The Left Party says "there shouldn't be any billionaires." With Germany gearing up for an election, the far-left force has launched a new tax plan — though it will most likely never get a chance to implement it.
Look, the bilionaires will always have ways to get out to pay the least amount of tax possible. There is almost no way to combat that because they have the money to setup a company in another country and setup structures to pay less.
You can however get more income tax from the companies below that. The medium to large sized companies with millions of profit. But it is not feasible to do a taxation for every company every year, it is impossible. There aren’t enough people working in the fields who would be responsible for those reports. (evaluators, accountants, etc.). Evaluating a company generally costs 10-20k minimum.
Idk how it is in other countries, but yeah it’s more like bureaucrazy than bureaucracy here in NL. So you want to add even more bureaucracy into the entire structure?
There are other ways of stopping businesses from abusing the system and governments are working to help fix the issue. But evaluating companies is just not gonna be a good structure for it. It’s way to subjective and in general wealth tax has been shut down by legal systems. Like here in NL, the legal system shut down the previous box 3 wealth system because it was against human rights. And the government and legal system are more separated here in NL than in say something like the US.
Also a lot of small business owners do take loans from their own companies (if it is something like a BV/Ltd). Sometimes we talk over a couple thousand, sometimes it’s a couple 100k and sometime’s it;s one or more millions and I mainly work with small to medium-sized companies.
Billionaires exploiting tax systems isn’t an inevitability—it’s a failure of governance. Saying “there’s no way to combat it” is just surrendering to the status quo. The resources exist to enforce fair taxation; what’s missing is the political will. Governments prioritize protecting wealth over funding the systems that could hold it accountable.
Claiming wealth taxes are “too subjective” or costly to enforce is a convenient excuse. If we can afford bloated military budgets and corporate bailouts, we can afford evaluators and accountants. Let’s not pretend bureaucracy is the enemy here—it’s the deliberate underfunding of enforcement mechanisms that perpetuates inequality.
And small business owners borrowing from their companies? That’s survival tactics, not privilege. Comparing them to billionaires dodging taxes is disingenuous at best, insulting at worst.
Look for say 20-30k you can set up a company in a different country with lower tax rates and move your profits there. That’s what a lot of companies do to make it so they can pay less taxes. You need multiple countries to cooperate (something the EU is doing on this front, but it takes forever to adapt everything).
It’s way easier to tax the millionaires more, they have fewer options to bypass taxes using complicated structures (over multiple countries). I am saying start there, because that will help governments close the gap in their budget.
Evaluating anything is subjective, that’s why they often do at least two evaluations when a company is being sold. At least here in NL, where we don’t spend a lot of the military and the Ukraine war is only 2200 km away. We do buy out farmers to reduce the amount of farmers to lessen the CO2 emissions of our country, but that is beside the point. As I said, our old wealth tax system was shut down because it was unfair. The tax office in NL assumed everybody had a 4% interest on their savings (above 30k) and other assets that fell in that category and that was taxed. Due to the interest being below 4% (or even being negative) people were taxed unfairly. Including a lot of the middle class who already pay a lot of taxes. Finding other people who are willing to work in accountancy or as evaluators are hard to find. I love my job, but a lot of people think it’s boring or have other wrong ideas about the job.
At least here in NL and other countries with a social security system that is complicated people mess up when doing their taxes or applying for their social security. I sadly see it way to often even with clients of mine. That’s more my point with that the bureaucracy can be to complicated.
You are wrong that every small company or company owner is struggling to survive. Some are yeah, especially once who have had a lot of issues due to COVID and gotten COVID support they need to pay back. Others are making 1 or 2 million profit per year or more. A small company in The Netherlands is a company with below 50 full-time employees, less than 7.5m balance sheet total and less than 15m revenue. This caused these people to pay less taxed percentage-wise than say a working middle-class person and this was easier to do something about.
I would love to see somebody like Musk to pay 99% taxes on every dollar he makes, but I am sceptic that it is feasible and I think we should start with easier stuff. That is more my point.
Setting up a company abroad isn’t just a loophole—it’s a system feature. The EU’s slow cooperation isn’t accidental; it’s a deliberate design to protect capital mobility for the wealthy while governments feign helplessness. Taxing millionaires first? Sure, but only if we stop coddling them with “economic growth” excuses.
Evaluating companies isn’t “too subjective”; it’s underfunded by choice. Bureaucracy in the Netherlands isn’t the problem—inaction is. If wealth taxes were shut down as “unfair,” why not fix the system instead of abandoning it? The middle class paying for systemic failures isn’t justice; it’s exploitation.
