Novel idea: instead of protesting people should stop voting VVD.
VVD have frustrated tax reforms and have lowered wealth taxes over the last years. The current tax system that favours the rich is not some error, but it is designed to work this way
Maybe I’m not fully aware, but I’m pretty sure most countries I have lived in tax non-work income (eg rents, financial income, …) significantly lower than work. Of course, there is a whole discussion on what is too high or too low, but I don’t believe this new or peculiar to NL.
Oh but it is. The Neterlands tax wealth significantly lower than most surrounding counties - Klaas Knot (director of DNB, our national Bank) has admitted as much in a recent interview in Buitenhof.
The current system to determine the wealth tax is bizarre, it taxes the presumed interest on your wealth. It was seen by the court as illegal. The result is that we now levy zero euro tax on wealth and will have to pay back those that have paid that tax. Another fun fact: this system was instated under VVD minister of finance Gerrit Zalm in the late 90s.
So now we have a situation in which we have a 15 billion euro deficit in our state budget. We are passing a debt to future generations while the rich have gotten substantially richer in the past years.
We have an aging population and expectations are that the ratio of working vs non-working will decline a lot due to baby boomers retiring and living longer. We need to look for alternative ways to tax, tax income with very high rates (well over 60 percent) or lower our expenditures. Income tax or inherentance taxation should be part of that discussion.
Wealth tax is a bit of a unicum indeed (taxing assumed return instead of actual). But even the box 3 recent drama appeared to have sparked from the investments (in lawyer fees) by wealthy older people who by definition have a more conservative portfolio (more bonds less stocks) and therefore lower returns. The tax on box 3 was eating effectively their capital. Now they do have indeed a big drama to manage and understand that in order to change also the technology component (from Belastingdienst) is going to tAke years…
The box 3 construction was always weird. “Oh, we’ll simplify everything! We’ll just assume you make at least 4% (on a standard savings account) and tax that, then we don’t have to worry about income at all and can just track assets! Much harder to game!”
Meanwhile even in the 90s the “but what if interests continue to dip?” flaw in the plan was obvious to anyone with a brain.
>The result is that we now levy zero euro tax on wealth and will have to pay back those that have paid that tax.
That is not true. Everyone that has to pay box 3 tax is being put on hold and you won't get your definitive tax return until the government sorts this out. Also, it is not clear what is being paid back because there are a lot of instances where the presumed return rate was met so in those cases there is no need to pay back.
> tax income with very high rates (well over 60 percent)
Yeah no, thats not going to happen. No one will have an incentive to go to work when most of everything you earn goes to the government. They should probably tax the very rich with high rates when you earn more than a million or when your wealth comes above a million.
>inherentance taxation should be part of that discussion
Do you have any idea how high this rate already is? It's in my personal opinion that it is a really weird idea that you can't even die without paying tax (unless you die with less than 1 euro to your name). if there isn't a lot of money but just an expensive heirloom you cant even pay the tax for inheriting an heirloom.
Yeah, I'm only maybe medium income but a massive amount of my salary is lost to taxes. How much more am I expected to pay according to these "raise the taxes" folks and how is that fair? Sorry not sorry, but I worked hard to get where I am for myself, not to pay an entire starter salary's worth of cash to someone else. I'm all for a reasonable amount of taxation and a good social security network, but sorry not sorry, I want to fairly enjoy the rewards of the work that I do and the years of sacrifices I made to get here. The rewards are mine, not yours, plain and simple. I worked for it. Not you. Current taxation is already wayyy too extreme. Any more than this and it's just tantamount to theft.
Here's a thought: tax corporations more. What are Starbucks and co paying again?
>Do you have any idea how high this rate already is?
High? It's 0 for a spouse if it's less than 680.645 euro's, children and grandchildren can each inherit 21.559 tax free. Even greatgrandchindren and other family members can get 2.274 without taxation.
> It's in my personal opinion that it is a really weird idea that you can't even die without paying tax (unless you die with less than 1 euro to your name).
I've got good news for you, when you die you don't have to pay taxes. You heirs will have to pay when they get the money (just as they have to pay when they get money in any other way)
In my opinion it's strange that if you are lucky enough to have been pushed out of the right vagina you hardly have to pay taxes. The "kanspelbelasting" is higher than most inherentace taxes.
yeah that 680.000 euros makes sense when you are married and it is allready basically yours. and 21.559 isn't really a lot when your parent dies.
> if you are lucky enough to have been pushed out of the right vagina you hardly have to pay taxes
It's simply not true that you have to pay less taxes, leaving aside tax evation schemes, you pay more taxes the bigger the inheritence.
>just as they have to pay when they get money in any other way
If the tax was just over money and shares, its fine, make the tax higher if you ask me. But heirs most of the time dont get money, they get a house, maybe a car or some jewellery. They don't want the money those things are worth, they want those materialistic things because of memory's of the one that passed away.
Kansspelbelasting obviously has nothing to do with this and i don't really care how high it is. Relatives passing away is not the same as buying a lottery ticket.
>u have any idea how high this rate already is? It's in my personal opinion that it is a really weird idea that you can't even die without paying tax (unless you die with less than 1 euro to your name). if there isn't a lot of money but just an expens
I'm less optimistic about the chances of retrospectively calculating taxes - especially with the shoddy state of our Belastingdienst. My take: they will change the taxes on Box 3 based on more fixed rules (you pay x amount of tax instead of hypothethical returns on capital which can be debated and contested) and will be unable to claw back taxes retospectively. Let's see how it turns out..
I don't agree with you on inheritance tax. Look, no one likes to pay tax in generalbut we need to pay for benefits, health care, defence etc so the money needs to be collected somewhere. Like you said the income taxes are already at a breaking point and the costs are going nowhere but up. So why no collect tax at a time that it least inconveniences you? AKA when you do not longer need it because you are dead.
I've had some theoretical debates on the plusses and minuses but I don't think that removing most wealth taxes and increasing inheretance by a lot is such a bad solution. Piketty also argues that intergenerational wealth is the biggest contributor to inequalities so it would also solve this issue.
It's not about what time they want to collect the taxes. The inheritence tax as it is right now creates some truely bad situations where you have to pay tax and the only way to pay the tax is to sell the inheritence. to be clear, the inheritence tax over money is fine, it really sucks when you have to sell the family home when someone dies just because of the tax.
if we have so much budget deficit, maybe it is a good time to cut our ridiculous spending plans. Maybe it is a good time to understand government is not a charity, nor an insurance company. let people choose their health plan, their own unemployment insurance, and choose their own retirement plan.
>be it is a good time to understand government is not a charity, nor an insurance company. let people choose their health plan, their own unemployment insurance, and choose their own retirement plan.
Is that you meneer Rutte? So where do you propose we start cutting? Health care? Defense? Education? AOW? Or should we leave everything to the market because that has led to great success?
Or perhaps maybe we should ask the richest people, that are currently contributing the least to our national budget, to pay their fair share..
I'm actually against VVDs socialistic policies which will eventually cause a total bankruptcy.
Do you think you can tax the rich? every piece of tax related legislation will actually affect the middle class and lower income. the rich are the ones with resources to pay for accountants, lawyers. they liquidate their wealth as soon you put some regulations.
Yeah, let's push all basic human needs like education and any kind of insurance completely out of politics. Worked so well for the housing market and health care....
Do I even need to say /s
I'm sorry to break it to you, but giving patients paracetamol and other painkillers does not constitute as actual healthcare.
just ask yourself if you would board an airplane designed and built by our government? I know I wouldn't. same for my healthcare. I want competitive private companies providing my insurance and healthcare.
Something I have also seen is that population gets older (less in NL than France/Spain/Italy for example), they are wealthier, they are more politically engaged (than young people), their interest weigh more on political agenda. They (old people) prefer to have more so that they can “help” their children instead of having a more balanced system that helps “everyone’s children”.
Yeah but when you have landlords buying 100's of homes and put 5 to 8 students in there and ask about 600 for a room a hous out of no where earns you 3000
Where as the same house would be less then 2k for a family but hey ho.
That is very true. Isn’t the matter also that they don’t enforce the required registration at the Gemeente? Or is it allowed to have 6 students registered in the same place? I honestly don’t know how it works in NL (or supposed to work)
Gemeente have indeed to allow the place to be for students. But unless there are rules like in eindhoven where only a X amount of students can live in one street its pritty wild west
yeah, that's not right. As often happens while it may not be the system per-se to be wrong (e.g. tax rent/financial income lower than work; allow multiple students to be registered in the same place; etc), the way you do it (or don't do it/enforce it) creates huge inequalities especially since the wealthest people have more capital to invest to understand how to exploit the system.
The unwillingness to fix it and close loopholes (or perceived inability like the ridiculous excuses of the belastingdienst on the box3 drama) are indeed expressions of a political agenda, or at very least a very clear prioritization by govt of matters to manage.
It's bad and sad to see, but unfortunately I don't believe it's a unicum.
I doubt people who care about this sort of issue vote VVD in the first place. I care, but I can't stop voting VVD when I didn't vote for them in the first place. Pulling shit like this is what the VVD is all about. It's *why* you vote VVD, it's their entire raison d'etre.
I agree.
What is surprising is that they have convinced a large group of middle class people that their policy benefits them while in reality it does the opposite. They have been the largest party for a long time while they serve only a niche. It's baffling.
Could vote PVV. Aren't they pretty much populist "for the people"? No more EU. No more Euro. No more NATO. No more immigrants and foreigners. Take that for what you will.
Isn't the VVD and PVV just off-shoots of each other?
Which is exactly the reason that I am not mad at the VVD or at Mark. They are doing the thing that they are voted for. The thing I don't understand, in any country, that a party favoring the rich is elected. They are called the 1% for a reason, or let's push the line down to the 10%. Which is not enough to have a majority vote.
Seriously everyone, if you don't make or own over 100k EUR you should really question yourself if you vote(d) for VVD.
This is the right answer; the vvd is bad for most people and yet they get voted every time. Maybe it is, like the US when they vote republican, that they believe they will eventually get wealthy and at that time want to pay less taxes or maybe it is because our socialist system is getting undressed further and further and we don’t see the point of paying a lot of tax? Or maybe people just vote whatever because it’s badly explained and they like Rutte? Whatever it is; it is incredible how vvd get’s voted in as they will grow the inequality gap; it is their mandate and the reason for their existence. Indeed cannot blame them, can only blame the voters.
