Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget • Hacker News Board

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#61

Post by clickety_clack » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 6:13 PM UTC

coredog64 wrote: post #54

clickety_clack wrote: post #23

I don’t agree with wealth taxes. The ultra wealthy will find the ways to avoid them and it will end up disproportionately landing on the middle class like everything else. If it has to be done, it should be at the sources of the wealth so that they can’t be dodged. Things like property taxes, corporate taxes, taxation of stock buybacks (which is a way to pay dividends without paying income tax on them). The middle cl…

> taxation of stock buybacks (which is a way to pay dividends without paying income tax on them I don't think you've got the mechanism correct here. If a corporation has cash, they can pay dividends which lands in the pocket of every shareholder equally. Or they can buy those shares back from shareholders who are willing to cash in. If I hold shares and don't sell in the face of a buyback, I'm not getting a dividend.…

No, I know exactly how the mechanism works. Right now if you get a dividend and reinvest in the stock, you pay income taxes, then you pay capital gains on the stock you buy with those dividends, albeit at a higher cost basis. Both buybacks and dividends are a means of transferring wealth to an investor, and buybacks are used because they are tax advantaged for investors, and investors like that.

It’s easier to “avoid” capital gains than it is to “avoid” income taxes by using things like trusts, borrowing against the stock, changing tax residency etc. Those loopholes should all be closed too, obviously, but a stock buyback is effectively a dividend under another name. It could be taxed that way if we wanted to do it. Then you’re taxing the wealth at source rather than trying to trace billionaires’ wealth around the world.

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#62

Post by clickety_clack » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 6:16 PM UTC

EPWN3D wrote: post #59

andriamanitra wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how a wealth tax that starts at $100M could possibly disproportionately (or at all) land on the middle class. I'm sure the parasitic class will always find ways to partially dodge taxes but compared to income and capital gains taxes a strongly worded wealth tax would be much more difficult to avoid. We just need to be careful with the wording of the law to make sure lobbyists are not allowed to carve out…

1. Wealth tax happens on assets > 100M 2. Wealth > 100M flees jurisdictions where it could be taxes 3. No receipts on wealth tax 4. Wealth tax boosters need something to brag about, so they dial the limit down to 50M 5. Wealthy keep dodging 6. 50M becomes 25M, becomes 10M, becomes 1M 7. Definition of "wealth" is expanded to include things like home equity lines or credit, unexercised stock options, unvested RSUs

Exactly. I think income tax was 1% when they introduced it and it impacted the top 1% to 2% of earners. Now look how much they’re taking from the rest of us.

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#63

Post by mnky9800n » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 7:16 PM UTC

ezst wrote: post #53

leugim wrote: post #9

This is a shortcut for taxing unrealized gains. They start with NW >100 million and start decreasing the concept of Ultra-Rich until everyone non-broke eventually pays it. In Spain it happened with the Work Tax which from >60k EUR (68k USD) goes to 45% as if earning 3k EUR (3.4k USD) per month made you rich.

Let them start somewhere. Inequality has only accelerated in the past decades, undoing the fabric of the fair and democratic society which many/most people perceive as a condition for long-term stability. If taxing wealth isn't it, then what else do you propose? We seem to agree that taxing income stinks while news like "50 richest families own 50% of the country" abound. Those didn't get there by working a job or be…

I pay a progressive 47% in Norway. I am sick of having half my salary taken over ~600kkr (60k usd). It’s ridiculous. Plus 25% VAT on everything. And it’s not like salaries are through the roof. Why bother paying me a salary at all at this point? Just let the state give me everything if they are going to take it anyways.

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#64

Post by nec4b » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 7:42 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #57

AntronX wrote: post #33

Europeans make around half of what similar roles make in US and pay up to 70% of their income in taxes (50% income + 20% vat). What are they spending all that money on?

free or heavily subsidized healthcare, childcare, higher education, and excellent public transportation?

>free or heavily subsidized healthcare

Every one who can afford it uses private healthcare, because waiting lines are really long.

>childcare

Depends on the country, but not that universal and can be very expensive.

>higher education

A lot of people earn degrees which have no market value.

>excellent public transportation

Maybe in some parts of top tier cities, but in general most of the cities are choking with car traffic.

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#65

Post by ben_w » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 8:39 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #39

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And anyone who claims they're going to cut spending without touching Medicare or the Pentagon is talking tripe.

A username of "socialismkills" is also a good signal of a social war fever trip.

I'd say that's more "look at me I'm an edgy teen who wants to be taken seriously" than fever tripping culture wars; where this kind of thing would become the latter is where the owner of that username thinks modern Scandinavia is indistinguishable from the USSR.

