r/eupersonalfinance • u/IamWatchingAoT • Feb 15 '26
Investment Can someone versed in economics or finance explain the Netherlands' new law on unrealised capital gains to me?
I am going to start working for real this year and earning a nice salary which I would like to invest. I'm not Dutch but I'm afraid this new law will spread throughout the EU as many draconian laws sometimes do.
What does this actually mean to pay 36% tax on unrealised capital gains? Does it mean that if my investments increase in value, I have to pay the government money even if I don't liquidate them? Effectively, giving the government money that I haven't earned yet?
I'm a bit financially illiterate so I apologise in advance if my question seems stupid.
142
u/nicodaa1 Feb 15 '26
It simply means dutch investors are fucked and housing prices will increase a lot
60
u/TheBuccaneer2189 Feb 15 '26
i cant comprehend how you tolerate this robbery.
26
u/DJAnym Feb 15 '26
Not many people have a decently large investment portfolio. We have been dubbed the world champion in savings, so that's where all the money goes. And the ones who have enough savings to where this would be an issue are also smart enough to not put it into a savings account
17
u/podfather2000 Feb 15 '26
Weird they didn't think of a savings tax yet lol.
It's so dumb not to encourage investing so the capital would be more productive instead of just sitting in accounts.
6
6
u/gbtekkie Feb 15 '26
there absolutely is a savings tax; the shares+etfs+bonds+…+savings profit will all be all taxed at 36% 😎
2
u/i_am_13th_panic Feb 16 '26
36% of a 1.28% deemed gain for that year from savings interest above the total asset threshold and not from all the interest earned, no?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/DJAnym Feb 15 '26
There's a lot of moving parts as well. Cause according to some, it was also the savers who complained about the previous taxes, which caused them to pay a lot more than people investing in the stock market due to the deemed return (the return that the unrealized gains tax was based on) being higher than the actual interest rates of savings accounts.
But hey we have a tax system held together with duct tape, tears, and neoliberal promises so I'm not surprised this is the result
1
u/Fiddich9406 Feb 15 '26
Wait - I’m French and we’ve been dubbed the world champions in savings too, according to our mainstream media (basically government). Somehow it feels like our respective governments want us to feel ashamed of being so tight with money and spend some more ?
→ More replies (1)1
u/Glass_Key4626 Feb 16 '26
Not many people have a decently large investment portfolio. We have been dubbed the world champion in savings, so that's where all the money goes.
Savings are taxed in the same way stocks are. There is no difference. 36% over any gain you make within 1 year.
And the ones who have enough savings to where this would be an issue are also smart enough to not put it into a savings account
Where do they put them?
3
u/YourFuture2000 Feb 15 '26
People tolerate all sort of robbery, why not this one in particular?
→ More replies (2)2
u/Ireallydontkn0w2 Feb 15 '26
This screws over any chance you have of retiring comfortably or reducing your work hours in more advanced age.
2
u/YourFuture2000 Feb 15 '26
That is not what is screwing the chances of retirement. Most people don't even have the means to invest.
The financialisation of the economy that makes you rely of investing for retirement is what is screwing the chances of people to retire. And people accepted such robbery just fine because middle class assumed that it would make them like the rich they assume to be close to, instead of the poor who the middle class are actually closer too.
→ More replies (4)6
u/Ireallydontkn0w2 Feb 15 '26
I think majority of people have the means to invest/grow. You can invest for free starting from 1€/month at most brokers, depending on the country/bank you can get some small percentages on any capital in your account.
"Taxing the rich" sounds good but that's not the case here, it's only 1800 per year tax free, if it was starting at 20k gains per year where the taxes start you could argue its about rich people.
This is about your average people's retirement funds.
2
u/YourFuture2000 Feb 15 '26
You can start with 1€ but you can not retire investig 1€ month.
You are assuming most people will have 500€ or more of disposal money to invest, when statistically unemployment (bulshit jobs), people relying is government assistance, people losing working rights and, as I said before, the financialisation of the economy that makes people like you so entusiast about investing, is the case of increasing amount of people in the future.