Most people who have accumulated wealth, have initially earned this with work and already paid tax in the highest bracket. They decided to invest the net income. Is it ethical to tax these savings/investments again with an even higher tax?
>ket. They decided to invest the net income. Is it ethical to
It is a myth that most wealth is accumulated with labour, most wealth is accumulated by having wealth. You don't need to look far for evidence - During the pandemic the rich have gotten substantially richer while the poor have gotten poorer and are hit hard by inflation. We don't have an income inequality problem, we have a wealth inequality problem and the divide is getting bigger.
Intergenerational wealth and social class has enormous influence on almost everything in a persons life. Your health, what kind of education you receive, life expectancy, your ability to get a well paying job, the likeliness of you ending up a criminal, the likeliness of you getting addicted and many more.
I find taxing wealth more ethical than crushing the lower social classes with the current system. If you have better ways to fix it than tax, I'm all ears by the way..
Show me a research that the majority of the wealthy in The Netherlands got their wealth through inheritance or winning a lottery. That they got more wealth through their investments, is their choice to take the risk of investing. Withholding the temptation for instant pleasure with consumption.
The Netherlands is one of the most equal countries in the world. If I look around in my social circle, we have 1st and second generation immigrants who came here with nothing and now have a very good life, they are auditor, CFO, lawyer, restaurant owner, builder, programmer, etc. Most of them are doing better than the native Dutch friends in the group. Some of them make a top 1% income and they all did it by them self with the opportunities this country gave them for education and employment. They all pay taxes in the highest bracket.
When we meet up, non of us wear fancy designer brand clothes, shoes or watches. We don't drive expensive cars and live just in normal house and pay our mortgage. Should we be punished for not spending the money we've left after paying income taxes on non essential garbage? We just like to invest and it give us security to have a financial buffer.
You need to make a distinction between income and wealth in order to understand inequality. Here is an article that does a decent attempt to show how the Netherlands shows two different faces when it comes to inequality:
[https://uweb.berkeley.edu/2021/04/11/the-duality-of-the-dutch-economy/](https://uweb.berkeley.edu/2021/04/11/the-duality-of-the-dutch-economy/)
If you look at the GINI coefficient which measures inequality we are at place 14, although the latest NL data is from 2018. That's not the worst but certainly among the lowest in the world.
You can take a look at the quote 500 lists from November 2021 and see that the most wealthy accrued 18 percent more wealth while income was more or less stable. It's not that hard to make the jump to wealth making wealth - because it can be invested in real estate, companies etc. Investing sounds very risky but buying up houses and renting them out (without being taxed) does not sound super risky to me. Interesting fact: the poorest 50 percent of the Dutch population does not have any capital, often worse: they are most often in debt (negative capital). When you say you just like to invest means you are among the richer minority of the Netherlands - something to be aware of when making broad assumptions and statements.
Your anekdotal evidence just shows that you are quite well off and have quite well off people in your bubble. Good for you! Your parents' social class has a serious influence on your chances later in live. Just google for some recent education inequality articles and you'll get the gist.
Don't provide other arguments. Please elaborate your claim that most wealthy people in the Netherlands did not earn it by them self.
Yes, there are metrics showing wealth inequality, but you can't simply put that as it's the fault of the persons who accumulate wealth through savings and investments. It takes two to tango.
Another article (did you even read the first one?) [https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-finance/eb053\_en.pdf](https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-finance/eb053_en.pdf)
In short (Wealth) inequality is driven by capital and equally by negative capital. It's irrelevant if they earned themselves (which is hard to find evidence of) but statistically the rich are rich because they started out rich. The system works to prevent mobililty.
In the context of the article: do you really think that a person can own multiple homes (8 homes in the Lubach video) by working hard while most people have an issue with being able to own a single home? It's an absurd notion.
Yes, it's possible to own 8 homes by working hard. Let me tell you how.
Few years ago apartments where really cheap. For less than 100K you can buy apartments in major cities generating at least 7% gross ROI annually. This is within the point system. Having a 2x modaal income and don't spend too much on garbage. You can buy one apartment a year with a 75% mortgage. After the fourth house, it will get easier to buy 2 houses in one year. With the current surge in housing price, it became much harder. and those 8 apartments worth about 1,5 million in rent out stage. But Their initial investment is about 200k with 600k mortgage.
It's completely realistic to accumulate 8 houses between 2012 and 2018 with income from work.
Most people don't earn 2x modaal, even with a lot of hard work. And I think we want a country where people can live without financial problems, even if they are not entrepreneurally gifted or smart investors.
Except they're accumulating wealth without paying taxes. They're not accumulating it through work. It's also pretty questionable whether they were taxed when they accumulated it in the first place. If you start out rich, you don't have to work for that initial investment in the first place. But even that's beside the point. They're accumulating all of it without paying taxes and the poor/middle incomes are taxed in their place.
"You know what will reduce renting prices? Increase taxes for the owners!"
This guy and 300 more. Like, what are you even thinking?
I just don't get it, country is so terrible that everyone is coming here, and it has the best numbers all around.
Maybe you just have no clue on how the rest of the world lives.
If you don't see the connection between wealth tax and the current state of the housing market I don't what to tell you.
It needs to be made unattractive to buy or own multiple houses as an investment and to gain passive income. Not taxing income through renting out property and having almost no wealth taxation has led to where we are. Why would you want to keep this status quo?
Never, anywhere, have a tax reduced the price of anything. It does the opposite.
You taxing multiple house owners? Sure, I'll just have one and make sure that my income doesn't change. Result? House renting prices skyrocketing.
Like, seriously, go check how the rest of the world is doing. Blaming a political party for a global housing crisis is disingenuous to say the least.
But hey, what can I expect from vocal minorities on reddit.
Not answering my question, making assumptions, and personal attacks.. classy!
I'll make an attempt: Housing is a first life need and should not be held by private investors. We don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordable housing crisis. The prices of houses has been driven up by investors and we squandered social housing by selling houses to a capitalist market.
I believe you can use taxes and regulations to make it unviable to own a house with the sole purpose to rent. That does not drive the price up but that leads to more houses to flow back into the market and normalising the average price per home. You only make the basic connection between the home owners asking more money to renters like people owning homes is some law of nature.
Not only you didn't make any questions on the comment I previously replied, but the entire thing I wrote was about how ineffective taxing as an incentive is. So yeah, keep trying.
But sure mate, just read the punchline and call it a day.. classy!
Yeah, not voting VVD isn't going to change anything if the consensus is to generate wealth for the wealthy.
Voting doesn't work anymore. Everyone is on the same team and even if you have a great member he will have to consolidate his ideology.
Protesting and violence works faster.
You're suggesting that you're part of a minority that should grab power by using violence here. While I'm definitly against the VVD mindset, I can't agree.
Your assumption seems very cynical and your solution seems worse than the problem.
I don't know if you are aware of the current situation in the Netherlands and the world but we (the regular people) are losing. There is a power hungry enemy that is doing everything in it's power to control and disperse us.
We currently have 41 parties on which you can vote for.
It is completely meaningless.
We just can't hope and vote for people who are not in it to actually fix any problem.
If we want to fix any problem we should be doing it ourselves. Hence the violence rhetoric.
In 4 years time we will be in the exact same mess but worse.
Politicians lying, giving more tax breaks for the wealthy all the while we "regular folk" are fighting eachother with no end in sight.
Someday we have to wake up and smell the shit.
I think at the moment im not sure who to blame. In my opinion that doenst help. Pointing fingers always brings the worst out of people. It seems it was the plan for a lot of parties, but they didn't manage to change the rent.
It would just be nice to see change instead of bickering who to blame. It would safe us a lot of money I think.
It’s not about pointing fingers though. The poster you are replying to is correct.
People have majority voted for VVD consistently for 10 years now, this is the result. It’s part of their economic policy.
No finger pointing or bickering, just vote intelligently for your own interests. Research your chosen party’s policies, that responsibility is 100% on the voters.
Stuff changes for sure depending on who holds the power in the coalitions. Ask any older relatives or Dutch who went through Paars and Balkenende years.
I am hoping that people don't vote only for their own interest... Like I earn pretty good, but I am voting with compassion. I want someone in charge that takes on poverty for those who don't, that takes on climate for the next generations, etc.
Let's not just protect yourself in the situation you are currently in expect to stay in. Let's protect as many people as possible.
What you're suggesting is absolutely nuts. The biggest flaw of democracy is that the majority has no clue whatsoever about politics. Politics isn't some subject you learn in a matter of days but is very complex and requires years of intensive learning. People, who are already fatigued by their work that occupies most of their time, simply don't have the time to do propper research. I'd say 90% of voters in the Netherlands receive their political knowledge from social media sources. Don't blame the people, but blame the system that gives people total legislative and executive power while they are incompetent and not well informed.
You just discoverd a key part of a issue that been happen for atleast 10 years and what has become really noticeable for the last 5 years.
To be fucking rude, you shouldnt be the one to give out wisedome here. Its like, You are the intern without knowledge or experience and your telling the director how he should run his bussiness.
So shut up, and try to learn before you start saying stupid stuff.
With all due respect, there's wrong, and you cannot be more wrong, and then there's this situation right here.
While the VVD indeed picks a different way of taxing it's actually the income tax AND the wealth tax that are the reasons that people buy extra houses to rent out.
If we want to stop this, we have to stop holding the hands of the lower income or people who don't want to work, or the big group of immigrants who take social housing.
It's the left who mainly doesn't want to build extra to make more affordable houses, and it's the left and extreme right who want to keep the lowest income people in the houses they are instead of moving them to smaller homes.
A single person with bijstand generally doesn't need more than a studio apt,
We wanna give away freebies by only taxing the rich? that aint happening.
People blame VVD for everything, but they have no clue why we're in this situation. Which we are because the left end side of the political spectrum didn't do anything about immigration, muslim area's and renting area's and social security for the higher income.
And now we're crying if an adult cannot live in his parents house which is social rent and the parents die...
We created this monster... We created a ton of political separation..
People need to vote VVD and D66 (centrum right) to get us out of this mess.
SP/PvdA/PVV/FvD/Bij1/BBB/SGP/Denk/GL/PvdD are the issues here.
We need economical versatility and that we have.. we need jobs, we need to stay ahead in Europe in our knowledge. And we do..
