discourse does not address. As long as that gap is not closed, the conversation will keep going in circles.

---

Key Data of the Debate

• From €2,000 gross, the worker keeps about €1,000 after IRPF and contributions.
• VAT takes another 25% of that €1,000 in the shopping basket.
• Transaction costs for housing can raise the price by between 15% and 20%.