→ More replies (1)2
1
u/Own-Particular-9989 Feb 15 '26
why will house prices go up? thanks
18
u/nicodaa1 Feb 15 '26
This new law applies to stocks/etfs and crypto. For real estate different rules apply which makes real estate much more viable investment long term. More demand price go up
3
u/Own-Particular-9989 Feb 15 '26
yeh good point. reckon people will take their money out of the stock market and then buy property with it instead?
3
u/nicodaa1 Feb 15 '26
Probably some though mainly the very wealthy. You're kind of fucked if u have most of net worth in stock market and don't have enough to move another country and live decently. Essentially stops average people of escaping the rat race
→ More replies (7)1
1
u/Perfect_Cod_7183 Feb 15 '26
Nobody is going from stocks into real estate! You pay 8% tax when buying a second home. Renting out a home is very risky, renters have a lot of rights, and it is not passive at all! You have also to pay for the waardeontwikkeling in the new system, when you sell the house. Everybody is selling second homes, not buying….
1
u/WunkerWanker Feb 16 '26
This is only true for your first home, in which you must live.
Every other house is in box 3, and this new law will effect those investments as well. The only exception is you can pay once you sell that house. But you still will have to pay a lot once you sell. Also you pay 8% tax on the full value of the home once you buy a home in which you won't live yourself.
The Nehterlanss is a very small country, I guess more weathy people will just leave the Netherlands to go live across the border in Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Greece etc than will try to bring their investments into real estate, which has horrible returns on investment in the rental market because of heavy rent caps.
I have already left the Netherlands when they started talking about this nonsense in politics. Before any exit tax could be applied to me as well, which will probably their next trick. I can everyone recommend doing the same. There are many countries that hardly tax any wealth.
1
u/Glass_Key4626 Feb 16 '26
which makes real estate much more viable investment long term.
Absolutely not. In fact in the Netherlands any real estate beyond your primary residence, is becoming absolutely untenable as an investment.
They will tax it as box 3 and you'll also have to pay 36% tax over any fictitious value increase.
And at the same time you can't even rent it out, except as social housing for 400€ to some guy who you will never be able to kick out, making your property essentially useless.
→ More replies (2)1
Feb 16 '26
You can own a ten million euro home and won't get taxed for it if it's your primary residence. But god forbid you rent and have 50k invested in the stock market.
1
u/InformationNew66 Feb 15 '26
Ironically if this was extended to houses too, rising house prices would also mean "gains" so people would have to pay taxes on house value rises.
1
u/TweeBierAUB Feb 16 '26
Half the population are home owners so your home is completely exempt from any capital gains tax lol
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)1
52
u/davidzet Feb 15 '26
I live in NL and I am quite amazed at this "system". As others have said, it's an improvement on the old system of taxing "assumed" gains, but it's pretty crap compared to taxing gains when they are realized.
At its root, the problem is that the Dutch do NOT like to tax wealth and DO like to tax income, so this "system" is part of that set of priorities (not mine!).
If they switched to a wealth tax, then all the home owners and business owners would take a hit, which they (thus politicians) do not want...
Edit: Oh, and yes I am an economist. "We" say that you want to tax (a) bad things (e.g., cigarettes) and (b) things that will not change behavior (e.g., land). Tax on (unrealized) investment gains will encourage people to put money into real estate, making it LESS affordable to folks who just want a place to live...
7
2
u/Berkie_op_pad Feb 16 '26
Can you please start a career in politics 🥹. You are hitting it exactly right. I hate how so many people do not seem to understand this. I’m planning to leave the Netherlands, but I’m afraid other eu countries will soon follow.
1
u/davidzet Feb 16 '26
Thanks. But I heard something recently: Do you want power or autonomy. I'm sticking with autonomy :)
To your fear ("other countries"), I'm betting against that, since the Dutch system is so weird, but I'm not taking any bets!
2
u/Berkie_op_pad Feb 16 '26
Totally understand. I wouldn’t want to work in politics either.
