The Left Party says "there shouldn't be any billionaires." With Germany gearing up for an election, the far-left force has launched a new tax plan — though it will most likely never get a chance to implement it.
The Box 3 tax system wasn’t stopped because it was inherently flawed—it was halted because the legal system prioritized protecting wealth under the guise of “human rights.” Let’s not pretend this wasn’t a calculated move to shield the elite. Fixing it is possible, but only if governments stop bending over backward for those exploiting the system.
Yes, international structures are legal, but legality doesn’t equal morality. They exist to enable tax avoidance, with “valid reasons” as a convenient cover. The fact that something is hard to regulate doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be regulated. Complexity isn’t an excuse; it’s a challenge to overcome.
Evaluating hard-to-sell assets? Sure, it’s tricky, but standardization isn’t impossible. The problem isn’t methodology—it’s political will and resource allocation. If you’re genuinely advocating for more capacity in accounting and evaluation, then support policies that fund these efforts instead of dismissing them as impractical.
As for your claim about small companies making 1-2 million profit annually: splitting profits across multiple entities to reduce taxes is a privilege of those who can afford such strategies. Most small businesses don’t have this luxury—they’re too busy staying afloat. Stop conflating these outliers with the broader reality of struggling entrepreneurs.
That whole box 3 system was shut down by the government following a judge.
We need more checks on the system required to keep companies in check. Aka accountants, like I said getting enough is already and issue.
And no I am not talking about outliers, but I have no way of proving it either due to the rules I am bound to I cannot share information about my clients. But there are multiple who use 2, 3 or maybe 4 BV’s to be more tax efficient. But that is mostly inside the same country.
Go and order some annual reports if you want to see more data, sadly for this they are pretty empty.
You have a different view then me and that is fine. Believe what you want, but until I see different in practise I aint gonna believe that wealth tax made ik the way most of us want is going to be possible let alone make economic sense
The Box 3 system wasn’t shut down because it was fundamentally unsound—it was dismantled to protect entrenched interests under the guise of “human rights.” That’s not reform; that’s capitulation. If the government and judiciary can’t align to address systemic inequities, then the system isn’t broken—it’s working exactly as intended: to shield wealth.
You keep pointing out the lack of accountants and evaluators as if it’s an immutable fact, but that scarcity is a direct result of deliberate underinvestment. If governments prioritized enforcing fair taxation, they’d allocate resources to train and hire more professionals. The issue isn’t feasibility; it’s political will.
As for your anecdotes about multiple BVs for tax efficiency, they only reinforce the point: these structures exist to game the system. Whether it’s within one country or across borders, the principle is the same—those with resources can exploit loopholes while everyone else carries the burden. And no, ordering annual reports won’t reveal much because these systems are designed to obscure meaningful data.
You’re skeptical about wealth taxes because you’ve only seen them fail in systems rigged against them. But failure doesn’t mean impossibility—it means we need better frameworks, not resignation. Economic sense? It makes far more sense than letting inequality spiral unchecked while middle-class taxpayers foot the bill.
That said, thanks for actually engaging in open debate: it doesn’t matter whose opinion “prevails”, it all fosters critical thinking which is the whole point.
The Box 3 tax system wasn’t stopped because it was inherently flawed—it was halted because the legal system prioritized protecting wealth under the guise of “human rights.” Let’s not pretend this wasn’t a calculated move to shield the elite. Fixing it is possible, but only if governments stop bending over backward for those exploiting the system.
Yes, international structures are legal, but legality doesn’t equal morality. They exist to enable tax avoidance, with “valid reasons” as a convenient cover. The fact that something is hard to regulate doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be regulated. Complexity isn’t an excuse; it’s a challenge to overcome.
Evaluating hard-to-sell assets? Sure, it’s tricky, but standardization isn’t impossible. The problem isn’t methodology—it’s political will and resource allocation. If you’re genuinely advocating for more capacity in accounting and evaluation, then support policies that fund these efforts instead of dismissing them as impractical.
As for your claim about small companies making 1-2 million profit annually: splitting profits across multiple entities to reduce taxes is a privilege of those who can afford such strategies. Most small businesses don’t have this luxury—they’re too busy staying afloat. Stop conflating these outliers with the broader reality of struggling entrepreneurs.
That whole box 3 system was shut down by the government following a judge.
We need more checks on the system required to keep companies in check. Aka accountants, like I said getting enough is already and issue.
And no I am not talking about outliers, but I have no way of proving it either due to the rules I am bound to I cannot share information about my clients. But there are multiple who use 2, 3 or maybe 4 BV’s to be more tax efficient. But that is mostly inside the same country. Go and order some annual reports if you want to see more data, sadly for this they are pretty empty.
You have a different view then me and that is fine. Believe what you want, but until I see different in practise I aint gonna believe that wealth tax made ik the way most of us want is going to be possible let alone make economic sense
The Box 3 system wasn’t shut down because it was fundamentally unsound—it was dismantled to protect entrenched interests under the guise of “human rights.” That’s not reform; that’s capitulation. If the government and judiciary can’t align to address systemic inequities, then the system isn’t broken—it’s working exactly as intended: to shield wealth.
You keep pointing out the lack of accountants and evaluators as if it’s an immutable fact, but that scarcity is a direct result of deliberate underinvestment. If governments prioritized enforcing fair taxation, they’d allocate resources to train and hire more professionals. The issue isn’t feasibility; it’s political will.
As for your anecdotes about multiple BVs for tax efficiency, they only reinforce the point: these structures exist to game the system. Whether it’s within one country or across borders, the principle is the same—those with resources can exploit loopholes while everyone else carries the burden. And no, ordering annual reports won’t reveal much because these systems are designed to obscure meaningful data.
You’re skeptical about wealth taxes because you’ve only seen them fail in systems rigged against them. But failure doesn’t mean impossibility—it means we need better frameworks, not resignation. Economic sense? It makes far more sense than letting inequality spiral unchecked while middle-class taxpayers foot the bill.
That said, thanks for actually engaging in open debate: it doesn’t matter whose opinion “prevails”, it all fosters critical thinking which is the whole point.