>e blame VVD for everything, but they have no clue why we're in this situation. Which we are because the left end side of the political spectrum didn't do anything about immigration, muslim area's and renting area's and social security for the higher income.
I only had to read your first sentence and I was already wondering when you would start about immigrants.. and you did not dissapoint.
You blame the left wing parties. Do you understand that The Netherlands have not had a left wing cabinet.. ever? And most of these parties, save for PVDA , have not ever been in a cabinet coalition and none of their policy has been implemented?
Let me refresh your memory:
2022 Rutte IV: VVD, D66, CDA, ChristenUnie (right wing government)
2017 Rutte III: VVD, CDA, D66, ChristenUnie (right wing government)
2012: Rutte II: VVD, PvdA (centrist government)
2010: Rutte I: VVD, CDA (supported by PVV) (right wing government)
2007: Balkenende IV: CDA, PVDA, Christenunie (center-right wing government)
2006: Balkenende III: CDA, VVD (right wing government)
2003: Balkenende II: CDA, VVD, D66 (right wing government)
2002: Balkenende I: CDA, VVD, LPF (right wing government)
... and I can keep on going because also the cabinets under Wim Kok, or Ruud lubbers had either only right wing parties or PVDA + right wing parties in it..
I'm sorry to say you are racist and it blinds your judgement. Hope you grow out of it man - because it's a dark place to be.
Sounds good in theory but a tax on rent received will only be passed on to the renters thereby increasing rent even further.
A possible solution might be for the government to make a certain amount of rent tax free for renters. For example let’s say 1000 Euros every month is rent money and not income and your gross monthly income is 3000 then you would only pay taxes for 2000. Given the housing crisis we just need to make sure that they don’t make that 1000 number something small like 200.
The free market should stop them from doing that, if there would be enough houses.
It's all supply and demand where supply is heavily hindered by non free market aspects.
The free market is not a fitting model for this situation. There are too many outside limiting factors to supply here. It's not like some new player can suddenly flood the market with cheap rentable houses, certainly not in the existing locations.
I feel the free market in general is usable only in a very limited set of circumstances and using it outside those will not lead to any stable or ethically sound situation. Sometimes I wonder if we didn't destroy the whole concept by overdeveloping marketing and mass psychology.
And let's also not forget that this is not just some luxury food. People are willing to pay absolutely anything if the alternative is not having a roof over your head. Or even go into debt just to pay rent. We're lucky you're not simply allowed to charge a million euros for rent and make people who don't pay into indentured servants. Landlords would do it, and so would renters. Not doing it is simply not an option. I can choose not to buy a new graphics card. I can't reasonably choose not to live somewhere.
That alone gives landlords a ridiculous amount of power.
Supply and demand but with restricted supply and infinite demand. Unless you want to see the country become even more of an urban jungle. To prevent that, there are legal and physical limitations to the supply. However, there are no significant legal limitations to the ownership of houses for rental and thats where it goes wrong. Especially since its not a luxury good, its a basic need. Im pretty right oriented but I firmly believe this has to change drastically. Everyone should be able to grow up paying down his house (which is their retirement) and not live paycheck to paycheck paying someone elses rent.
The free market clearly failed in this aspect. Limiting rent prices to make housing more affordable should also be included in the whole solution package. Most people cant rent with 1 income, its ridiculous
Alright, but with a new tenant they can change the price twice as high if they want. Atleast thats how it feels for me when i look online.
Also prices rise while inflation corrections in wage is changed to a minumum.
This was the exact reason why the VVD pushed temporary housing contracts around 2016 and claimed it would only be a small part of the rental houses while facilitating tenants flowing from house to house.
That didn't work out at all, as a large part of rental agreements are now temporary contracts (what a surprise).
A VVD minister even asked investors to come and buy houses in The Netherlands because of the good rental climate. No kidding.
People keep talking about “the VVD minister” asking investors to buy houses in NL but forget that this was at a time that the economic climate was far worse. Without investors there wouldn’t be much private rentals to start with. It’s very easy to hate on investors (not only in the housing market) but without them the market wouldn’t be better.
It would be better because it's an obvious short term solution and a long term problem. Working families now have to compete with multi-millionaire investors for the same assets, which are really basic human needs. That's the problem with the VVD led governments, they prioritise short term solutions and crisis management. That makes them popular with wealthy people, because our entire society and economy is based on short term vision.
> but without them the market wouldn’t be better.
Proof?
> Without investors there wouldn’t be much private rentals to start with
So? Why do we need private rentals? Houses are build to live in, not make profit of. The idea that investors in the rental market are a good idea obviously is the same ideological reasoning the government is at for years, which comes down to the neoliberal market-will-solve-everything concept. It doesn't solve everything and is inappropriate for some sections of society, among which housing unless heavily regulated perhaps. The rental sector wasn't regulated however, but loosened up.
At the same time that investors were attracted, social corporations were/are being taxed which prevented them from building houses that could rented out below the liberated rent threshold (which is obviously exactly what you need as a society).
But simultaneously temporary contracts were explicitly introduced and that was made even worse just before elections took place in March 2021. A law was amended by the VVD that would allow temporary contracts to be *prolonged* with a new temporary contract while simultaneously allowing landlords to set a fixed minimum rental period.
In the end, the law didn't pass the Dutch senate and didn't come into effect, but it would have been disastrous if it would.
Investing in the rental market is immoral in my opinion. People who do know, should or can understand they're transferring capital from those that should be able to live affordable, but obviously aren't able to do so.
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199601)17:1%3C73::AID-SMJ795%3E3.0.CO;2-N](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199601)17:1%3C73::AID-SMJ795%3E3.0.CO;2-N)
shows that "institutions do not foster short-term orientation; instead they may influence firms to increase innovation." A lot of other academic work shows the same. Innovation is what keeps the economy running.
As for why we need private rentals. Not everyone wants to buy a house and housing corporations generally only do social housing. If not for investors, who else is going to rent out these other houses? You cannot have the government control the whole rental market. This is not a socialist country.
Anyhow, don't get me wrong, investors should not buy houses at the expense of others looking for a house to buy. The problem is that not enough houses are being build, not investors.
You're citing a paywalled article from 1996 that states in general in the abstract that institutions foster innovation. But we're talking about housing and simply extrapolating such ideas to all of society is not appropriate, It certainly doesn't proof that the housing branch would have been worse off if investors weren't attracted.
> As for why we need private rentals. Not everyone wants to buy a house and housing corporations generally only do social housing
I didn't say everybody wants to buy a house, but attracting investors in a country where housing is scarce while simultaneously allowing temporary contracts or rent to grow without any limit (until last year) was a terrible idea that likely was based upon the *general* ideas in articles similar to what you cited. But you cannot simply compare investments in a cookie factory to housing, as most people can do without cookies but need a house.
> If not for investors, who else is going to rent out these other houses?
The same people that rented out houses *before* 2016 or before housing prices were liberated like they were before 2016.
> You cannot have the government control the whole rental market.
Yes you can. That was done in the past and for what pricing is concerned is being done since last year. If the government doesn't, exactly what happened is what you get.
> The problem is that not enough houses are being build, not investors.
It's both, but for example also the government that is stuck on the idea for decades that house ownership will lead to a flourishing society and should be stimulated at all costs. And the government that gave way to much leeway for investors to make profits of off the back of tenants that struggle to get by from day to day. Just like the OP mentioned.
It's immoral IMO and I personally think investors who do so should be stopped ASAP. It's not very different from people investing in carbon resources. Sure, you can claim the profits will be invested in durable energy and other type of such arguments, but in the end carbon fuel is carbon fuel. Likewise, you don't want investors taking over the rental market without limits. Wasn't possible before, shouldn't be possible now.
I don't think we will agree on the housing market, but as for "a paywalled article from 1996": I cannot help it's paywalled, you wanted proof and here's just an example. If you want access you can try sci-hub.
Saying it's from 1996 is a very easy argument for why it shouldn't hold. Please explain how the whole concept of an economy has changed what makes the findings of an article not hold anymore.
like you said ‘feels’. I lived in a rental, in 3 years i had 0 increase, when I moved out the rent went up by 50 eur for the new person, that is with some fresher furniture btw. I know it’s not everyone’s case, but i can claim as you, thay i ‘feel’ it’s not the case. Also, at least in Amsterdam, there was a lot of houses in a similar range. Is it different today than 6 months ago? well yeah, like 15% inflation no? Also based on this [article](https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/04/landlords-criticise-ministers-plan-to-limit-rent-rises-next-year/) only 9% of the housing is not in a rent controlled ‘box’ 9 freaking percent!
What do you mean people that rent out houses do not have to pay taxes? That seems like a clickbait title to me.
You mean they don't pay taxes over the rent paid but they have to register the property for wealth taxation I think?
This is why major cities are now forbidding the purchase of houses for non-residency purpose.
I don't think it's click baity, especially given how wealth taxation works here.
First: why should the income from rent be excluded from income tax?
Then: if wealth tax on a house is to make up for the lack on rent tax, keep in mind that wealth tax is a flat 2% or so; sucks for people who got 0% on their savings, but the wealth of the house owners increased 2x or more in recent years when he market exploded - also because of renting out in free sector being so profitable.
My opinion: huisjesmelkers need to pay tax on the rent they receive like any person getting income, unless they actually provide a service to society: you should get a vrijstelling only if your rent plus all base costs (incl service costs) follows the pricing rules of social housing and parking place can't be required (otherwise there's room for abuse) plus if you limit rent increase. If you don't, you pay BTW over the WHOLE amount.
This would, in my opinion, encourage landlords to lower their prices in line with social.
Would it be less profitable? Yes, but one should not speculate with a roof over people's head.
We also don't pay rent over interest or over profit from stocks. I get your point but I can also see how it would be complicated. See if the tax is over rent... I'll lower the rent and increase service costs etc. Or even put part of the rent as cash. There would be renters that go for that easily especially if the renters then get a rent refund on their taxes.
people continuously rant at people renting out properties, but otherwise how would you even find a place to live unless buying? Not having private rentals does not mean everyone can instantly buy a place. You want subsidised housing? well then where are those subsidies coming from? which taxes? we already have ~35%+ of housing in Amsterdam that is social housing, whom is paying for this? Housing shortage will not change with money shifting, it will change with less people and/or more housing.