And small businesses making 1-2 million annually? That’s cherry-picking exceptions to justify inaction. Most small business owners are barely surviving, not gaming tax systems like billionaires
They are working for a reason to fix the Box 3 tax system, but the judge made them stop the next year.
Call it what you want that people can abuse international structures. It is legal and it’s going to stay legal for a while since there are also valid reasons to setup an international structure. Especislly for bigger companies.
Evaluating companies is subjective or well at least for the sale of the company it is. The seller will always value his work a ton and the buyer will always under value that work. Then there are also synergystic effects that will affect the value. Ow what do you think of evaluating hard to sell stock? Or living stock like animals? Even then a balance sheet is still a snapshot of a company.
Idk if you have ever done any valuations yourself, but standardising them is pretty hard. It is possible to some degree for which I agree.
Now if you find a good way to do that efficiently and fair to everybody please let me know then I can pass it on. Or if you know some good ways to fix the capacity in accounting let me know. (Not bookkeeping)
I am not Cherry picking situations, just think about it. Upto a revenue of 15 million (actually it can be more, but let’s just stick with that 15M) I can hope that you can make a profit of 1 or 2m a year. Often you will split this between multiple companies for tax and security reasons, but consolidated it should earn you a pretty penny. There are outliers and I also have seen companies who have 30-40m revenue (which we consider medium sized companies), but only 1 or 2m profit every year.
More people working in the accounting field is an upside to me so I am all for it. If we need to start evaluating companies every year it would be beneficial to me and the company I work for (assuming we can get the capacity).
The Box 3 tax system wasn’t stopped because it was inherently flawed—it was halted because the legal system prioritized protecting wealth under the guise of “human rights.” Let’s not pretend this wasn’t a calculated move to shield the elite. Fixing it is possible, but only if governments stop bending over backward for those exploiting the system.
Yes, international structures are legal, but legality doesn’t equal morality. They exist to enable tax avoidance, with “valid reasons” as a convenient cover. The fact that something is hard to regulate doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be regulated. Complexity isn’t an excuse; it’s a challenge to overcome.
Evaluating hard-to-sell assets? Sure, it’s tricky, but standardization isn’t impossible. The problem isn’t methodology—it’s political will and resource allocation. If you’re genuinely advocating for more capacity in accounting and evaluation, then support policies that fund these efforts instead of dismissing them as impractical.
As for your claim about small companies making 1-2 million profit annually: splitting profits across multiple entities to reduce taxes is a privilege of those who can afford such strategies. Most small businesses don’t have this luxury—they’re too busy staying afloat. Stop conflating these outliers with the broader reality of struggling entrepreneurs.
That whole box 3 system was shut down by the government following a judge.
We need more checks on the system required to keep companies in check. Aka accountants, like I said getting enough is already and issue.
And no I am not talking about outliers, but I have no way of proving it either due to the rules I am bound to I cannot share information about my clients. But there are multiple who use 2, 3 or maybe 4 BV’s to be more tax efficient. But that is mostly inside the same country.
Go and order some annual reports if you want to see more data, sadly for this they are pretty empty.
You have a different view then me and that is fine. Believe what you want, but until I see different in practise I aint gonna believe that wealth tax made ik the way most of us want is going to be possible let alone make economic sense
The Box 3 system wasn’t shut down because it was fundamentally unsound—it was dismantled to protect entrenched interests under the guise of “human rights.” That’s not reform; that’s capitulation. If the government and judiciary can’t align to address systemic inequities, then the system isn’t broken—it’s working exactly as intended: to shield wealth.
You keep pointing out the lack of accountants and evaluators as if it’s an immutable fact, but that scarcity is a direct result of deliberate underinvestment. If governments prioritized enforcing fair taxation, they’d allocate resources to train and hire more professionals. The issue isn’t feasibility; it’s political will.
As for your anecdotes about multiple BVs for tax efficiency, they only reinforce the point: these structures exist to game the system. Whether it’s within one country or across borders, the principle is the same—those with resources can exploit loopholes while everyone else carries the burden. And no, ordering annual reports won’t reveal much because these systems are designed to obscure meaningful data.
You’re skeptical about wealth taxes because you’ve only seen them fail in systems rigged against them. But failure doesn’t mean impossibility—it means we need better frameworks, not resignation. Economic sense? It makes far more sense than letting inequality spiral unchecked while middle-class taxpayers foot the bill.
