Außer wütenden Menschen, die etwas Einkommen verlieren.
Wie ich das sehe: + Die Steuerbelastung sinkt nicht, wenn man reicher wird. + Wir könnten die Steuerklassen anheben und Haushalten mit niedrigem Einkommen helfen. + Es fühlt sich an, als könnte dies die persönlichen Steuern massiv vereinfachen (alle Einkünfte werden zu einem Haufen)
- Viele Menschen investieren mit ROI-Berechnungen ohne Steuern in Mietobjekte
- Die Miete könnte steigen (gleichzeitig könnte man auch sagen, dass die Preise für kleine Häuser sinken könnten, weil sie keine gute Mietoption mehr sind)
- Mächtige Menschen nutzen diese unversteuerten Einkommenssysteme massiv aus, daher wird es große Bestechungsgelder geben, um dies zu verhindern.
- Kapital könnte aus dem Land fliehen, was zu einem Rückgang der gesamten Steuereinnahmen führen würde. (Obwohl ich mich erinnere, dass ich etwas darüber gelesen habe, dass dies im Allgemeinen nicht wirklich passiert)
Schade, dass ABVV dies mit den anderen Punkten und Übertreibungen vermischt, an sich scheint dieser erste Punkt eine gute Richtung zu sein.
https://i.redd.it/l2emjlbo7z2g1.jpeg
Von Turbo_csgo
25 Kommentare
Angry boomers
The drawback is that they seem to want to change Flanders to Wallonie, when we need to change the other way around.
We need to attract more investors and companies to the south of Belgium, not scare them away in the north.
Oh and we need to pay the bills if we want to be part of an organisation.
Hard to predict all effects except for this one: all rent will be doubled to maintain the same net income for the landlord.(assuming a tax rate of 50%)
What’s always up with the focus on low income? They already have many benefits. The tax burden is largely on the one earning an average or above wage. That needs to be fixed. The difference between 2000 and 5000 euro gross is merely something like 1500 euro net more.
The first idea is also a big negative too anyone just saving his money into anything. It‘s insane.
I’m so tired about all the ‚capital might flee the country‘ shit.
Basically, most of the big companies don’t contribute fairly anyways and they have no hesitation to leave Belgium anyway the moment they can shove something in the hands of some Indian or Bangladesh kid.
Have fun with your department in some second world country, your competitors will enjoy Europe and access to its institutions to get ahead. Things will balance out.
It raises more questions than what it actually answers.
If the cost for a provider to do something increases, then the cost for the consumer will increase similarly. Suddenly ‘fairly’ taxing income isn’t easy, otherwise it would have happened ages ago.
Then, ‘managementvennootschappen’ → these take on a certain risk. While they don’t pay into the RSZ, they also do not get the same benefits. Sick? No income. Vacation? No income. No contract? No income. If you cancel ‘managementvennootschappen’, will you provide these profiles the same social benefits? Don’t forget that these companies pay a huge amount into our VAT system.
‘Prijszetting geneesmiddelen’ → if you bully private companies into price setting then no one wants to do business with you anymore.
None of this actually solves the problem: our population is getting older, less people are born, which leads to less active people finding pensions. The system is not sustainable anymore.
Just another band aid until the next generations face the same problem.
Pure dogmatism. Stop trying to fix something that is inherently broken.
The only way in which this is completely unrealistic is that it would need majority parties interested in the wellbeing of their voters, instead of the capital interest groups they are beholden to.
lol, fu Reddit, each point was a ‘+’ or ‘-‘, now it’s just bullet points.
The problem is „progressieve manier“
This works, if you switch to vlaktaks. No brackets, no favourable.regimes, no deduction posts. Just one (lower, let’s say 35) percentage on all revenue. LDD had this in their election program when they participated in the national election.
The problem is that income from money has 2 sources:
– it already come from money before (for example reinvesting earlier gains). This might have been 100 years before in the case of rich families or last year in case of a capitalising ETF
– it is ‘fresh’ money coming from what is left over at the end of the month.
