News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, now t... by shivasaxena on Saturday July 19, 2025 @07:37PM (#44620507)
I would consider it very destabilizing idea and an affront to fairness really.

As an example, Wouldn't that mean that if my startup raises a round of 1m for 10%, my NW would go to 0 to 9m. 6% of that would be around 0.5m, and 30% tax would mean I would have to pay 162,000 EUR in taxes.

As a cash poor founder how do you suggest I pay that.

That's why taxing income and not wealth has been the norm.

Re:The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, now t... by balderdash on Saturday July 19, 2025 @08:00PM (#44620639)
Not to mention no one would pay you $9m for your stake and for you to walk away…
Re:The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, now t... by polyomino on Sunday July 20, 2025 @03:32AM (#44622769)
I think you missed the part that this was in Europe, no need to worry about startups
Re:The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, now t... by andrepd on Sunday July 20, 2025 @06:39AM (#44623782)
Have you considered taking a measly 20 seconds out of your day—surely a fraction of the time you took to type this comment—to google this information?

Another point: have you considered that the authorities and people of the Netherlands, a very rich country with several valuable companies, may have possibly thought of this absolutely trivial argument when designing their tax code? Do you really think nobody thought of it?

Jesus

---

To your point: stakes in your _own_ company are not taxed as assets, but as income, precisely to avoid the ridiculous situation you point out.

Simply put: your retirement savings, your brokerage account = assets, your startup, your company, your farm = income.

Re:The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, now t... by shivasaxena on Sunday July 20, 2025 @08:32AM (#44624578)
> To your point: stakes in your _own_ company are not taxed as assets, but as income, precisely to avoid the ridiculous situation you point out.

Enlightening, so you mean this policy isn't for the so called "1%"? Only for middle class folks and their stock portfolios? That's not what the GP was proposing.

> Another point: have you considered that the authorities and people of the Netherlands, a very rich country with several valuable companies, may have possibly thought of this absolutely trivial argument when designing their tax code? Do you really think nobody thought of it?

Yes, because I can point to an even richer country, with even more valuable companies where the left proposed same destructive policy only a few months ago and almost came close to winning.

Lastly, you did make me look it up and it seems Netherlands and other European countries really didn't think it through.

https://www.leideninternationalcentre.nl/get-advice/blogs/su...

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jasoncalacanis_norways-wealth...

Re:The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, now t... by anton-c on Sunday July 20, 2025 @09:08AM (#44624873)
> the wealth tax was based on assumed returns rather than actual returns

That does sound poorly thought thru. Why not just calculate it instead of "assumed returns"? Seems unfair on its face and bound to go wrong.

Re:The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, now t... by andrepd on Sunday July 20, 2025 @09:17AM (#44624955)
> so you mean this policy isn't for the so called "1%"? Only for middle class folks and their stock portfolios?

What do you mean? This is a proportional tax (slightly progressive actually due to the 0% rate on the first bracket). It's for everyone with such assets.

> where the left proposed same destructive policy only a few months ago and almost came close to winning.

If you think either of the major parties in the USA can be in any way described as "left" then this is not a serious conversation.