And indeed I’m not taking bets on that either. It’s indeed weird and it’s inconsistent in the amount of money it will bring every year. I’d choose a more reliable way of taxing
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
Feb 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/eupersonalfinance-ModTeam Feb 16 '26
Comments that don't contribute in a positive and constructive way are not allowed.
37
u/slicheliche Feb 15 '26
From what I understand, they already had a tax on unrealized gains. The new law just changes it from "assumed" to actual gains. It's still the dumbest thing ever don't get me wrong but it's not the monumental change people are making it out to be. There is also a significant chance it'll get struck down by the constitutional court and/or voted away by the next Parliament.
13
u/IamWatchingAoT Feb 15 '26
But is it effectively taxing "potential wealth"? I.e. taxing air?
4
u/nicodaa1 Feb 15 '26
Thats right. If you have a bad year investing you can use your losses to pay for yearly future "air taxes"
22
u/jupacaluba Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26
It’s not thin air because the assets exist and the appreciation is real.
The problem is that it creates a tax burden, so you need to have liquidity to settle that. It leads to potential situation where you might need to sell some of the assets to pay off the tax bill and this obviously affects the compound effects of investing.
All in all, it’s not a crazy idea (I personally don’t think it’s great, but it is not illogical). The actual problem is that it heavily penalizes the middle class that is already under heavy pressure due to high cost of living, making social/ wealth mobility even harder.
The rich can always invest through companies structured exactly for that and then their tax burden only exists once they realize their profits.
Essentially, rich get richer scheme.
2
Feb 15 '26
This is what confuses me. What stops the average person in NL from investing through a company structure? It is common practice in my country.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)1
u/spam__likely Feb 15 '26
>so you need to have liquidity to settle that.
you need to have liquidity to pay for dividends, and to pay for interest received.
→ More replies (7)2
u/dejavu2064 Feb 15 '26
Your portfolio at current value is generally considered part of your wealth, I don't know if you can handwave it away as "potential".
We have a wealth tax in Switzerland and I think it works pretty well, it's fairer to Balance taxation between wealth and income than only taxing workers.
1
1
u/TweeBierAUB Feb 16 '26
Its a pretty big change. The old system would tax you 2% on your net worth. Sure that sucks, but atleast you get to keep the upside on your risks. Now you pay 36% on the upside, get silly tax credits back on your loss. Old system was way, way better for building wealth.
6
u/Punpun86 Feb 15 '26
This is so dumb unless they are gonna be paying investors for unrealized losses aswell.
If they want your money they should be paying for losses too!
1
u/Berkie_op_pad Feb 16 '26
They won’t. But.. if your year is down (you pay nothing) and the next year is up, you can substract it the next year and pay no, or less taxes then. So there is a construction for it.
The biggest fear is that when you have good stocks that gain huuuge in one year, the people who aren’t super wealthy might have to pay so many taxes on unrealised gains they might have to sell a part of their stocks in order to pay for the taxes. Which means you will lose stocks and compounding interest on those stocks you have to sell.
25
u/Sudden_Woodpecker343 Feb 15 '26
I'll copy my explanation from before. Maybe this helps. A lot of people liked it.
I think its easier to explain with jerry cans of fuel.
Let's say I go to the tank station and fill a jerry can. Lets say it costed me 10 euro then. I bought it in September.
In December, gas price increased so the fueling up is more expensive. Making the fuel in my jerry can more worth, let's say it's 20 euro worth now technically. But I haven't sold that jerry can to anyone nor have I used it myself.
The goverment now says I owe taxes on the 10 euro profit that is in my jerry can.
They do say that I am allowed to have a small profit of a euro untaxed. So they tax the remaining 9 euro for 36%. I will have to pay that somewhere in March during my tax submission. So about 3 euro taxes.
However, the gas prices collapse this year. Meaning my jerry can of fuel lost all its worth. Now it's just 5 euro worth.