The second type of money has already been taxed as income from labour. The first type might have been, but it would be hard to trace back.
There is also a slippery slope starting from buying/investing gold (fully taxable yes or no, as income or with sales tax?), going over other precious metals, to raw materials, to semi-finished products, to shops.
Rent would stop to be an interesting option, these houses would be taken off the rental market. Some would be sold. The result would be an immense housing crisis for the most vunerable. The taxes in this country overall are too high and these taxes are lower because there is a real need for these activities. We need people to rent out houses, we need people to invest, because it allows us to prosper economically.
It’s all an exercice in futility.
We are trying to „fix“ the budget without really addressing the core issues.
The system that we have worked as long as there was growth due to the West being supreme in a world that was lagging behind on every front.
That world has been catching up with us, and now we can’t compete in Europe cause we have common regulations for everything but have zero aligned strategies for the future.
So we bicker about the balance sheet and who should feel the pain of that eerie reality, so the rest of us can still hang on denying it a little longer.
Rent/housing prices will explode. More people will require benefits/social housing and as a result cost the average tax payer more.
An utter disaster.
Rent would get higher as its taxed more, house sales would slump meaning prics would go up as people would be reluctent to sell if they have to pay tens of thousands of euro’s of taxes extra.
People would offshore their income as much as possible if you hike taxes that much so less revenue for the state
Companies would move their HQ abroad
investing would dry up if up to 50% is taxed away
…
Its a typical braindead propositions from unions.
Here i am wondering how tf we are one of the most taxed countries in the world and somehow they still want to tax more.
De subsidies van de syndicaten schrappen zou al een goed begin zijn
It would have some short term impact on the rent market. And it would hurt a lot of whealty people, who now have a much better deal.
But it would result in a much fairer system, which would be better for all in the long term.
So in my opinion it is exactly the kind of reform we need right now as a country. And at the same time very unlikely to happen with the current parties in power.
Mag je dan ook een belastingkrediet krijgen voor de verliesmakende investeringen?
Denk het niet.
Hangt met haken en ogen aan elkaar en veel een onmogelijke utopie …
Uitgaven leger beperken op 2% maar de VN verplicht je om 3% te spenderen. Dus hier kan je gewoonweg niet onderuit.
Belastingen op inkomens zoals op het loon.
Dus bij negatieve inkomsten mag je toch ook terugtrekken?
Bij veel van die inkomsten hangen risico’s, dus wel de lusten en niet de lasten?
I’m curious how you would tax „financieel vermogen“ the same way as wages. You have $2m in stocks, tax it 25%(or even worse, 50%) a year so cough up 500k? Plus you have to pay Meerwaardetaks on top?
Ok, first thing that comes to my mind is that if you implement that. Those who are able to buy a property to let wouldn not really be incentivized to do so because they probably are already in the biggest taxbracket. This will lead to a lower supply of rental properties unless some Blackrock comes to Belgium and buys them all and starts asking rents of 1200€ for a studio.
Those who can’t buy a property to let, well they can’t.
For those who want to move out of the house early, people searching a place for a short period of time or just like renting over owning there will be less choice and mostly more expensive.
Managementvennootschappen op de schop doen zorgt enkel voor minder transparantie. Men verschuift dan weer naar allerlei buitenlandse constructies, met kapitaalvlucht als gevolg. Dat is net nefast voor onze economie. Zorg eerder voor antimisbruikwetgeving, ipv. het kind met het badwater weg te gooien.
Huurinkomsten belasten wordt gewoonweg doorgerekend aan de huurder, zoals dat vaak gaat met extra belasten. We betalen nu al een hoop fantoombelastingen via extra heffingen op onze nutsfacturen die recht naar de overheid gaan. Laat staan dat de vastgoedmarkt intussen verder en verder ons strot dichtnijpt. Jonge huurders staan nu al met hun billen bloot. Te weinig aanbod en prijzen zijn exuberant gestegen (+25-35%) sinds corona.