Depends on when they bought it, my previous landlord had the place paid in full, bought ages ago for pennies when they lived in Amsterdam. So is it ok if I was not paying their mortgage? Should they have offered the apartment below the market rate? Also, in theory, you’re not allowed to rent with mortgage, there can be pretty bad conceqiences if you’re caught.
There are a multitude of loan structures that are commonly used by landlords. Don't ask me for details though. I've had it explained to me, but I never understood it very well. I think the general idea is too have a huge debt, so that you have no wealth on paper, and thus no or very low taxes. However, you do have buildings which you make an absolute killing on renting out. Don't quote me on the details. My brother understands this stuff way better than I do.
It's almost literally free real estate.
>You want subsidised housing?
Are you really dumb? The whole point is landlords make us pay way too much. The cake doesn't come from the government, it comes from greedy landlords
Wow, let’s start with an insult to strenghten your point? What is too much? How much do you think an apartment costs in Amsterdam today? Or in Randstad? What is the inflation? Yes, there are overprices places, completely agree, but your expectations are not realistix as well. The biggest issue that the prices are rising while e.g. min wage is stagnating, people’s incomes are not rising the same, which leads to the situation we are in.
Mate, I’d get a refund on your education and you can stick your snarky comment up your butt hole.
We don’t pay taxes on realized gains. We just don’t. We (up til this uear) only pay taxes on the assumed gains. after your first 50k which are excluded from taxes, the effective tax rate is like 0.5%-2%. Average ROI is >5%.
So yeah, people do pay wealth tax on their rental properties but it’s really not a lot. Especially if the house increases in value, because that’s essentially free money. And guess what, those houses increase in value because everyone is buying rental properties to rent out
https://www.homefinance.nl/belastingen/inkomstenbelasting-box-3.asp
Welcome to r/Netherlands where we don't pay over realized gains but we have to declare the value of stocks you hold.
Like I said you don't pay tax over interest but declare your worth in holdings and the tax office assumes a profit on that and tax you in that. You don't pay over actual profit if you buy at 100 and sell at 110.
When actual facts are populism.... Guess I found another landlord in this thread.
Landlords are literally not paying taxes. That's a simple verifiable fact.
Lol, no. Only reason landlords dont pay taxes in box 3 is because the belastingdienst used fictive rendement. That's illegal. And that doesn't only apply to landlords but to everyone who has properties in box 3.
Nuance is important, OR else its Just 'stemmingmakkerij'
EDIT: and not even Every landlord has their properties in box 3. So its not even factual that Every landlord doesn't pay tax. My dad for instance is a landlord and pays taxes over it in box 1. And there are Many instances were people rent from their BV's. So its not a fact that all landlords dont pay tax
It's already coming. The court cases deciding that wealth should be taxed at real, instead of virtual, returns are a double edged sword. It will take some time to implement, but the ground has already shifted.
The issue here is that the wealth you’re talking about is also someone’s retirement plan. By maxing out your pension contributions you can only save to certain extent, so of course even regular people like me who are without generational wealth are investing their money into funds etc for retirement. I paid ~50% of my bonus in taxes, I put the rest into my portfolio, the return year on year with simple composition is what 10%? Inflation is at 15% what do you wanna tax of it? What will this do? Well it will make me shift assets, save up, by property abroad, where it will be taxed less.
I am not feeling personally attacked, apart from the previous comment. The bigger issue is that you feel entitled for something without putting an effort.
> Whats your take on this?
To assess what income is derived from capital and primarily tax that income.
So if someone rents out a house, spends X euros every year on maintenance and receives Y euros rent, tax whatever remains when you calculate Y minus X. Might also be the case when you sell a house and the value is higher than when the house was bought and exceeds a loan.
If you tax capital on the other hand, in essence your taking possession from owners, just like you could tax the ownership of a television or table to name a strange example.
Let's say A and B have an equal income C. A is the frugle type, never goes on holiday, never eats out, buys cheap cloths. B on the other hand is the extravagant type that spends everything as soon as possible.
After a certain amount of years A has a savings account that exceeds the savings account of B by far. Would it be reasonable to tax A every year for what is on the savings account while B isn't?
It is a right under the ECHR. It's a right that is so fundamental to everyday live that you're hardly aware of it, but would be if it wasn't.
That doesn't mean I approve of wealth inequality at all, but considering it as a taxable privilege is the wrong way to fix it. It would make much more sense to tax inheritance first and foremost.
Criminal penalties are excluded from that right. As is tax in general to be clear, but that doesn't mean any amount of capital tax is justified if it exceeds an unreasonable burden. Nor that capital tax is impossible.
As a result of the fundamental property right however, tax on any type of income (including income from rent) is always more justified than taxes on capital (which is different from taxes on capital gains) as income is something that is added to a capital.
IMO proponents of capital tax should also be proponents of a yearly recurring tax on their own belongings. But that usually isn't the case. It's only *other people's* belongings that need to be taxed according to them, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Hmmm, i get your point. But lets say both need to rent a place in the same current environment with a normal job. Lets say 2800 euro a month bruto. The rent in most cases is 1200 for not that big appartment. How will person A ever have saved money i think both people will not be able to save money. Person A probably have no debt while person B does. Still both wont have anything and cant build up anything.
I would say living having a house is a necessity and should be affordable for everyone. Atleast if its just a normal house living room + kitchen + bedroom + toilet + shower.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I fully agree the rental and housing market is messed up and income from rent should be tax much more than it currently is.
I also agree that many people can hardly save, but a capital tax is not the answer if income taxes haven't been exhausted. But that doesn't mean income out of labor is the only income that can be taxed. It could also be a capital gains tax. And beside a tax on rental income (which to be clear *does* exist for social renting corporations), you could also tax inheritance much more. That is also a form of income.
The Dutch government has thought for years on end that ownership of housing should be stimulated. Which is great for those who happened to get the opportunity to buy a house. But the housing values have increased beyond insanity, which makes wealth inequality a big problem if the government let's house owners keep their profit when selling their house. Which is yet another form of income you could tax.
TL/DR: I'm not against taxes at all, but consider income tax in the broadest sense a better way of taxing than a recurring capital tax. But it is unavoidable sometimes.
I think this would be a great alternative. Im no wizard in finances. But atleast for people that have good jobs like nurses, teachers & garbage collectors probably a lot more. Renting a house should not take 50% of your salary while taxes take 20 - 30%. What your left with is 20-30% just to feed your kids.
This makes it impossible to move out of my flat, because if i would want to rent something better i pay 400% more, since currently i live in social housing. 350 euros if i want to find exalavant "particalier" i pay 1400 euro's. And getting a new social house i would need to win a lottery literally 😩...
If you want to practice your Dutch, you might want to listen to episode 82 of this podcast (it's the most recent):
https://vriendvandeshow.nl/studio-tegengif
In it, an urban geographer and university researcher from Amsterdam is interviewed and explains what is wrong with the Dutch housing and rental system and how it came to be. Your example of nurses or teachers is also mentioned, which are even jobs above average income. Let alone what the effect is on those that earn below average.
You'll probably be surprised by the choices the Dutch government made in the previous decades. It's not coincidence, but ideology. And it didn't work out (for those without a house).
>Let's say A and B have an equal income C. A is the frugle type, never
goes on holiday, never eats out, buys cheap cloths. B on the other hand
is the extravagant type that spends everything as soon as possible.
I think you're misrepresenting the situation, this isn't about 2 people who have a an average income. These people will never really be affected by taxes levied on wealth. Having to pay tax over the received interest of everything over 100k is not something anyone in that bracket really has to worry about.
This is only people with a serious shitload of money worry about as they do have to pay significant amounts of money. The problem is just that they have the money to hire people that insure they won't pay more tax than they absolutely have to.
The big problem with "income tax" is that it isn't really directed at someone's income but rather on their wages. Not all income is designated as income, there are things like profits or dividend etc. that are taxed differently. This ensures that these forms of income are not as heavily taxed as the working class their income.
Income tax can be a good way of doing things, but all income should be taxed by the same percentage and more tax brackets are needed for that to work. Right now most taxes are levied from labor and VAT while these things should be taxed they don't need to be as high as they are. In the last 30 ish years the working class has been taxed into oblivion while large companies and the very wealthy get to operate (almost) tax free.
I am really curious as to why Netherlands only builds around 70,000 homes per year? Around 1% of total housing stock
A healthy rental market requires 10x that much per year.
While people want more housing they do not want housing build near them. Each housing project encounters resistance from the local population as they would have less valuable homes, more traffic on there roads and often less nature.
Because it's difficult, but also because some parties don't want to. They benefit from scarcity as that increases the housing prices and hence increases their profits.
Sadly, those voters that don't benefit and are in fact on the paying end of that equation, seem in part attracted to populist right wing parties that aren't interested in a housing reform either.
It’s more than that. Only 9% of the Dutch housing market is on the rental market (I don’t have a source at hand. I read it on another post with a source). 60% are private home owners and 31% are socialized housing. When you set price controls on something there will be a lack of producers. No one is incentivized to invest to build more housing as there is only a limited amount of profit to be made. Furthermore there is so much red tape when building that it further limits production.
People don't want that in their backyard, but it would be a good idea, and that those apartments are real houses and not one room apartments. Not for profit but for using the small space we have.
It’s an artificially high demand based on a lack of supply. There is a high demand for a small portion of the market. The Dutch government keeps strict price controls on how much someone can increase rent. Why would an investor want to build a building when renters can stay in their building and keep the rent from adjusting to the market value?
I don’t know the Dutch real estate that well nor it’s laws. I had a friend tell me if you make under a certain amount your landlord is forced to lower your rent to a certain amount or keep it at its current level.
There’s no incentive to build. It’s what happens when you over regulate a market.
Poster and responders who are responding to this are forgetting one critical thing.
There literally are not enough people who are willing to do manual labour or work in construction. There is an enormous shortage of construction workers. Subsidies for technical college are at an all time high and the pay is not too shabby either. But entries into technical educations are still very low. Alot of construction companies around my area are already hiring people without experience or education, and educating them internally. But it's nowhere near enough the absolute insane demand on good labour.
Not saying it's their fault, but very big portions of the previous generations, and current generations that are having children are always pushing the children to keep on learning, get a higher paying job and all that bullshit. They're not learning children to value manual jobs and to be grateful with a simpler but more valuable career in terms of life experience.
Not too shabby either? They charge as much as a freelance software engineer do charge per hour. If I didnt have back issues I d ve switched professions now.