That said, thanks for actually engaging in open debate: it doesn’t matter whose opinion “prevails”, it all fosters critical thinking which is the whole point.
Look, the bilionaires will always have ways to get out to pay the least amount of tax possible. There is almost no way to combat that because they have the money to setup a company in another country and setup structures to pay less.
You can however get more income tax from the companies below that. The medium to large sized companies with millions of profit. But it is not feasible to do a taxation for every company every year, it is impossible. There aren’t enough people working in the fields who would be responsible for those reports. (evaluators, accountants, etc.). Evaluating a company generally costs 10-20k minimum.
Idk how it is in other countries, but yeah it’s more like bureaucrazy than bureaucracy here in NL. So you want to add even more bureaucracy into the entire structure? There are other ways of stopping businesses from abusing the system and governments are working to help fix the issue. But evaluating companies is just not gonna be a good structure for it. It’s way to subjective and in general wealth tax has been shut down by legal systems. Like here in NL, the legal system shut down the previous box 3 wealth system because it was against human rights. And the government and legal system are more separated here in NL than in say something like the US.
Also a lot of small business owners do take loans from their own companies (if it is something like a BV/Ltd). Sometimes we talk over a couple thousand, sometimes it’s a couple 100k and sometime’s it;s one or more millions and I mainly work with small to medium-sized companies.
Billionaires exploiting tax systems isn’t an inevitability—it’s a failure of governance. Saying “there’s no way to combat it” is just surrendering to the status quo. The resources exist to enforce fair taxation; what’s missing is the political will. Governments prioritize protecting wealth over funding the systems that could hold it accountable.
Claiming wealth taxes are “too subjective” or costly to enforce is a convenient excuse. If we can afford bloated military budgets and corporate bailouts, we can afford evaluators and accountants. Let’s not pretend bureaucracy is the enemy here—it’s the deliberate underfunding of enforcement mechanisms that perpetuates inequality.
And small business owners borrowing from their companies? That’s survival tactics, not privilege. Comparing them to billionaires dodging taxes is disingenuous at best, insulting at worst.
deleted by creator
Look for say 20-30k you can set up a company in a different country with lower tax rates and move your profits there. That’s what a lot of companies do to make it so they can pay less taxes. You need multiple countries to cooperate (something the EU is doing on this front, but it takes forever to adapt everything). It’s way easier to tax the millionaires more, they have fewer options to bypass taxes using complicated structures (over multiple countries). I am saying start there, because that will help governments close the gap in their budget.
Evaluating anything is subjective, that’s why they often do at least two evaluations when a company is being sold. At least here in NL, where we don’t spend a lot of the military and the Ukraine war is only 2200 km away. We do buy out farmers to reduce the amount of farmers to lessen the CO2 emissions of our country, but that is beside the point. As I said, our old wealth tax system was shut down because it was unfair. The tax office in NL assumed everybody had a 4% interest on their savings (above 30k) and other assets that fell in that category and that was taxed. Due to the interest being below 4% (or even being negative) people were taxed unfairly. Including a lot of the middle class who already pay a lot of taxes. Finding other people who are willing to work in accountancy or as evaluators are hard to find. I love my job, but a lot of people think it’s boring or have other wrong ideas about the job.
At least here in NL and other countries with a social security system that is complicated people mess up when doing their taxes or applying for their social security. I sadly see it way to often even with clients of mine. That’s more my point with that the bureaucracy can be to complicated.
You are wrong that every small company or company owner is struggling to survive. Some are yeah, especially once who have had a lot of issues due to COVID and gotten COVID support they need to pay back. Others are making 1 or 2 million profit per year or more. A small company in The Netherlands is a company with below 50 full-time employees, less than 7.5m balance sheet total and less than 15m revenue. This caused these people to pay less taxed percentage-wise than say a working middle-class person and this was easier to do something about. I would love to see somebody like Musk to pay 99% taxes on every dollar he makes, but I am sceptic that it is feasible and I think we should start with easier stuff. That is more my point.
Setting up a company abroad isn’t just a loophole—it’s a system feature. The EU’s slow cooperation isn’t accidental; it’s a deliberate design to protect capital mobility for the wealthy while governments feign helplessness. Taxing millionaires first? Sure, but only if we stop coddling them with “economic growth” excuses.
Evaluating companies isn’t “too subjective”; it’s underfunded by choice. Bureaucracy in the Netherlands isn’t the problem—inaction is. If wealth taxes were shut down as “unfair,” why not fix the system instead of abandoning it? The middle class paying for systemic failures isn’t justice; it’s exploitation.
