• meowmeowbeanz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Billionaires exploiting tax systems isn’t an inevitability—it’s a failure of governance. Saying “there’s no way to combat it” is just surrendering to the status quo. The resources exist to enforce fair taxation; what’s missing is the political will. Governments prioritize protecting wealth over funding the systems that could hold it accountable.

    Claiming wealth taxes are “too subjective” or costly to enforce is a convenient excuse. If we can afford bloated military budgets and corporate bailouts, we can afford evaluators and accountants. Let’s not pretend bureaucracy is the enemy here—it’s the deliberate underfunding of enforcement mechanisms that perpetuates inequality.

    And small business owners borrowing from their companies? That’s survival tactics, not privilege. Comparing them to billionaires dodging taxes is disingenuous at best, insulting at worst.

    • Vinstaal0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Look for say 20-30k you can set up a company in a different country with lower tax rates and move your profits there. That’s what a lot of companies do to make it so they can pay less taxes. You need multiple countries to cooperate (something the EU is doing on this front, but it takes forever to adapt everything). It’s way easier to tax the millionaires more, they have fewer options to bypass taxes using complicated structures (over multiple countries). I am saying start there, because that will help governments close the gap in their budget.

      Evaluating anything is subjective, that’s why they often do at least two evaluations when a company is being sold. At least here in NL, where we don’t spend a lot of the military and the Ukraine war is only 2200 km away. We do buy out farmers to reduce the amount of farmers to lessen the CO2 emissions of our country, but that is beside the point. As I said, our old wealth tax system was shut down because it was unfair. The tax office in NL assumed everybody had a 4% interest on their savings (above 30k) and other assets that fell in that category and that was taxed. Due to the interest being below 4% (or even being negative) people were taxed unfairly. Including a lot of the middle class who already pay a lot of taxes. Finding other people who are willing to work in accountancy or as evaluators are hard to find. I love my job, but a lot of people think it’s boring or have other wrong ideas about the job.

      At least here in NL and other countries with a social security system that is complicated people mess up when doing their taxes or applying for their social security. I sadly see it way to often even with clients of mine. That’s more my point with that the bureaucracy can be to complicated.

      You are wrong that every small company or company owner is struggling to survive. Some are yeah, especially once who have had a lot of issues due to COVID and gotten COVID support they need to pay back. Others are making 1 or 2 million profit per year or more. A small company in The Netherlands is a company with below 50 full-time employees, less than 7.5m balance sheet total and less than 15m revenue. This caused these people to pay less taxed percentage-wise than say a working middle-class person and this was easier to do something about. I would love to see somebody like Musk to pay 99% taxes on every dollar he makes, but I am sceptic that it is feasible and I think we should start with easier stuff. That is more my point.

      • meowmeowbeanz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Setting up a company abroad isn’t just a loophole—it’s a system feature. The EU’s slow cooperation isn’t accidental; it’s a deliberate design to protect capital mobility for the wealthy while governments feign helplessness. Taxing millionaires first? Sure, but only if we stop coddling them with “economic growth” excuses.

        Evaluating companies isn’t “too subjective”; it’s underfunded by choice. Bureaucracy in the Netherlands isn’t the problem—inaction is. If wealth taxes were shut down as “unfair,” why not fix the system instead of abandoning it? The middle class paying for systemic failures isn’t justice; it’s exploitation.

        And small businesses making 1-2 million annually? That’s cherry-picking exceptions to justify inaction. Most small business owners are barely surviving, not gaming tax systems like billionaires

        • Vinstaal0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          They are working for a reason to fix the Box 3 tax system, but the judge made them stop the next year.

          Call it what you want that people can abuse international structures. It is legal and it’s going to stay legal for a while since there are also valid reasons to setup an international structure. Especislly for bigger companies.

          Evaluating companies is subjective or well at least for the sale of the company it is. The seller will always value his work a ton and the buyer will always under value that work. Then there are also synergystic effects that will affect the value. Ow what do you think of evaluating hard to sell stock? Or living stock like animals? Even then a balance sheet is still a snapshot of a company.

          Idk if you have ever done any valuations yourself, but standardising them is pretty hard. It is possible to some degree for which I agree. Now if you find a good way to do that efficiently and fair to everybody please let me know then I can pass it on. Or if you know some good ways to fix the capacity in accounting let me know. (Not bookkeeping)

          I am not Cherry picking situations, just think about it. Upto a revenue of 15 million (actually it can be more, but let’s just stick with that 15M) I can hope that you can make a profit of 1 or 2m a year. Often you will split this between multiple companies for tax and security reasons, but consolidated it should earn you a pretty penny. There are outliers and I also have seen companies who have 30-40m revenue (which we consider medium sized companies), but only 1 or 2m profit every year.

          More people working in the accounting field is an upside to me so I am all for it. If we need to start evaluating companies every year it would be beneficial to me and the company I work for (assuming we can get the capacity).

          • meowmeowbeanz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            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.