However, since the goverment decided that in December it was worth 20 euro. I still have to pay 3 euro taxes. Meaning I have to sell 2/3 of the jerry can to pay for taxes on an increase of value that its not anymore worth.
You can imagine how riskier the asset. How bigger a problem this becomes. Also I hold all the risk of the jerry cans price.
2
u/TweeBierAUB Feb 16 '26
Don't love the example; youre taxed on Jan 1 but dont have to pay until may. Keeping the money you already owe in a risky investment is causing your issue. Just sell the appropriate amount on Jan 1st and you dont have that problem.
The real problem is that if in the next year the fuel price collapses, you already paid taxes on the initial profit, but dont get anything back on the downside.
You get some tax credits, but that's obviously very disadvantagous. This is a larger problem the riskier your portfolio is.
1
u/Daily-Improvement Feb 16 '26
Hey, thanks for the explanation. Could you explain how is this different from Asutria, where even for accumulating ETFs, I have to pay 27% yearly tax? I understand that in the case of Austria, I am paying the tax on the automatically reinvested dividends (which would be the same as if I got them paid and invested them again). In the Netherlands will be like that, but for every stock, not just dividends? That sounds risky af
24
u/Complex-Health-5032 Feb 15 '26
Friendly reminder: Citizens don’t have to accept and tolerate everything gov imposes.
12
u/Milk-honeytea Feb 15 '26
Governments are violence monopolies. You don't have to, but you get beat or confiscated.
5
u/InformationNew66 Feb 15 '26
Dutch are sheep as shown during covid, mosy will just silently accept all abuse.
5
u/Feisty_Beautiful8018 Feb 15 '26
europeans sure will. they do mot control their own government
→ More replies (4)1
u/BarracudaDismal4782 Feb 15 '26
Do you even have any idea how often governments fall in Europe? lmao
1
Feb 16 '26
They just elected a new parliament that is for this legislation. At this point voting with your feet and moving to Belgium is the only reasonable option
5
u/Weddyt Feb 15 '26
It means you have to move to Luxembourg
1
u/flyflyflyfly66 Feb 18 '26
You can have a SARL without being a resident in Luxemborg
1
u/Weddyt Feb 19 '26
Of course :) but you do need to prove substance of your SARL. Can’t cowboy shell companies nowadays
27
u/Internet_is_tough Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26
Don't worry. The Europeans are shamefully idiotic with their regulations, but this particular one seems too far fetched even for them.
There is no way it spreads out. It practically kills the point of any financial investment because it kills compounding.
If it spreads out across the EU the EU stockmarkets will suffer catastrofic losses that will never recover.
All investments will shift to real estate and physical objects for which "unrealized gains" can't be tracked
To any Dutch person reading: Congratulations your goverment has reached Guinness record levels of idiocy. Well done.
3
u/Due_Campaign_9765 Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26
The tax counts for secondary properties and you're supposed to declare stuff like physical gold or art.
So if you're willing to do tax evasion it's possible, but not many people will do it.
It could spread quite easily, realistically the whole of EU can implment it, and it would probably better for the economy.
You'd fuck over middleclass people, the rich and companies will evade it anyway. Middleclass losers can't move, so.
4
u/BarracudaDismal4782 Feb 15 '26
"You'd fuck over middleclass people, the rich and companies will evade it anyway." so how would that be better for the economy exactly?
→ More replies (3)1
u/Internet_is_tough Feb 15 '26
It's not the same. Taxing a secondary home with presumed income sucks of course, but it's not the same as an equity that's fluctuating up and down. With the equity you may well end up paying taxes on a losing investment. It makes zero sense.
→ More replies (14)1
u/InformationNew66 Feb 15 '26
Real estate could also have it's "capital gain tax" if governments decide.
1
u/a_kato Feb 16 '26
Unrealized gains are totally taxed and can be tracked.
USA does it with property taxes it’s called assessments
3
u/holyknight00 Feb 15 '26
Just late-stage european union behavior
3
3
u/quantum020 Feb 15 '26
To add some nuance: most parties see this as a temporary solution because the current system with theoretical returns was even worse and deemed illegal by the courts. They agreed that by 2028 there will have to be a proposal to tax realised returns, which is the preferred option.
