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.
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.
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.