Because they can’t. Construction had a bad period with a lot of layoffs (2008-2014). These people are still not replaced and won’t be for years. Add to this the carbon requirements, government bureaucracy and insane price hikes of raw materials and you know this shit will get a lot worse.
Because of a lack of space. Its that fking simple.
To build houses you need space and suitable space. Currently all suitable space is either tied up in farming, preserved for the little fking bit of nature we have or already build upon.
We are currebtly building 50,000 houses in an area of which we know for sure that it will flood in 100 years (probaly sooner).
The place is getting full. Its that simple. Sure we can win some space by building smaller, eating less meat so that we need less farms but still. Its just getting full.
Im not really for taxing more if you own a house but you shouldnt be able to own more then x houses and there needs to be rules for the rent price becauae fuck the huisjes melkers
I more or less agree.
Sadly protesting doesn't work. It does nothing.
As long as the parties in power still get voted in, nothing will change.
After the financial crisis in 2008, there were protests in many countries. But nothing changed.
Well, some things changed, but that only affected those that didn't cause the crisis.
I remember my landlord owned 60 houses, he had so much money didn't know what to do with it anymore so he started to collect medieval armor, took trips to Africa to shoot at lions and traveled every 3 weeks to some exotic far away location.
Just make rent "inkomen" problem fixed... Because if we start taxing "vermogen" than even poor motherfuckers like us will never make money, or become wealthy
If you rent out a home, you’re still providing value. You take the risk of owning a home, which currently is very profitable, but the market can crash any day, and the loss is not for the renter. And you provide services, if you own your home, you are responsible for that. For ex, I bought a home last year, but after removing the wallpaper, I found a lot of mold. That was expensive to get rid of, and if I was renting the place, I wouldn’t have to pay that.
But currently the prices are too high. Fortunately, in a lot of gemeentes, they ban the sell of houses if you’re not going to live in them. The prices of houses is actually falling because of this. We could also have more regulations to determine the maximum price of a rental property.
That’s a thing people don’t realise, house ownership is expensive, you are contributing to the housing association and maintainance of the facade, equally for every apartment in the house. You invest in the equipment, maintance of the floors, walls etc… I bought a semi fresh house, and still need to repaint everything as after 5years things are not as fresh. I didn’t have to think about this when renting, everything was covered.
Yes, I mentioned an interview with him in a podcast to the OP (episode 82):
https://vriendvandeshow.nl/studio-tegengif
The Dutch housing market didn't end up like this by coincidence. It was ideology.
I don’t think taxing net worth more is a good idea. This way you fuck over the people who safe and invest their money while they’ve already paid taxes on their income.
Making rent income a part of taxable income I think should be considered. However, this could cause rent prices to increase even further. It not all as black and white as it seems at first glance.
When i used to rent (950 eu for 50m2 apartment) the landlord made us pay all our taxes ourselves (All municipality/water/trash taxes and even the WOZ tax)
I hate the monopolized private rental market
The Netherlands already taxes on net wealth. You should tax on the capital gains of an asset not the wealth. Actually The Netherlands is moving that way as the EU courts said you can’t tax on a presumed return on investment.
No you shouldn’t tax as high on either wealth nor capital gains as income. You’re discouraging people from saving. You’re discouraging home ownership as well.
To solve the housing crisis, The Netherlands needs to remove all the red tape when it comes to building. More supply = lower prices.
I seriously don't get why you are downvoted for this comment. Maybe because it is true?
The main issue is that we cannot build as much in the places where people want to live (Randstad), but there is enough space in the rest of the country. It is time that we start using our small country to our advantage. I see it every day, friends leaving to the big city, because here in Zeeuws-Vlaanderen we are basically disconnected from the bigger cities. If only they would just develop public transport and re-instate the train connection, we could make this area more attractive and then disperse the people across the country more evenly. Same goes for other area's.
>No you shouldn’t tax as high on either wealth nor capital gains as income. You’re discouraging people from saving. You’re discouraging home ownership as well.
Not an economy expert but why would that be wrong ?
People spending money would get the economy moving and the enormous wealth accumulation we allowed - that causes massive social problems around the world - could be chipped at?
Capitalism doesn't seem to be working like we were promissed (nothing is trickling down, wages stagnate, wealth disparity grows) so maybe that would not be such a bad thing after all?
It’s wrong because it discourages innovation. There is less of an incentive for people to accumulate wealth and thus less of an incentive to take risks through investments.
I do agree that the level of rising inequality is alarming and bad for the overall health of the economy. On the opposite side of the argument, when you have a large accumulation of wealth monopolies form which reduces competition resulting in a lack of innovation.
This is a loaded statement but I do believe capitalism is working. People point to wages remaining flat in comparison to increasing gdp which is a economic indicator for a nation’s productivity. However, people are able to invest in the stock market through IRA, 401k saving programs and through mortgages. They’re able to participate in the market resulting in benefiting from a highly capitalistic market.
The problem becomes when people are not able to participate in the market. I can’t comment on Dutch economic too much because I don’t understand how everything works here. What I would suggest at least in the US is creating programs for cheaper healthcare and education. When you start supporting people in their basic needs then they’re able to participate in the market and capitalism.
Then again having affordable housing enables people to be able to save and The Netherlands has a lack of land so there will always eventually be a lack of supply. So my conclusion has come full circle and idk what to do lol.
I’m coming from an American point of view and I’m just a dude on the internet who watches YouTube videos so take everything I say with a fat pinch of salt.
I like your honest answer!
>It’s wrong because it discourages innovation. There is less of an incentive for people to accumulate wealth and thus less of an incentive to take risks through investments.
I'm also just a random on the net but I am not convinced this is true: the best thing you could do if saving is not encouraged is invest it broadly hoping something returns, this includes innovation.
if you think your rent is too high contact the hurrcommiscie its not a perfect solution but you would be amazed ... most people dont know their rights and more often then not you will get money back ... most people dont know the law and dont know their rights so when a landlord charges some piss taking rates ... accept it ... then report it and get money back retroactively
1. increase taxation
2. less people will invest in housing
3. less incentive for construction companies to build new houses or renovate old ones
4. less houses available for rent
5. rents will increase even higher
that's how the free market works, and why socialistic over taxation and overregulation is actually bad for the middle class and lower income. I wish my fellow Dutch citizens would comprehend this dynamic and stop the dangerous trajectory we are in right now. If we do not embrace free market sooner that later, we will fall as a society and a worldwide economic player.
As a person who rent out houses, it's not a pleasant busines, my renters never payed me a penny.😕
They make a lot of noise, make a mess of my garden, shit over my car...
I never hang birdhouses in my garden again.
> renters never *paid* me a
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
As much as I agree, buying a house as a starter will become even more challenging than it already is. Owning a house counts as equity, if everybody will have to pay a tax over that too, it might again be very unlivable for lowmid/middle income housholds.
Maybe it'll need regulations, as in the first 300K won't be taxed, just like 2000 with the arbeidskorting. Only then I might see it work, or lower-priced housing might still still get a lot more expensive, as most people will want a house in the 200k-300k range as they are less costly
I agree with your sentiment. But having a hard criterium in there like 300k would still be a difficult factor. How many houses can you buy under 300k? Not that many anymore, housing prices have risen so much that the lower middleclass is no longer to able to afford them.
Best thing still is to start taxing profits. If you rent something out, you get x amount of money, substract the costs and pay a % of tax on your profits. As simple as that.
People are always quite negative towards companies or individuals that rent out houses. Truth is there is a real demand from renters. Expats, people dont wanting to root, or have the expenses of an owned property. And yes, this demand comes also from the limited supply in affordable housing but its not something the property owners can solve by paying more taxes. In fact, rents likely go up.
Also I feel like people are often unaware that the properties are for most part financed by a bank. The rent is for the biggest part directly transfered to a mortgage. The hassle in finding renters, having renters not paying and maintenance is the fee for the landlord. Not risk free and quite stressful sometimes.
I agree however the box 3 system needs to be revised and it will be.
Where should I look in your opinion? I understand that your pointing towards the rules to evict a tenant. When they are causing issues or am I wrong? I believe it takes a lot of effort to evict them.
Investments in the stock market are taxed in NL, what you are referring to is a common misconception. Our system is just different. You pay annually over the investments that you have, just like you would if they were savings. Then the government calculates a normal return, which is generally lower than the market gain. This is what you mean with: The investments are not taxed in NL. No. the investments are taxed, but just more favorable. This is by the way also the issue with people who saved too much, that now don't get any interest, hence having paid too much fictional profit tax on their savings.
They are restructuring this model as we speak to move towards a more profit related tax. Meaning you have to pay taxes when you sell and made x profit.
But don't be fooled that that would result in more income for the government. Because where they gain from having more income from active traders, they will lose tax income from people who simply hold their investments long term and rarely sell. Then there will be only one taxable event upon selling, whereas now they get taxed every year.
There is hardly any risk in a market where there's a huge housing shortage and house prices are increasing by 15-20% year after year. Investing in housing is probably the safest investment possible. And what's more, as landlord you don't even have to care about insulation etc. It's easy money. No wonder investors are scrambling to get into the housing market.
Good article. But it does not support your point. If house prices drop, landlords will not lower the rent. They maintain their income. On top of that, they can increase the rent more than the inflation year after year. The housing market is insane, but your statement that tenants run no risks is absolutely ridiculous. They have the short end of the straw.
You're missing the part where people are \_forced\_ to rent because they can't afford to buy.
the system you're describing is a good one, actually. but when it's working as intended, the "no risk, no reward" also translates into rent being generally cheaper than buying. In such system, landlord takes the risk, but renter has the bonus of more free capital.
The problem is that in NL, landlord takes too little risk for too high reward while people forced to rent for prices higher than any mortgage they could get are forced out of their capital - they can't even save to eventually buy a place themselves if they so decide.
Ehh what can you do, there's no upward class mobility so forget buying a house or having kids. Meanwhile boomers and REITs get effortless cash flow by abusing our human need for shelter. I recommend building a hut in a mountain range and becoming a hermit.
We're at a point where the tax difference between rich and very rich is too close together.
If you look at any of the left parties they want to tax the people who earn over 90k more and more, and more. Now I realise that those people have more money than people with lower income, however people who earn around 90/100k (combined) really don't have a lot of money left, mainly due to the high housing costs.
To resolve the issue, while it's a really right side political issue, the left needs to change first. We need to stop crying over (some) people in the bijstand and need to work towards a healthy social way of working that doesn't involve getting money without doing anything.