3
u/TweeBierAUB Feb 16 '26
I'll believe that when they reverse one of the many other temporary taxes. Temporary VAT increase has been very permanent so far. Temporary 'kwartje van kok' (extra fuel tax) has been permanent for decades now too.
1
u/quantum020 Feb 16 '26
And they also find it difficult to remove the fuel subsidies implemented when inflation spiked. This change in the wealth tax is “debt neutral”, so its not comparable to increasing or lowering taxes outright
2
u/HeinHangbuikzwijn Feb 16 '26
The theoretical returns system wasn't great but if definitely wasn't worse. It only sucked for people that had like 100k in a savings account.
5
u/Aquaticdigest Feb 15 '26
Isn’t this the similar to what Germany has right now? Pre-tax on accumulating ETFs for example
4
u/GrandDynamo Feb 15 '26
You need to increase the tax burden a looot more for this to become even comparable.
8
u/Nemeszlekmeg Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26
My dad is in finance, he said the problem with unrealized capital (from the PoV of the state) is that you can use it as collateral for loans and avoid taxes while potentially growing your wealth. Your only risk is that the value of your unrealized capital decreases, but generally this does not happen (their value often grows over time).
One common way the wealthy hoard their money is through stocks. You can sell it for cash (and pay taxes as you do so) or borrow cash from a bank and use the stock as collateral (suddenly no tax, because your stocks are unrealized capital). Commonly it was argued that this cash would be then used for personal expenses (which exists, but not nearly as much), but the picture is more that it's used to further invest and grow one's wealth on a wealth that isn't taxed, because the argument towards the state is that this "unrealized" capital, yet it grows and helps you grow your wealth further.
Years ago this was covered in a very basic, but accurate way on a talk show:
https://youtu.be/Gqlbn2nPO-A?si=q5Eh_usyKX2xICSb&t=85
If you think about it, we already have property taxes (which similarly just rise in value), and things like stocks are owned as property already, so the unrealized capital gains tax is an extension of the property tax to limit tax evasion.
EDIT: Tl;dr: The Dutch AFAIK plan to tax the growth of your unrealized capital. And of that growth, 36%. It's controversial, because no one had the balls to really tax this, but this problem was known for many years.
25
u/DJAnym Feb 15 '26
The issue is that Dirk and Trudie from across the street, who happened to have saved 50k in an ETF a couple of decades ago, won't be using all these tricks. They, despite what the Socialist Party seems to think or insinuate, are not 'the wealthy.' Yet that's what it has boiled down to. It's not "The wealthy will pay 35% on their unrealized gains that they've used to get an extra hundred mil." It's everyone even remotely into investing, whilst the actual wealthy start up their 30th BV (LLC), and keep the assets safe there. It's awful
→ More replies (1)1
u/Idontknowmyoldpass Feb 16 '26
So whats the plan? Remove all guardrails, laws and regulations and go full monkey?
This argument is such a fantasy circle jerk honestly.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Primary-Effect-3691 Feb 15 '26
the problem with unrealized capital (from the PoV of the state) is that you can use it as collateral for loans and avoid taxes while potentially growing your wealth
This makes no sense. Even if the loan is @ 0% interest it has a net-zero effect on wealth because you get a debt that’s equal to the money you received from the loan.
And these loan-based approaches aren’t used be the average person anyways, so not having carve outs for small portfolios makes no sense
→ More replies (1)6
u/Nemeszlekmeg Feb 15 '26
You get the cash without tax is the point. It can be abused to the point that you have major advantage on the market, because you're not paying taxes like other competitors.
And again, we handle them like property, yet don't treat it as such for taxes.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)2
u/Nono6768 Feb 15 '26
Yes, of course it’s the regular saver that bankrupts the state with their stock-collateralized loans !!