Populistisch, want het bekt lekker, maar onrealistisch, volgens mijn beperkt verstand. De middenklasse gaat hier, opnieuw, en verder, dit moeten dragen.
De overheidsuitgaven saneren, interesseert me meer. Vakbonden die hun eigen achterban opruien en alweer gaan staken, raakt ook alweer het hele systeem. Ik laat me graag corrigeren.
It’s extremely difficult to anticipate effects, but the immediate result is that Belgium would become the highest taxed country in the world, with a corporate income tax and capital gains tax that is incredibly higher than anywhere in the developed world. The shock to the economy would be enormous. This is unprecedented, never been done in the developed world and the impact would be HUGE.
Some immediate effects I’m thinking of, but there would be many more of course:
– Capital flight and collapse of our competitiveness: Belgium becomes the most heavily taxed country in the world by a huge margin. You would have immediate capital flight. A big part of the top 1% would immediately move to neighbouring countries. Theit investment tax burden would go 5x in this plan and their business income tax would go 2x.
– Investments in our country would dry up. Returns on investments would be taxed 2-3 times higher than in any neighbouring country, so capital would deploy more efficiently elsewhere. You would see very little external investments in the country, or they would expect HUGE gross margins to compensate for the tax burden; e.g. we’ll build a factory here, but we’ll have to charge you 2-3 times what you’d pay in other countries to compensate for higher tax.
– Housing market would be shocked. There would be a massive drop in net return for landlords and developers. Massive drop in investments in the housing market is expected, higher rents as landlords need to compensate for higher tax burden, construction would slow down as developers allocate capital to other jurisdictions. The maasive drop in supply (at presumably same demand or higher in the future due to demographics) would lead to sharply higher prices for houses.
– Price of consumer goods rises hard. Multinationals (apple, coca cola, etc) cannot accept making half or 1/4th of the profit in Belgium than they do in other countries. They will raise prices sharply to compensate the higher tax. Rising prices will lead to lower demand, which in turn will lead to lower supply. Before long, coca cola will be a luxury product that you only find at very specialised supermarkets at 5 euro per can.
– Massive cross border shopping. Due to Belgian retail price hiking in the previous step, Belgians will massively start doing shopping across the border. As a result, Belgian supermarkets will lose revenue and will downsize. Expect a single supermarket per city, waiting lines of multiple blocks, bankruptcies of retail chains. Same of course for other retailers (clothing, consumer electronics, etc).
– Shrinking tax base and weakened economy. Due to the capital flight and the Belgian economy being severly weakened, tax revenue to the government will drop sharply. As a result, they’ll have to hike up taxes even more, towards 70 or 80%. Which in turn will lead to a new cycle of all of the above. They’ll start to implement maximum pricing on rent, consumer goods etc and will implement capital control (stopping capital from fleeing the country). That in turn will lead to massive shortages of base goods, toilet paper and eventually famine.
We do NOT have an income problem in Belgium. We are one of the highest taxed countries in the world. We need to look at spending.
Perhaps you can rebalance how we get the income but not increase it…
Capital flight is real and for financial assets it is easier then ever, especially for companies and private persons who control the most of it. And a lot of capital has been placed in Belgium from other countries due to no capital gains tax. This is a huge advantage Belgium offers internationally and one of the only reasons left why Belgium still matters in the financial world. Let’s use an example. We have 500 billion capital placed here, the capital as a yearly gain of 25 billion (5%). Now we are going to tax it in 2026/2027 at 10% and it will bring in 2,5 billion of taxes. Next the tax will be increased to 20% and you will have some capital flight but there is still 350 billion of capital here which would bring the gain to 17.5 billion. Although the tax has doubled the tax only increased from 2.5 to 3.5 billion and in the meantime Belgium lost one of it’s huge advantages already. When you would increase the capital gain to 30% (in line with the rest of the world) I think massive capital flight will happen, especially from those companies and persons who used Belgium for this advantage), and the capital might drop to 100 billion if the gains would also be 5% the tax will only bring in 1,5 billion. Other negative implication it will have is that people who actually work here in Belgium will be taxed even higher then before.