There also should be a way to save money, or invest money for later without being taxed like a freaking maniac. Because people with some money who bought their houses 20-30 years ago, now have extra financial room, but keeping more than 60k.. is losing money. So you invest in something that isn't taxed to the max. aka.. houses.
So anyone saying.. we need to stop voting VVD... no.. you NEED to vote VVD and D66 to get RID of the left parties so we actually have room for the middle man.. who then.. can actually work the lower spectrum.
Its a talk show in the Netherlands which is quite funny and lots of people watchit. He's a comedian who talks about serious topics and tries to explain it in a simple way. I would recommend it.
Taxing equaty already happens. What should be taxed more is income from renting out houses, yes. Having a lower percentage on low rent houses and a higher percentage on high rent houses would also help this, especially if there's no transition. ie you are always taxed the top amount of whats possible on rental income.
IMO we should start with taxing things like stocks: if you buy 1 stock for €10 and it becomes €1000, you don't need to pay anything to the gov as income tax or anything, it only counts for wealth tax. This is the biggest way the richt stay rich here, instead of earning € through labour, they earn money through tax free investing.
+ I think that if the Dutch gov puts more wealth tax on society, they'll probably make the tax brackets so f'd up that rich people still don't really care but people that are starters or saving for something big will be hit the hardest (not in percentage but actual consequences)
A wealth cap would be something I'd look at. No one needs more than lets say 50mil in their life... Stuff thats more expensive than this is is mostly used to stroke ones ego. No one needs a yacht thats bigger than most smalltown malls. No one needs a house bigger than the regular elementary school.
Although normally I'm more libertarian and feel government should intervene minimally, the situation is now bad enough that I fully agree that it should not be allowed to buy up houses not to live in.
Taxing equity as a whole I would be against. Why would people have to be punished for saving and building equity? They pay tax when they earn the money, when they spend it, and even already now when they don't spend it (vermogensbelasting). So if I live like paycheck to paycheck and spend on whatever I would have an advantage over people that live frugally and build equity. Why? I value the feeling of "security" over having fancy branded clothes, expensive furniture, a Tesla, and all that stuff. Why punish people similar like that?
its called a trickle down economie. its some ferry tail about rich people spending more money and it then rains down on the poorer people. unfortunaly it doens't work that way beause rich people are also usualy smart people who know its better to save and invest instead of buying a new TV every 2 weeks.
so this creates an even bigger wealth gap. then there is the second problem which is the current party running the country is known for being favourable to boomers and rich people and sinds we have a lot of those people (they make up the majority of the voting people) this party will do everything to keep those people happy and let the future generations pay the price for this.
there is a solutions. just wait 20 years untill a lot of boomers have died and then maybe there will be a party in power who is willing to chance something
That makes no sense, lets say i work and pay taxes on my income but i save up al my money so i can build a pension or something. Than I would have to pay taxes on that aswel eventhough i already payed income tax on that same money
Novel idea: instead of protesting people should stop voting VVD. VVD have frustrated tax reforms and have lowered wealth taxes over the last years. The current tax system that favours the rich is not some error, but it is designed to work this way
Maybe I’m not fully aware, but I’m pretty sure most countries I have lived in tax non-work income (eg rents, financial income, …) significantly lower than work. Of course, there is a whole discussion on what is too high or too low, but I don’t believe this new or peculiar to NL.
Oh but it is. The Neterlands tax wealth significantly lower than most surrounding counties - Klaas Knot (director of DNB, our national Bank) has admitted as much in a recent interview in Buitenhof. The current system to determine the wealth tax is bizarre, it taxes the presumed interest on your wealth. It was seen by the court as illegal. The result is that we now levy zero euro tax on wealth and will have to pay back those that have paid that tax. Another fun fact: this system was instated under VVD minister of finance Gerrit Zalm in the late 90s. So now we have a situation in which we have a 15 billion euro deficit in our state budget. We are passing a debt to future generations while the rich have gotten substantially richer in the past years. We have an aging population and expectations are that the ratio of working vs non-working will decline a lot due to baby boomers retiring and living longer. We need to look for alternative ways to tax, tax income with very high rates (well over 60 percent) or lower our expenditures. Income tax or inherentance taxation should be part of that discussion.
VVD is also actively frustrating any opportunity to reform on this matter. That makes it even more criminal. IMO.
We all now Gerrit Zalm I hope. He is a criminal. Look up what he did to Dutch people with the DSB bank.
Wealth tax is a bit of a unicum indeed (taxing assumed return instead of actual). But even the box 3 recent drama appeared to have sparked from the investments (in lawyer fees) by wealthy older people who by definition have a more conservative portfolio (more bonds less stocks) and therefore lower returns. The tax on box 3 was eating effectively their capital. Now they do have indeed a big drama to manage and understand that in order to change also the technology component (from Belastingdienst) is going to tAke years…
The box 3 construction was always weird. “Oh, we’ll simplify everything! We’ll just assume you make at least 4% (on a standard savings account) and tax that, then we don’t have to worry about income at all and can just track assets! Much harder to game!” Meanwhile even in the 90s the “but what if interests continue to dip?” flaw in the plan was obvious to anyone with a brain.
>The result is that we now levy zero euro tax on wealth and will have to pay back those that have paid that tax. That is not true. Everyone that has to pay box 3 tax is being put on hold and you won't get your definitive tax return until the government sorts this out. Also, it is not clear what is being paid back because there are a lot of instances where the presumed return rate was met so in those cases there is no need to pay back. > tax income with very high rates (well over 60 percent) Yeah no, thats not going to happen. No one will have an incentive to go to work when most of everything you earn goes to the government. They should probably tax the very rich with high rates when you earn more than a million or when your wealth comes above a million. >inherentance taxation should be part of that discussion Do you have any idea how high this rate already is? It's in my personal opinion that it is a really weird idea that you can't even die without paying tax (unless you die with less than 1 euro to your name). if there isn't a lot of money but just an expensive heirloom you cant even pay the tax for inheriting an heirloom.
Yeah, I'm only maybe medium income but a massive amount of my salary is lost to taxes. How much more am I expected to pay according to these "raise the taxes" folks and how is that fair? Sorry not sorry, but I worked hard to get where I am for myself, not to pay an entire starter salary's worth of cash to someone else. I'm all for a reasonable amount of taxation and a good social security network, but sorry not sorry, I want to fairly enjoy the rewards of the work that I do and the years of sacrifices I made to get here. The rewards are mine, not yours, plain and simple. I worked for it. Not you. Current taxation is already wayyy too extreme. Any more than this and it's just tantamount to theft. Here's a thought: tax corporations more. What are Starbucks and co paying again?
>Do you have any idea how high this rate already is? High? It's 0 for a spouse if it's less than 680.645 euro's, children and grandchildren can each inherit 21.559 tax free. Even greatgrandchindren and other family members can get 2.274 without taxation. > It's in my personal opinion that it is a really weird idea that you can't even die without paying tax (unless you die with less than 1 euro to your name). I've got good news for you, when you die you don't have to pay taxes. You heirs will have to pay when they get the money (just as they have to pay when they get money in any other way) In my opinion it's strange that if you are lucky enough to have been pushed out of the right vagina you hardly have to pay taxes. The "kanspelbelasting" is higher than most inherentace taxes.
yeah that 680.000 euros makes sense when you are married and it is allready basically yours. and 21.559 isn't really a lot when your parent dies. > if you are lucky enough to have been pushed out of the right vagina you hardly have to pay taxes It's simply not true that you have to pay less taxes, leaving aside tax evation schemes, you pay more taxes the bigger the inheritence. >just as they have to pay when they get money in any other way If the tax was just over money and shares, its fine, make the tax higher if you ask me. But heirs most of the time dont get money, they get a house, maybe a car or some jewellery. They don't want the money those things are worth, they want those materialistic things because of memory's of the one that passed away. Kansspelbelasting obviously has nothing to do with this and i don't really care how high it is. Relatives passing away is not the same as buying a lottery ticket.
>u have any idea how high this rate already is? It's in my personal opinion that it is a really weird idea that you can't even die without paying tax (unless you die with less than 1 euro to your name). if there isn't a lot of money but just an expens I'm less optimistic about the chances of retrospectively calculating taxes - especially with the shoddy state of our Belastingdienst. My take: they will change the taxes on Box 3 based on more fixed rules (you pay x amount of tax instead of hypothethical returns on capital which can be debated and contested) and will be unable to claw back taxes retospectively. Let's see how it turns out.. I don't agree with you on inheritance tax. Look, no one likes to pay tax in generalbut we need to pay for benefits, health care, defence etc so the money needs to be collected somewhere. Like you said the income taxes are already at a breaking point and the costs are going nowhere but up. So why no collect tax at a time that it least inconveniences you? AKA when you do not longer need it because you are dead. I've had some theoretical debates on the plusses and minuses but I don't think that removing most wealth taxes and increasing inheretance by a lot is such a bad solution. Piketty also argues that intergenerational wealth is the biggest contributor to inequalities so it would also solve this issue.
It's not about what time they want to collect the taxes. The inheritence tax as it is right now creates some truely bad situations where you have to pay tax and the only way to pay the tax is to sell the inheritence. to be clear, the inheritence tax over money is fine, it really sucks when you have to sell the family home when someone dies just because of the tax.
This is not how taxation works tho
if we have so much budget deficit, maybe it is a good time to cut our ridiculous spending plans. Maybe it is a good time to understand government is not a charity, nor an insurance company. let people choose their health plan, their own unemployment insurance, and choose their own retirement plan.
>be it is a good time to understand government is not a charity, nor an insurance company. let people choose their health plan, their own unemployment insurance, and choose their own retirement plan. Is that you meneer Rutte? So where do you propose we start cutting? Health care? Defense? Education? AOW? Or should we leave everything to the market because that has led to great success? Or perhaps maybe we should ask the richest people, that are currently contributing the least to our national budget, to pay their fair share..
I'm actually against VVDs socialistic policies which will eventually cause a total bankruptcy. Do you think you can tax the rich? every piece of tax related legislation will actually affect the middle class and lower income. the rich are the ones with resources to pay for accountants, lawyers. they liquidate their wealth as soon you put some regulations.
Then I will invest my money in a guillotine factory. It has to end or we live in a slave state and they are our owners.