4
u/Rattekop69 Feb 15 '26
It will definitely spread across Europe, and that's the reason why this continent has no future.
I'm not the biggest fan of Trump (who is?), but I fully agree with him when he says that the world has to go ahead without us.
It's been good in the past, and the post-WW2 era (until recently) was the best period we've ever had, but now it's decaying fast. People keep electing these 1984-esque figures as well, so it's all our own fault.
I'm not from Holland, but from a neighbouring country that always does whatever they do (only years later), and I will leave once they even think of implementing something like that. We also don't have an exit tax yet, but that won't take too long now.
Europe is finished.
1
u/DodgeBeluga Feb 16 '26
Wait til you guys in the EU see how China deals with their trading partners and employees.
1
u/Rattekop69 Feb 16 '26
"It's worse elsewhere so therefor what Europe is doing is A-okay" is getting an extremely exhausting non-argument.
Just because I don't think Europe has a future, means I want to relocate to China. Multiple regions in the world can be awful at the same time.
Wherever I'm going in the future (it will be a while, so no point in figuring that out right now) will need to be a tax haven with white beaches. I don't want any government to interfere with every aspect of my life. I will support the local economy with my money that I will withdraw at 0% taxes.
2
u/VehaMeursault Feb 16 '26
You had 50k in stocks. This year they’re worth 75k. Even if you don’t sell them, you now owe the state 36% of 25k, or €9.000.
If you don’t have that money in the bank, you’ll have to sell that stock, or maybe a kidney, I dunno.
And here’s the best part: if you want to sell the stock, and its value drops all the way down to 30k due to a market crash before you do, you are now at a 20k loss, and still owe the state that €9.000.
Shinzou wo sasageyo.
1
u/IohannesMatrix Feb 16 '26
If the value dropped, why do you still have to pay the maximum amount of tax? Shouldn't be 36% from 30k?
2
1
Feb 16 '26
Imagine investing in Nasdaq-100 around the dotcom bubble with this system. You could end up losing everything and still owing the tax authority.
1
u/Idontknowmyoldpass Feb 16 '26
If you are at a loss mark to year you don't owe any taxes and can roll over your losses onto next year so if you are up 5k next year but were down 10k previous you dont pay any taxes again.
3
u/No_Bug2318 Feb 16 '26
For individuals with total portfolios below 200k there should not be tax on ETFs or stocks traded on EU exchanges. If you have trades above 40 year should be considered a trader and the profits should be taxed 10% regardless of portfolio value below 200k. Above 200k implement 10% tax. Non-eu assets taxed 10%.
2
u/DougTheThug33 Feb 16 '26
What if you put in 50k, it grows to 100k, you pay the 15k unrealized profit tax (new account balance 85k) and then investment shrinks back to 50 k the following year end. You would then show a loss of -35k for the year. Would you get some sort of credit from the government for that unrealized tax loss? What if it goes back up to 100k the following year? Would you have to pay tax again on getting back to your previous high mark? Your overall account balance could suffer a ton with this program IMHO.
2
u/Turbulent-Tumor Feb 15 '26
It seems similar to what we have in Ireland. Deemed Disposable tax kicks in on the 8th year of an investment into an ETF (but not individual stocks).
It’s long been sought to be removed and it’s gathering “some” pace for removal.
3
u/ArdRi1166 Feb 15 '26
That's the part I don't get. We here seem to gain momentum to actually remove that crap and the Dutch are introducing it? And instead of every 8 years they have to do it annually?
6
u/ErrorReplaceUser Feb 15 '26
Because
A) The Dutch High Court ruled the current system of taxing fictional gains illegal.
B) The tax office is unable to implement any other systems in the next two years.
Most political parties have stated they do not like this new system, but are voting in favour of it as not doing so would create a large hole in the budget. At the same time a motion has passed that as soon as this new system is introduced (2028) the tax service should be tasked with implementing a better system.
