Fatta eccezione per le persone arrabbiate che perdono parte del loro reddito.
Per come la vedo io: + Il carico fiscale non diminuisce quando si diventa più ricchi + Potremmo aumentare gli scaglioni fiscali e aiutare le famiglie a basso reddito + Sembra che questo potrebbe semplificare enormemente le tasse personali (tutto il reddito diventa 1 mucchio)
- Molte persone hanno investito in immobili in affitto calcolando il ROI senza tasse
- L’affitto potrebbe aumentare (allo stesso tempo si potrebbe anche dire che i prezzi delle piccole case potrebbero abbassarsi, perché non sono più buone opzioni di affitto)
- le persone potenti fanno un uso massiccio di questi sistemi di reddito non tassati, quindi le tangenti saranno grandi per fermare tutto ciò.
- Il capitale potrebbe fuggire dal paese, riducendo il gettito fiscale totale. (Anche se ricordo di aver letto qualcosa su questo in genere non realmente accaduto)
Peccato che ABVV lo infanga con gli altri punti ed esagerazioni, di per sé questo primo punto sembra una buona direzione.
https://i.redd.it/l2emjlbo7z2g1.jpeg
di Turbo_csgo
13 commenti
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.