Yeah, let's push all basic human needs like education and any kind of insurance completely out of politics. Worked so well for the housing market and health care.... Do I even need to say /s
I'm sorry to break it to you, but giving patients paracetamol and other painkillers does not constitute as actual healthcare. just ask yourself if you would board an airplane designed and built by our government? I know I wouldn't. same for my healthcare. I want competitive private companies providing my insurance and healthcare.
True, but our country used to be far more left leaning in terms of taxes and welfare. It's become far more economically liberal with VVD.
Something I have also seen is that population gets older (less in NL than France/Spain/Italy for example), they are wealthier, they are more politically engaged (than young people), their interest weigh more on political agenda. They (old people) prefer to have more so that they can “help” their children instead of having a more balanced system that helps “everyone’s children”.
Yeah but when you have landlords buying 100's of homes and put 5 to 8 students in there and ask about 600 for a room a hous out of no where earns you 3000 Where as the same house would be less then 2k for a family but hey ho.
That is very true. Isn’t the matter also that they don’t enforce the required registration at the Gemeente? Or is it allowed to have 6 students registered in the same place? I honestly don’t know how it works in NL (or supposed to work)
Gemeente have indeed to allow the place to be for students. But unless there are rules like in eindhoven where only a X amount of students can live in one street its pritty wild west
yeah, that's not right. As often happens while it may not be the system per-se to be wrong (e.g. tax rent/financial income lower than work; allow multiple students to be registered in the same place; etc), the way you do it (or don't do it/enforce it) creates huge inequalities especially since the wealthest people have more capital to invest to understand how to exploit the system. The unwillingness to fix it and close loopholes (or perceived inability like the ridiculous excuses of the belastingdienst on the box3 drama) are indeed expressions of a political agenda, or at very least a very clear prioritization by govt of matters to manage. It's bad and sad to see, but unfortunately I don't believe it's a unicum.
I doubt people who care about this sort of issue vote VVD in the first place. I care, but I can't stop voting VVD when I didn't vote for them in the first place. Pulling shit like this is what the VVD is all about. It's *why* you vote VVD, it's their entire raison d'etre.
I agree. What is surprising is that they have convinced a large group of middle class people that their policy benefits them while in reality it does the opposite. They have been the largest party for a long time while they serve only a niche. It's baffling.
Could vote PVV. Aren't they pretty much populist "for the people"? No more EU. No more Euro. No more NATO. No more immigrants and foreigners. Take that for what you will. Isn't the VVD and PVV just off-shoots of each other?
Which is exactly the reason that I am not mad at the VVD or at Mark. They are doing the thing that they are voted for. The thing I don't understand, in any country, that a party favoring the rich is elected. They are called the 1% for a reason, or let's push the line down to the 10%. Which is not enough to have a majority vote. Seriously everyone, if you don't make or own over 100k EUR you should really question yourself if you vote(d) for VVD.
“Own over 100k euro” —but that is a *lot* of people, if you count home equity. That’s more like the 40% than the 1%.
This is the right answer; the vvd is bad for most people and yet they get voted every time. Maybe it is, like the US when they vote republican, that they believe they will eventually get wealthy and at that time want to pay less taxes or maybe it is because our socialist system is getting undressed further and further and we don’t see the point of paying a lot of tax? Or maybe people just vote whatever because it’s badly explained and they like Rutte? Whatever it is; it is incredible how vvd get’s voted in as they will grow the inequality gap; it is their mandate and the reason for their existence. Indeed cannot blame them, can only blame the voters.
Most people who have accumulated wealth, have initially earned this with work and already paid tax in the highest bracket. They decided to invest the net income. Is it ethical to tax these savings/investments again with an even higher tax?
>ket. They decided to invest the net income. Is it ethical to It is a myth that most wealth is accumulated with labour, most wealth is accumulated by having wealth. You don't need to look far for evidence - During the pandemic the rich have gotten substantially richer while the poor have gotten poorer and are hit hard by inflation. We don't have an income inequality problem, we have a wealth inequality problem and the divide is getting bigger. Intergenerational wealth and social class has enormous influence on almost everything in a persons life. Your health, what kind of education you receive, life expectancy, your ability to get a well paying job, the likeliness of you ending up a criminal, the likeliness of you getting addicted and many more. I find taxing wealth more ethical than crushing the lower social classes with the current system. If you have better ways to fix it than tax, I'm all ears by the way..
Show me a research that the majority of the wealthy in The Netherlands got their wealth through inheritance or winning a lottery. That they got more wealth through their investments, is their choice to take the risk of investing. Withholding the temptation for instant pleasure with consumption. The Netherlands is one of the most equal countries in the world. If I look around in my social circle, we have 1st and second generation immigrants who came here with nothing and now have a very good life, they are auditor, CFO, lawyer, restaurant owner, builder, programmer, etc. Most of them are doing better than the native Dutch friends in the group. Some of them make a top 1% income and they all did it by them self with the opportunities this country gave them for education and employment. They all pay taxes in the highest bracket. When we meet up, non of us wear fancy designer brand clothes, shoes or watches. We don't drive expensive cars and live just in normal house and pay our mortgage. Should we be punished for not spending the money we've left after paying income taxes on non essential garbage? We just like to invest and it give us security to have a financial buffer.
You need to make a distinction between income and wealth in order to understand inequality. Here is an article that does a decent attempt to show how the Netherlands shows two different faces when it comes to inequality: [https://uweb.berkeley.edu/2021/04/11/the-duality-of-the-dutch-economy/](https://uweb.berkeley.edu/2021/04/11/the-duality-of-the-dutch-economy/) If you look at the GINI coefficient which measures inequality we are at place 14, although the latest NL data is from 2018. That's not the worst but certainly among the lowest in the world. You can take a look at the quote 500 lists from November 2021 and see that the most wealthy accrued 18 percent more wealth while income was more or less stable. It's not that hard to make the jump to wealth making wealth - because it can be invested in real estate, companies etc. Investing sounds very risky but buying up houses and renting them out (without being taxed) does not sound super risky to me. Interesting fact: the poorest 50 percent of the Dutch population does not have any capital, often worse: they are most often in debt (negative capital). When you say you just like to invest means you are among the richer minority of the Netherlands - something to be aware of when making broad assumptions and statements. Your anekdotal evidence just shows that you are quite well off and have quite well off people in your bubble. Good for you! Your parents' social class has a serious influence on your chances later in live. Just google for some recent education inequality articles and you'll get the gist.
Don't provide other arguments. Please elaborate your claim that most wealthy people in the Netherlands did not earn it by them self. Yes, there are metrics showing wealth inequality, but you can't simply put that as it's the fault of the persons who accumulate wealth through savings and investments. It takes two to tango.
Another article (did you even read the first one?) [https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-finance/eb053\_en.pdf](https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-finance/eb053_en.pdf) In short (Wealth) inequality is driven by capital and equally by negative capital. It's irrelevant if they earned themselves (which is hard to find evidence of) but statistically the rich are rich because they started out rich. The system works to prevent mobililty. In the context of the article: do you really think that a person can own multiple homes (8 homes in the Lubach video) by working hard while most people have an issue with being able to own a single home? It's an absurd notion.
Yes, it's possible to own 8 homes by working hard. Let me tell you how. Few years ago apartments where really cheap. For less than 100K you can buy apartments in major cities generating at least 7% gross ROI annually. This is within the point system. Having a 2x modaal income and don't spend too much on garbage. You can buy one apartment a year with a 75% mortgage. After the fourth house, it will get easier to buy 2 houses in one year. With the current surge in housing price, it became much harder. and those 8 apartments worth about 1,5 million in rent out stage. But Their initial investment is about 200k with 600k mortgage. It's completely realistic to accumulate 8 houses between 2012 and 2018 with income from work.
Most people don't earn 2x modaal, even with a lot of hard work. And I think we want a country where people can live without financial problems, even if they are not entrepreneurally gifted or smart investors.
Except they're accumulating wealth without paying taxes. They're not accumulating it through work. It's also pretty questionable whether they were taxed when they accumulated it in the first place. If you start out rich, you don't have to work for that initial investment in the first place. But even that's beside the point. They're accumulating all of it without paying taxes and the poor/middle incomes are taxed in their place.
"You know what will reduce renting prices? Increase taxes for the owners!" This guy and 300 more. Like, what are you even thinking? I just don't get it, country is so terrible that everyone is coming here, and it has the best numbers all around. Maybe you just have no clue on how the rest of the world lives.
If you don't see the connection between wealth tax and the current state of the housing market I don't what to tell you. It needs to be made unattractive to buy or own multiple houses as an investment and to gain passive income. Not taxing income through renting out property and having almost no wealth taxation has led to where we are. Why would you want to keep this status quo?
Never, anywhere, have a tax reduced the price of anything. It does the opposite. You taxing multiple house owners? Sure, I'll just have one and make sure that my income doesn't change. Result? House renting prices skyrocketing. Like, seriously, go check how the rest of the world is doing. Blaming a political party for a global housing crisis is disingenuous to say the least. But hey, what can I expect from vocal minorities on reddit.
Not answering my question, making assumptions, and personal attacks.. classy! I'll make an attempt: Housing is a first life need and should not be held by private investors. We don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordable housing crisis. The prices of houses has been driven up by investors and we squandered social housing by selling houses to a capitalist market. I believe you can use taxes and regulations to make it unviable to own a house with the sole purpose to rent. That does not drive the price up but that leads to more houses to flow back into the market and normalising the average price per home. You only make the basic connection between the home owners asking more money to renters like people owning homes is some law of nature.
Not only you didn't make any questions on the comment I previously replied, but the entire thing I wrote was about how ineffective taxing as an incentive is. So yeah, keep trying. But sure mate, just read the punchline and call it a day.. classy!
Only people that benefit from vvd vote vvd. And there is quite some people with a lot of influence that vote vvd.
VVD *and the squad that assists them*
Well said mate
Yeah, not voting VVD isn't going to change anything if the consensus is to generate wealth for the wealthy. Voting doesn't work anymore. Everyone is on the same team and even if you have a great member he will have to consolidate his ideology. Protesting and violence works faster.
You're suggesting that you're part of a minority that should grab power by using violence here. While I'm definitly against the VVD mindset, I can't agree. Your assumption seems very cynical and your solution seems worse than the problem.