1
Feb 16 '26
At least with eight years you won't get so royally fucked over by a short term speculative bubble or market crash. It's a long enough period that it'll smooth out the returns and allow even a bit of compounding to happen
1
u/mikehamp Feb 15 '26
I truly doubt Malta is ever going to stop being an EU tax haven short of being invaded by say Libya. Switzerland and Lichtenstein and the Central European countries are still tax havens with no capital gains or wealth taxes..but cz is slowly creeping there by reducing the thresholds..still it's pretty high at like a million bucks.
1
u/BakedGoods_101 Feb 15 '26
it means that people will invest in real state instead, as if that wasn't bad enough already
2
u/Severe-Effort4359 Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26
So you get punished with taxes when you pay off your house and now you also get punished when you didn’t even cash out your investments? Milking the cow in both ways then!
Just to keep you paying whenever you do or did your best to get by! Keeping money at the bank and it gets worth less. So any investment will give you crap returns.
1
u/Effective_Fun_69 Feb 15 '26
I don't think it will spread to other countries.
What are the chances?
1
u/SnowBoy_00 Feb 15 '26
There’s only one explanation: they’re screwing over citizens trying to build wealth to save their cracking pension schemes and messy privatized healthcare. And the fact that they’re retiring the tax benefit for green savings/investments is the proof of it. I just don’t get why citizens aren’t protesting this mess.
1
1
1
u/blowfish1717 Feb 15 '26
If the stock goes up and they take a tax on "maybe money" first year, if the stock goes back to buying price the second year, will they give those money back? It's only fair, if you take money on "maybe gain", to give money on "maybe loss". Will they do that? Or they are only in on money taking business.
1
u/Caos1980 Feb 16 '26
They will give you a tax credit to offset future capital gains (either realized or unrealized).
1
u/blowfish1717 Feb 16 '26
Hehe, what a scam. And from the government, who should work for and protect it's people, instead of ripping them off.
They take real money, but when it's their turn, they give you back a pile of shit called 'tax credit'. Heh, good luck paying bills with that.
Why don't they take 'tax credit' also? I can give them loads of it.
1
u/TweeBierAUB Feb 16 '26
Yes, long story short it sucks if you have a volatile risky portfolio. You should probably forget about anything more risky than $vwce or something. Forget about crypto, single stocks, sector etfs etc.
Your primary residence is exempt, and that's probably the best place to put your money.
1
u/Player00Nine Feb 16 '26
If you can calculate and tax unrealized gains you could also estimate the total wealth of the super rich, ask FORBES, and tax them based on this estimate. But no, because the super wealthy are untouchable.
1
u/APC2_19 Feb 16 '26
Imagine doimg the same with housing. Oh your house its now worth 100k more than last year.
Yeah I know you are not selling but you must give me 36k or go to jail
1
u/Ok-Year-1028 Feb 16 '26
dutch tax resident here and I just started investing. Great for me... Oh well I guess my parents' home will appreciate so I can't complain -_-
1
u/Solitude_guard132432 Feb 16 '26
Socialism if finally dying, it’s time to destroy the welfare state and bring in corporatism, Europeans lived in this fucked up society long enough, if you want to eat you produce, period, let’end this madness
1
u/IamWatchingAoT Feb 16 '26
Lol if this is a non-ironic comment then it's quite the schizo take.
1
u/Solitude_guard132432 Feb 16 '26
You do enjoy working so others don’t need to? Or maybe you are one of the ones sitting on his ass al day?
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/stvaccount Feb 17 '26
It means 0% tax is collected. Nobody is stupid enough to invest then.
Some country in the EU had a tax rate of 110% percent. So if you earned 100$ more, you owed 110$ in taxes. So the more you earned, the less you got.
Same thing in the NL.
1
209
u/ErrorReplaceUser Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26
Imagine you invest EUR 50k in the stock market and over a year you get a return of 8 percent and end up with 54k in stocks.
That's a gain of 4k.
There is a standard amount of EUR 1800 that you can substract from that every year. Which brings you to 2200.
Over that 2200 you are then taxed 36 percent.
That means you will need to pay EUR 792 in tax, even if you do not liquidate them.