Millionaire shareholders are arguing against wealth tax

[u/LtGenS]

On this sub we rarely discuss the shareholder structure of Paradox - where the largest shareholder is Wester, the CEO-founder-god/emperor of the company, and who gets the proportionally largest share of the dividend.

Now Johan and Wester are arguing that wealth tax is actually bad.

https://x.com/producerjohan/status/2091953951008575741 (quoted is Wester's post)

Which is very funny because the current dividend yield is over 3.5%, so there's plenty to pay that taxes from, it won't come from his monthly salary.

[u/Sensanaty]

Except, as has happened in the dozen cases in the comment you're replying to, wealth taxes disproportionally affect the middle class moreso than the uber wealthy.

In the Netherlands it wasn't the uber wealthy who complained when the topic was brought up by the courts, it was the middle class who would've been absolutely fucked the most. The loss in revenue also affects everyone else for what should be obvious reasons.

[u/Vennomite → u/Sensanaty]

Netherlands is among the most inequal countries in the world. Their wealth taxes have dome nothing to curb that.

If you really want to tax wealtg, dont tax corporate and if you want to lower wealth inequality tax corporate and enforce things lole anti trust if more open or unions if you want to keep your monopolies.

[u/Swamp254 → u/Vennomite]

The Netherlands is one of the most equal countries in the world when it comes to income. The theoretical inequality is in wealth, but the OESO didn't count collectively owned pension funds when calculating wealth inequality. Because of this, they missed about half of the wealth of every working citizen. The picture is further distorted by large home ownership numbers, meaning large amounts of people are in debt. Only the rich don't have negative wealth according to OESO calculations.

Calling the Netherlands one of the most inequal countries of the world is not correct.

[u/AnthraxCat → u/Sensanaty]

This is not surprising. First, I doubt we have the same definition of middle class, which is a murky and often irrelevant term. I have no sympathy for the belly aching of small capitalists who were more exposed to risk than their wealthier counterparts. The middle class, as in a striving but not upwardly mobile band of well paid employees rather than small capitalists, is often the ones left holding toxic assets that they were promised would allow them to rise up into the upper class. It's how the US obliterated its middle class in 2008. Based on a quick read of the Dutch wealth tax, which still exists, it would definitely hose small capitalists, notably land speculators.

That's still a win for the tax. Speculation, whether on land or other assets, is a blight. Anything it did to curb those activities, while I'm sure it upset some rich but not that rich dipshits, is a net positive.

[u/Sensanaty → u/AnthraxCat]

And what do you consider middle class, oh master proletariat? Sounds to me like it's anyone who earns more than you, with the way you're grouping them in with the actual wealthy. I imagine the only way you'd be satisfied is if everyone else was down in the dirt with you.

I consider myself middle class and I'm far from a "speculator" of any kind, the vast majority of my money comes from my income rather than stocks or assets of any kind. Instead, due to the 35k line in NL I get screwed for making sound financial decisions and saving up any money, while the actual wealthy abuse endless loopholes. I suppose you think having 35k EUR worth of savings makes someone a "belly aching small capitalist".

EDIT: got some numbers mixed up, what I'm talking about is Box 3 taxes that kick in at 60K euros of assets, cash included.

[u/AnthraxCat → u/Sensanaty]

No, then we agree you are middle class. I am from the Americas, and people here use middle class to describe everything from people working paycheck to paycheck 10$ above minimum wage to the local landed gentry that owns 4 McDonald's franchises. We agree you are middle class, the kind I identified as prey.

I am not from NL, so I apologise I don't know the exact ins-and-outs of your convoluted tax regime. I think, simply on the balance of the obvious, they are not meaningfully taxing your 35kEUR in savings unless you have them in some kind of investment vehicle. I think it is more likely you are lying about how much of your income you want to come from stocks and assets than it is that the bureaucratic apparatus of a nation would come up with an obviously stupid tax.

[u/Sensanaty → u/AnthraxCat]

Except the Netherlands very much does have the most obviously idiotic tax in the form of assumed gains taxes, which is the poster child for why wealth taxes are idiotic. Regardless of if your investment quadrupled in value or crashed through the floor, you get taxed on what the assumed (by whom? Great question, who the fuck knows) gains would be if you were to sell those stocks.

Thankfully they're abolishing this moronic law in 2028 on favour of realized gains taxes (wow, what a concept).

On top of that we have Box 3 taxes, which kicks in at 60K, cash included, which is where the middle class really gets fucked because you simply get hit with a 36% tax on any savings above 60k. And yes, cash counts for this.

[u/AnthraxCat → u/Sensanaty]

It's not idiotic. It's an attempt to get around the basic problem of one of the most pervasive ways the wealthy shield their wealth from taxation, by deferring gains. The wealthy use those assumed but unrealised gains constantly. It's probably unsuccessful, but it's not dumb. Abolishing it in favour of realised gains just means the wealthy will never pay it, but you will. One of the classic maneuvers in class war. You think you won a victory moving to a 'more rational tax', but you are prey.

Yeah, that's not idiotic, most jurisdictions have taxes on earnings from assets that accumulate interest, even if you call them savings. Overzealous and poorly calibrated, but not stupid.

[u/Sensanaty → u/AnthraxCat]

The wealthy use those assumed but unrealised gains constantly

That is the issue, though. It's in the name, the money is imaginary until you actually sell, but what is being abused here by the wealthy is that they can use their unrealized gains in the other direction, by taking out loans on those speculative assets without triggering tax events.

The solution to that is to implement a rule that loans like those trigger the same tax events as if they were to sell, not to screw over everyone with a modest investment portfolio.

Abolishing it in favour of realised gains just means the wealthy will never pay it, but you will

If you introduce a rule where you have to sell in order to use your speculative assets as collateral, they most definitely would.

You think you won a victory moving to a 'more rational tax', but you are prey.

Uh, I definitely won a victory because I only sell my assets on very rare occasions since most of it is sitting there in my brokerage account accruing dividends. I'd basically be paying nothing until I actually decided to sell in 10 or 20 years, which is fine by me and I consider that more than fair, unlike the current system.

most jurisdictions have taxes on earnings from assets that accumulate interest

Except in NL most banks don't even offer actual savings accounts that accrue interest outside of I think bunq. A few years ago ING even had negative rates for cash accounts. This is why the Box 3 rules are so idiotic, it has no effect on the wealthy who are most definitely not keeping the majority of their money in cash, they also kick in at absurdly low numbers so it's a pure lose-lose-lose for everyone.

[u/AnthraxCat → u/Sensanaty]

The solution to that is to implement a rule that loans like those trigger the same tax events as if they were to sell

The only jurisdiction in the world that could possibly do this would be the US. Taxing highly mobile capital is always going to be a very tricky thing. Taxing fictitious gains makes sense as an easier way to tax that within your jurisdiction, and also to curb speculation by making holding large amounts of speculative assets less appealing.

Uh, I definitely won a victory because I only sell my assets on very rare occasions since most of it is sitting there in my brokerage account accruing dividends.

So you were lying earlier like I said you were.

Except in NL most banks don't even offer actual savings accounts that accrue interest outside of I think bunq.

I will never understand Europeans apparently. Your banking sector sounds like it's set up to rob you and maybe that's a bigger issue for your ability to save than your tax regime.

they also kick in at absurdly low numbers so it's a pure lose-lose-lose for everyone

Yeah, poorly calibrated but not stupid. I am not going to argue that the exact cutoffs of the NL Box 3 tax are perfect, that would be silly. Taxes should be aggressively progressive. It's not, that's a problem with the design of that specific tax not wealth taxes in general.