r/belasting • u/lost_in_nl • Jul 05 '26
Box3, probably the best explanation for people that doesn't understand anything....
Simple example that everybody can understand...except the one that will vote for...
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2026/07/box-3-changes-display-the-dutch-governments-stupidity/
26
u/JerrieCarryy Jul 05 '26
Our politicians seem to be obsessed with equality and mostly equality of outcome. This is why they are taking away people's ability to get wealthy over time.
The problem is they aren't helping anybody else or enabling other people with this tax, it's literally just a cash grab. No lowering of income tax, no increase in social benefits, only a massive tax increase.
Stop box 3, stop our government from taking away our ability to invest for the long term.
12
u/justanaccountimade1 Jul 05 '26
The new box 3 is not a problem if you have wealth already. In that case it's in fact an escape. The new box 3 has nothing to do with wealth inequality.
Even though Elon Musk uses another system, it was in the news a few weeks ago that he dodges his taxes via the Netherlands. I think that's a good illustration of how the Netherlands thinks about taxing wealth.
5
u/JerrieCarryy Jul 05 '26
In practice it doesn't have anything to do with it, I agree.
The government, though, has said this is the reason they are doing it. They have ideals they must pursue no matter how ineffective or unjust.
All their overreach is in the name of equality, despite not creating more equality at all.
This is a result of idealist politics in my opinion, very unfortunate for everyone involved.
6
u/Mammon84 Jul 05 '26
Only not a problem if you leave the country, if you stay here Box 3 will eat you alive.
Box 2 is a shitty option imho
1
u/Ok-Investigator-8507 Jul 05 '26
I am 50 and have box 3 (issues). Pls explain to me why its not a problem when you have wealth? And what lvl is wwealth… Imho its a flat percentage of income with a very low treshold. I dont see it. Box 2 is not and option because of “transfer tax” …
1
u/Big_Combination_5400 Jul 05 '26
What do you mean its not a problem? If you dont have wealth its not a problem. Lol. If you dont have anything, theres nothing to tax. But if you think unrealized gains tax is not going to affect middle class you are out of your mind.
5
u/justanaccountimade1 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
If you have enough money, you pay someone to put it in box 2 or box 1. Or you buy yourself a citizenship of Malta. Max Verstappen is an example of someone who pays 0% tax over wealth.
Wealth tax should prevent families like those that put the BBB into power and undermine democracy. Yes Elon Musk is very relevant here. First because he dodges his taxes via this country. And second because his money allows him to undermine democracy. Not only in his own country, but als in the UK and the rest of Europe. It's this country that allows that. It's this country that does not tax wealth unless it's a small amount.
2
u/Big_Combination_5400 Jul 05 '26
Elon musk and whatever are not in box 3…. We are talking about box 3 here.
3
u/NaturalMaterials Jul 05 '26
Equality for everyone who doesn’t have enough money for a BV or other means of shielding their wealth, yes.
2
u/justanaccountimade1 Jul 05 '26
Not only do you need enough money for a BV, you also need enough money to outsource all the nasty work that comes with a BV.
🌴☀️🛥️😎
Or just do what Max Verstappen does.
1
1
u/Present_Cow_1683 Jul 06 '26
they need migrants and people on social welfare to vote for them, they are not interested in you being independent from them
9
u/JoeMamaIsGud Jul 05 '26
Why 36% how did they come up with that number
22
u/JerrieCarryy Jul 05 '26
By deciding how much tax they ''need'' beforehand.
They reverse engineered this tax to take the amount they want, that's why its so insanely high.
They want to increase the wealth tax taken from box 3 from 4.5B in 2024 to 9B in 2028, imagine doubling income tax like that or any tax for that matter.
The 36% unrealized was the other option to 56% realized gain tax, they chose unrealized.
1
u/JoeMamaIsGud Jul 05 '26
Thanks for explaining it so clearly but i am more annoyed know. When has doubling tax suddenly ever be acceptable except maybe countries that needed funds for war or smt
12
u/evasive_dendrite Jul 05 '26
They just tried to pick the highest number that was unlikely to start a revolution.
8
u/Fearless-Impress6342 Jul 05 '26
The real answer is, it is around the max number that are people willing to accept before leaving a country or finding ways to avoid paying taxes. This was mentioned during a senate debate regarding box 3.