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#66

Post by spwa4 » Wed, Jul 29, 2026, 6:42 AM UTC

mnky9800n wrote: post #63

ezst wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let them start somewhere. Inequality has only accelerated in the past decades, undoing the fabric of the fair and democratic society which many/most people perceive as a condition for long-term stability. If taxing wealth isn't it, then what else do you propose? We seem to agree that taxing income stinks while news like "50 richest families own 50% of the country" abound. Those didn't get there by working a job or be…

I pay a progressive 47% in Norway. I am sick of having half my salary taken over ~600kkr (60k usd). It’s ridiculous. Plus 25% VAT on everything. And it’s not like salaries are through the roof. Why bother paying me a salary at all at this point? Just let the state give me everything if they are going to take it anyways.

Well currently about 3 working people are paying 1 pension. So that's where 33% of your taxes are going to. By 2050 that will be about 1.8. So that 33% will have to become 55% JUST to maintain current state expenditures. And it will keep dropping.

Which would make your 47% tax a 70% tax (minimum) in the current funding model. And that's assuming no rise in unemployment or anything like that.

That's actually pretty good compared to northwest Europe. I mean Norway has about 1500 euro per person per month in "free" taxes (from oil sales), which will also disappear, probably sooner than 2050. So add that, I guess.

Looking at those numbers, of course, one can easily see that the current financial structure of states will just not support that level of state expenditure (and it's a labor problem, not a money problem). So that is not what will happen because it simply can't.

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#67

Post by spwa4 » Wed, Jul 29, 2026, 6:51 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #50

thepryz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people are quickly coming to the conclusion that maybe the wealthy aren't as critical to a community as they would like everyone to believe. The big argument around NYC's pied-à-terre tax among other policy changes was that it would force the wealthy to relocate outside of NYC to more favorable locations. That hasn't happened, and for a place like NYC, very unlikely to happen because people are attracted…

It depends it may have an analogue in the evaporative cooling effect in the tax and investment base. If the state goes too far, those with wealth may take their wealth and invest in in friendlier investment climates where their home country suffers from wealth drain and potentially could end up as country versions of Detroit (or maybe like VZ where as the state confiscated property investment dried up).

The problem is that these taxes, like every other tax, will soon apply to the middle class (who have the real wealth), and they very much will leave. Either physically leave, or they will leave like they do in a lot of European countries: find some excuse to first become long-term ill, then go onto unemployment. And obviously the state cannot stop this. You want to do this? There's nothing the state can do about it (other than seriously lower pensions, unemployment and medical insurance)

There are articles about UK families that have been doing this for 5 generations. The entire family.

The problem is not money. There are far less working-age people, and it'll keep dropping for 25 years minimum. Which means the only solution is people working more, for someone else. A little bit more every year, for now without any visible end. Either that will happen, or the state (including elderly care) will have to shrink instead.

Pick your poison. And, of course, every electorate is saying "NONE OF THE ABOVE". Okay ...

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#68

Post by spwa4 » Wed, Jul 29, 2026, 6:53 AM UTC

yokaze wrote: post #55

leugim wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's progressive so the first 10k are not taxed as the last 10k. I do not deny, the problem is that 60k is the highest bracket* so >60k you are considered rich. In Spain if you earn more than 60k you are considered rich. * There's one of 300k at 47% but even that one does not change so much as the 60k.

> In Spain if you earn more than 60k you are considered rich. No, you are high earner. It puts you squarely in the top 10%.

60k euro per year in a city like Barcelona or Madrid does not make you wealthy. Not remotely. And in the other cities rent might be better, but jobs are a lot harder to find too.

60k euro gives you 33k after tax (2800 euro per month), and everything you do with that is taxed at minimum another 25% (that's the VAT)

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#69

Post by jjav » Wed, Jul 29, 2026, 8:41 AM UTC

clickety_clack wrote: post #23

I don’t agree with wealth taxes. The ultra wealthy will find the ways to avoid them and it will end up disproportionately landing on the middle class like everything else. If it has to be done, it should be at the sources of the wealth so that they can’t be dodged. Things like property taxes, corporate taxes, taxation of stock buybacks (which is a way to pay dividends without paying income tax on them). The middle cl…

> The ultra wealthy will find the ways to avoid them

That is only because the system (at least in the US) is designed specifically to enable this. Tax code is mind boggingly complex because there are a million loopholes and special cases, so that if you can afford the top-tier accountants, you won't ever pay any taxes.

But there is nothing inherently necessary about this. We can know the net worth of people and tax them if the government just cared to do so.

Re: Europe's Ultra-Rich Could Fund a Substantial Part of the EU's Budget

#70

Post by jjav » Wed, Jul 29, 2026, 8:45 AM UTC

AntronX wrote: post #58

autoexec wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

free or heavily subsidized healthcare, childcare, higher education, and excellent public transportation?

Then why work hard if everything you need is paid by someone else? This may explain low salaries in EU and 30 day PTO. Then if people don't make a lot they have to tax them more to pay for all this free stuff which further disincentivizes working harder.

> Then why work hard if everything you need is paid by someone else?

Isn't the answer obvious? So that you can afford cool things that you want. There needs to be a baseline of minimum services everyone gets (health care, education, food). If you want anything beyond that, like a nice house, nice car, nice toys, travel, etc. then that's the motivation to work harder.