And small businesses making 1-2 million annually? That’s cherry-picking exceptions to justify inaction. Most small business owners are barely surviving, not gaming tax systems like billionaires
They are working for a reason to fix the Box 3 tax system, but the judge made them stop the next year.
Call it what you want that people can abuse international structures. It is legal and it’s going to stay legal for a while since there are also valid reasons to setup an international structure. Especislly for bigger companies.
Evaluating companies is subjective or well at least for the sale of the company it is. The seller will always value his work a ton and the buyer will always under value that work. Then there are also synergystic effects that will affect the value. Ow what do you think of evaluating hard to sell stock? Or living stock like animals? Even then a balance sheet is still a snapshot of a company.
Idk if you have ever done any valuations yourself, but standardising them is pretty hard. It is possible to some degree for which I agree. Now if you find a good way to do that efficiently and fair to everybody please let me know then I can pass it on. Or if you know some good ways to fix the capacity in accounting let me know. (Not bookkeeping)
I am not Cherry picking situations, just think about it. Upto a revenue of 15 million (actually it can be more, but let’s just stick with that 15M) I can hope that you can make a profit of 1 or 2m a year. Often you will split this between multiple companies for tax and security reasons, but consolidated it should earn you a pretty penny. There are outliers and I also have seen companies who have 30-40m revenue (which we consider medium sized companies), but only 1 or 2m profit every year.
More people working in the accounting field is an upside to me so I am all for it. If we need to start evaluating companies every year it would be beneficial to me and the company I work for (assuming we can get the capacity).
The Box 3 tax system wasn’t stopped because it was inherently flawed—it was halted because the legal system prioritized protecting wealth under the guise of “human rights.” Let’s not pretend this wasn’t a calculated move to shield the elite. Fixing it is possible, but only if governments stop bending over backward for those exploiting the system.
Yes, international structures are legal, but legality doesn’t equal morality. They exist to enable tax avoidance, with “valid reasons” as a convenient cover. The fact that something is hard to regulate doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be regulated. Complexity isn’t an excuse; it’s a challenge to overcome.
Evaluating hard-to-sell assets? Sure, it’s tricky, but standardization isn’t impossible. The problem isn’t methodology—it’s political will and resource allocation. If you’re genuinely advocating for more capacity in accounting and evaluation, then support policies that fund these efforts instead of dismissing them as impractical.
As for your claim about small companies making 1-2 million profit annually: splitting profits across multiple entities to reduce taxes is a privilege of those who can afford such strategies. Most small businesses don’t have this luxury—they’re too busy staying afloat. Stop conflating these outliers with the broader reality of struggling entrepreneurs.
That whole box 3 system was shut down by the government following a judge.
We need more checks on the system required to keep companies in check. Aka accountants, like I said getting enough is already and issue.
And no I am not talking about outliers, but I have no way of proving it either due to the rules I am bound to I cannot share information about my clients. But there are multiple who use 2, 3 or maybe 4 BV’s to be more tax efficient. But that is mostly inside the same country. Go and order some annual reports if you want to see more data, sadly for this they are pretty empty.
You have a different view then me and that is fine. Believe what you want, but until I see different in practise I aint gonna believe that wealth tax made ik the way most of us want is going to be possible let alone make economic sense
The Box 3 system wasn’t shut down because it was fundamentally unsound—it was dismantled to protect entrenched interests under the guise of “human rights.” That’s not reform; that’s capitulation. If the government and judiciary can’t align to address systemic inequities, then the system isn’t broken—it’s working exactly as intended: to shield wealth.
You keep pointing out the lack of accountants and evaluators as if it’s an immutable fact, but that scarcity is a direct result of deliberate underinvestment. If governments prioritized enforcing fair taxation, they’d allocate resources to train and hire more professionals. The issue isn’t feasibility; it’s political will.
As for your anecdotes about multiple BVs for tax efficiency, they only reinforce the point: these structures exist to game the system. Whether it’s within one country or across borders, the principle is the same—those with resources can exploit loopholes while everyone else carries the burden. And no, ordering annual reports won’t reveal much because these systems are designed to obscure meaningful data.
You’re skeptical about wealth taxes because you’ve only seen them fail in systems rigged against them. But failure doesn’t mean impossibility—it means we need better frameworks, not resignation. Economic sense? It makes far more sense than letting inequality spiral unchecked while middle-class taxpayers foot the bill.
That said, thanks for actually engaging in open debate: it doesn’t matter whose opinion “prevails”, it all fosters critical thinking which is the whole point.