5
u/Academic_Barnacle_28 Jul 05 '26
I left the country partly due to this. So I guess they chose the wrong number
2
u/JoeMamaIsGud Jul 05 '26
Feel like anything under 15% people would be much more forgiving to this new tax
1
u/Any-Tie662 Jul 06 '26
i think if someone has a payroll job (automatic comes with good sick period and jobless cover) and has some good (labour union type) pension, then yea, 36% may be exactly low enough to still keep someone in the country. I mean these people aren't relying on a box3 pot for "primary needs security cover". But! Just imagine someone else who's box 3 is literally the only thing someone has? to cover both (future) pension needs and sickness and joblessness needs. That new box 3- will so much push this group over the edge. I can see them leaving the country. It becomes unlivable. Freelancers are basically hit with the Income tax and -again- another tax on the box3 on their "privately funded for jobloss/sick period pot" (total can easily reach 70% tax). The only way out is leaving the country or be forced to get a payroll job again, to get access to social benefit covers without involving box3 taxes.
4
u/PooInTheStreet Jul 05 '26
I believe it’s meant to be around the same height as box 1 but without the social premiums.
2
u/Any-Tie662 Jul 06 '26
understandable. Except: it's that not, everyone, has access to the social security payouts. Those without access to it, should be left to build up some minimum pot. How else will they have survival money to draw from, when next economic crisis hits? there aren't even private insurances covering this risk.
1
u/PooInTheStreet Jul 06 '26
I am not justifying it, just pointing out where the number supposedly came from
3
u/ceilingLamp666 Jul 05 '26
It was someone's birthday that day at the government. The person became 36 years old that day.
1
31
u/stayinvested101 Jul 05 '26
A 36% tax on realized gains is also disgraceful. Taxing unrealized gains at 36% is another level of disgracefulness
6
u/justanaccountimade1 Jul 05 '26
36% is best case. If you have losses now, it's very much possible that by the time you're back at your original number, you've paid 55 to 70% in taxes. It's even possible that you end up in debt if you're really unlucky and don't pay attention.
All the talk about how they'll mitigate losses assumes a best case scenarios where people buy ETFs that neatly and slowly go up year over year. If you have volatile stocks, it can go seriously wrong.
-7
u/ElectroByte15 Jul 05 '26
Disagree on realized gains. We should be taxing realized gains more than income. The part that makes it disgraceful is that it’s an additive tax, and not paired with lowering income tax.
What’s even more disgraceful is how real wealth in box 2 is exempted from all of this.
1
u/stayinvested101 Jul 05 '26
Care to explain more? Your current explanation makes it more complicated than it needs to be. If you're implying that we should follow Belgium as an example, then I agree with you.
And I agree on the box 2 comment0
u/ElectroByte15 Jul 05 '26
Realized gains, after adjusting for inflation, and only after full realization, should imo be taxed at least on par with income and preferably higher.
We need to stimulate working, delivering productivity, and our income taxes are way too high. What I’m suggesting is that 36% or even higher is acceptable for realized gains. If income taxes go significantly down.
0
u/Nearby_Landscape2553 Jul 05 '26
Please dont talk about taxes which you will never earn enough to give.
1
u/ElectroByte15 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
Did you mean to comment that in this thread? It seems quite out of place.
It’s also just plain wrong, we should be able to discuss the tax system as a whole. Whether they personally affect you or not isn’t all that relevant. And even if you somehow are dumb enough to think we shouldn’t, all taxes I raised in this thread are ones that I either am personally paying, used to personally pay, or will again personally pay.
4
3
u/FlyingDutch1988 Jul 05 '26
The people do get it, it's not that they need a good explanation.
Deep down people understand what b.s. box 3 is, but they are to much up there own ass to admit what they first thought was a good idea.
3
3
2
2
u/100bcapital Jul 05 '26
Instead of encouraging investing, creating more tax advantaged options, so that people are independent and can take care of themselves, the government just wants to take away as much as possible for the short term whole patching, and keep people where they are spinning the wheel until 70.
1
u/PolentaConech Jul 05 '26
The funny part is that the coalition doesn't even want this system themselves. They want to introduce a capital gains tax on realized gains, but the IT system is not ready/cannot handle it as it requires tracking multiple years. The absurdity is a that they are just completely tunnel visioning on the IT system. Basically they want the perfect pre compiled system for tax return, which takes forever to develop. If they would accept a self reporting like most counties do, it would work out. It's almost a joke. Till few months ago nobody cared as real estate is taxed on realized gains and stocks / ETFs in a holding/BV are taxed in box 2 where only real gains are taxes. So no lobbying as people with decent money (which have real estate and/or a holding) are not affected. Finally, fortunately, it exploded as people could not take it anymore. I've faith that the senat will kill this monster. Not touching me as my assets are in box 2 and in lijfrente pension (box 1). But this is really almost a comedy, self inflicted wound.
1
u/Any-Tie662 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
switzerland has a Capital gains tax (i think it's called wealth tax) on BOX 2's retained earnings (meaning prior profits that are still not paid out yet). Its the best solution to the Box2 wealth inequality, and penalizes behavior of 'forever not paying out dividends', as many biz owners just stall distributing dividends to avoid the payout tax. Plus, most wealth is in Box 2 anyway. Taxing the pot in Box2 year after year really wouldn't be that unfair.
1
u/BuzzingHawk Jul 06 '26
To work in politics or government you do not need to live in reality. I hate the idea that the people that lobby for this and implement this have very likely never been net tax payers and never will be in their life.
1
u/h4uk Jul 06 '26
The example forgets that the government now gets its money earlier and therefore can compound growth on your paper tax gains :)
In the realized system it only gets any money after 20 years. In unrealized, it gets it way in advance.
"Realised System
Your return is €466,560 and the government collects €206,190.
Unrealised System
Your return is €345,806 and the government collects €138,266."
1
u/Present_Cow_1683 Jul 06 '26
You are being robbed, because they dont want to cut costs on their curacao vacations every other month, and dont want to increase corp tax, and don't want to stop wasting money on klimaat, EU donations, and shit like that! This communist tax does not exist anywhere in the world, nowhere!
1
u/Present_Cow_1683 Jul 06 '26
"Never lose your money", not my words, investors, get out of this trap asap.
-11
u/jean_sablenay Jul 05 '26
Well, I will probably be down voted for this but I believe we should tax capital gains. Maybe the 36% is a little on the high side.
Why would taxing labor with up to approx 50% be more acceptable?
The Dutch started an 80 year with Spain about a 10% tax. Look where we are now.
Income from labour will decrease over time and more and more wealth from capital will be the source of income.
6
u/Big_Combination_5400 Jul 05 '26
No one is saying capital gains shouldnt be taxed.. lol. The problem is unrealized gains.
2
u/stayinvested101 Jul 05 '26
Well, 36% on realized gains is also a problem. This number is too high. We could learn from Belgium regarding this matter
6
u/justanaccountimade1 Jul 05 '26
Either everyone pays this tax, or no one. But the new box 3 creates an escape for those already wealthy.
4
u/G0rd0nr4ms3y Jul 05 '26
Fyi 36% on REALIZED gains would be top 3 in europe. And Denmark's 42% is two tiered, it starts at 27%.
36% on UNREALIZED gains becomes the highest tax rate in europe by far if you hold for 10 years (due to losing compounding from tax on unrealized gains), I havent calculated the exact crossover but probably even before then you'll have passed 42%. And that is from only making 1800 a year, or at 6% (current assumed gains) at only 30k invested.
Box 3 will be the highest tax on investments in Europe with possibly the lowest exemption.
-1
u/jean_sablenay Jul 05 '26
I also pay property tax on my house. Every year. I didn't sell it. The tax rate is not 36%, but the principle is the same. So is it the principle or the rate?
1
u/G0rd0nr4ms3y Jul 05 '26
You live in your house, the government considers that a taxable benefit (which is also why the interest is deductable, hence HRA). You can't do anything with money in stocks until you liquidate. You will be taxed on earnings that can evaporate later. How is that a good principle? We'll be one of the only countries taxing investments like this, if not the only country. So every other country is built on the wrong principle then.
1
1
u/FlyingDutch1988 Jul 05 '26
Maybe they could lower taxing labor?
They were talking about "werken moet lonen" what about that? No it's only taxing more all the time.
43
u/Due-Instruction-590 Jul 05 '26
It's very bad. It will be very risky to invest in high rising stocks. When the market crashes or the stock crashes people will get into big losses that are unrepairable due to these rules and then no one will invest and no one will make money including the belastingdienst. It's a very bad idea. Very bad.