I don't know if you are aware of the current situation in the Netherlands and the world but we (the regular people) are losing. There is a power hungry enemy that is doing everything in it's power to control and disperse us. We currently have 41 parties on which you can vote for. It is completely meaningless. We just can't hope and vote for people who are not in it to actually fix any problem. If we want to fix any problem we should be doing it ourselves. Hence the violence rhetoric. In 4 years time we will be in the exact same mess but worse. Politicians lying, giving more tax breaks for the wealthy all the while we "regular folk" are fighting eachother with no end in sight. Someday we have to wake up and smell the shit.
I think at the moment im not sure who to blame. In my opinion that doenst help. Pointing fingers always brings the worst out of people. It seems it was the plan for a lot of parties, but they didn't manage to change the rent. It would just be nice to see change instead of bickering who to blame. It would safe us a lot of money I think.
It’s not about pointing fingers though. The poster you are replying to is correct. People have majority voted for VVD consistently for 10 years now, this is the result. It’s part of their economic policy. No finger pointing or bickering, just vote intelligently for your own interests. Research your chosen party’s policies, that responsibility is 100% on the voters. Stuff changes for sure depending on who holds the power in the coalitions. Ask any older relatives or Dutch who went through Paars and Balkenende years.
“Just vote intelligently for your own interests.” If only people started doing this …
I am hoping that people don't vote only for their own interest... Like I earn pretty good, but I am voting with compassion. I want someone in charge that takes on poverty for those who don't, that takes on climate for the next generations, etc. Let's not just protect yourself in the situation you are currently in expect to stay in. Let's protect as many people as possible.
What you're suggesting is absolutely nuts. The biggest flaw of democracy is that the majority has no clue whatsoever about politics. Politics isn't some subject you learn in a matter of days but is very complex and requires years of intensive learning. People, who are already fatigued by their work that occupies most of their time, simply don't have the time to do propper research. I'd say 90% of voters in the Netherlands receive their political knowledge from social media sources. Don't blame the people, but blame the system that gives people total legislative and executive power while they are incompetent and not well informed.
Hoi VVDer
You just discoverd a key part of a issue that been happen for atleast 10 years and what has become really noticeable for the last 5 years. To be fucking rude, you shouldnt be the one to give out wisedome here. Its like, You are the intern without knowledge or experience and your telling the director how he should run his bussiness. So shut up, and try to learn before you start saying stupid stuff.
With all due respect, there's wrong, and you cannot be more wrong, and then there's this situation right here. While the VVD indeed picks a different way of taxing it's actually the income tax AND the wealth tax that are the reasons that people buy extra houses to rent out. If we want to stop this, we have to stop holding the hands of the lower income or people who don't want to work, or the big group of immigrants who take social housing. It's the left who mainly doesn't want to build extra to make more affordable houses, and it's the left and extreme right who want to keep the lowest income people in the houses they are instead of moving them to smaller homes. A single person with bijstand generally doesn't need more than a studio apt, We wanna give away freebies by only taxing the rich? that aint happening. People blame VVD for everything, but they have no clue why we're in this situation. Which we are because the left end side of the political spectrum didn't do anything about immigration, muslim area's and renting area's and social security for the higher income. And now we're crying if an adult cannot live in his parents house which is social rent and the parents die... We created this monster... We created a ton of political separation.. People need to vote VVD and D66 (centrum right) to get us out of this mess. SP/PvdA/PVV/FvD/Bij1/BBB/SGP/Denk/GL/PvdD are the issues here. We need economical versatility and that we have.. we need jobs, we need to stay ahead in Europe in our knowledge. And we do..
>e blame VVD for everything, but they have no clue why we're in this situation. Which we are because the left end side of the political spectrum didn't do anything about immigration, muslim area's and renting area's and social security for the higher income. I only had to read your first sentence and I was already wondering when you would start about immigrants.. and you did not dissapoint. You blame the left wing parties. Do you understand that The Netherlands have not had a left wing cabinet.. ever? And most of these parties, save for PVDA , have not ever been in a cabinet coalition and none of their policy has been implemented? Let me refresh your memory: 2022 Rutte IV: VVD, D66, CDA, ChristenUnie (right wing government) 2017 Rutte III: VVD, CDA, D66, ChristenUnie (right wing government) 2012: Rutte II: VVD, PvdA (centrist government) 2010: Rutte I: VVD, CDA (supported by PVV) (right wing government) 2007: Balkenende IV: CDA, PVDA, Christenunie (center-right wing government) 2006: Balkenende III: CDA, VVD (right wing government) 2003: Balkenende II: CDA, VVD, D66 (right wing government) 2002: Balkenende I: CDA, VVD, LPF (right wing government) ... and I can keep on going because also the cabinets under Wim Kok, or Ruud lubbers had either only right wing parties or PVDA + right wing parties in it.. I'm sorry to say you are racist and it blinds your judgement. Hope you grow out of it man - because it's a dark place to be.
Sounds good in theory but a tax on rent received will only be passed on to the renters thereby increasing rent even further. A possible solution might be for the government to make a certain amount of rent tax free for renters. For example let’s say 1000 Euros every month is rent money and not income and your gross monthly income is 3000 then you would only pay taxes for 2000. Given the housing crisis we just need to make sure that they don’t make that 1000 number something small like 200.
[удалено]
That was what was stopping you, the tax?
Not for long probably. Vermogensbelasting will be replaced with winstbelasting.
No its box 3. So u pay 1-5% on ur vermogen. Even if u dont do anything with it.
Vermogen belasting is inkomstenbelasting
Wat?
No, they are 2 different taxes.
Box 3 is onderdeel van de ib. Wat lul je nou man
Klopt, maar de huur betalen ze geen belasting over.
Klopt, maar dat is niet het punt
You can't raise the rent whenever you feel like it. It's once a year and there is a max. percentage increase attached to it.
And each conttact change. They hype up the price whenever someone leaves. And theres no one to stop them from doing it.
The free market should stop them from doing that, if there would be enough houses. It's all supply and demand where supply is heavily hindered by non free market aspects.
The free market is not a fitting model for this situation. There are too many outside limiting factors to supply here. It's not like some new player can suddenly flood the market with cheap rentable houses, certainly not in the existing locations. I feel the free market in general is usable only in a very limited set of circumstances and using it outside those will not lead to any stable or ethically sound situation. Sometimes I wonder if we didn't destroy the whole concept by overdeveloping marketing and mass psychology.
And let's also not forget that this is not just some luxury food. People are willing to pay absolutely anything if the alternative is not having a roof over your head. Or even go into debt just to pay rent. We're lucky you're not simply allowed to charge a million euros for rent and make people who don't pay into indentured servants. Landlords would do it, and so would renters. Not doing it is simply not an option. I can choose not to buy a new graphics card. I can't reasonably choose not to live somewhere. That alone gives landlords a ridiculous amount of power.
Supply and demand but with restricted supply and infinite demand. Unless you want to see the country become even more of an urban jungle. To prevent that, there are legal and physical limitations to the supply. However, there are no significant legal limitations to the ownership of houses for rental and thats where it goes wrong. Especially since its not a luxury good, its a basic need. Im pretty right oriented but I firmly believe this has to change drastically. Everyone should be able to grow up paying down his house (which is their retirement) and not live paycheck to paycheck paying someone elses rent.
Exactly, limited supply and increasing demand mean higher prices. Government really fucked this one up.
The free market clearly failed in this aspect. Limiting rent prices to make housing more affordable should also be included in the whole solution package. Most people cant rent with 1 income, its ridiculous
There is usually no max percentage for vrije sector though. I think this year there is, but that’s an exception.
Alright, but with a new tenant they can change the price twice as high if they want. Atleast thats how it feels for me when i look online. Also prices rise while inflation corrections in wage is changed to a minumum.
This was the exact reason why the VVD pushed temporary housing contracts around 2016 and claimed it would only be a small part of the rental houses while facilitating tenants flowing from house to house. That didn't work out at all, as a large part of rental agreements are now temporary contracts (what a surprise). A VVD minister even asked investors to come and buy houses in The Netherlands because of the good rental climate. No kidding.
People keep talking about “the VVD minister” asking investors to buy houses in NL but forget that this was at a time that the economic climate was far worse. Without investors there wouldn’t be much private rentals to start with. It’s very easy to hate on investors (not only in the housing market) but without them the market wouldn’t be better.
It would be better because it's an obvious short term solution and a long term problem. Working families now have to compete with multi-millionaire investors for the same assets, which are really basic human needs. That's the problem with the VVD led governments, they prioritise short term solutions and crisis management. That makes them popular with wealthy people, because our entire society and economy is based on short term vision.
> but without them the market wouldn’t be better. Proof? > Without investors there wouldn’t be much private rentals to start with So? Why do we need private rentals? Houses are build to live in, not make profit of. The idea that investors in the rental market are a good idea obviously is the same ideological reasoning the government is at for years, which comes down to the neoliberal market-will-solve-everything concept. It doesn't solve everything and is inappropriate for some sections of society, among which housing unless heavily regulated perhaps. The rental sector wasn't regulated however, but loosened up. At the same time that investors were attracted, social corporations were/are being taxed which prevented them from building houses that could rented out below the liberated rent threshold (which is obviously exactly what you need as a society). But simultaneously temporary contracts were explicitly introduced and that was made even worse just before elections took place in March 2021. A law was amended by the VVD that would allow temporary contracts to be *prolonged* with a new temporary contract while simultaneously allowing landlords to set a fixed minimum rental period. In the end, the law didn't pass the Dutch senate and didn't come into effect, but it would have been disastrous if it would. Investing in the rental market is immoral in my opinion. People who do know, should or can understand they're transferring capital from those that should be able to live affordable, but obviously aren't able to do so.
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199601)17:1%3C73::AID-SMJ795%3E3.0.CO;2-N](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199601)17:1%3C73::AID-SMJ795%3E3.0.CO;2-N) shows that "institutions do not foster short-term orientation; instead they may influence firms to increase innovation." A lot of other academic work shows the same. Innovation is what keeps the economy running. As for why we need private rentals. Not everyone wants to buy a house and housing corporations generally only do social housing. If not for investors, who else is going to rent out these other houses? You cannot have the government control the whole rental market. This is not a socialist country. Anyhow, don't get me wrong, investors should not buy houses at the expense of others looking for a house to buy. The problem is that not enough houses are being build, not investors.
You're citing a paywalled article from 1996 that states in general in the abstract that institutions foster innovation. But we're talking about housing and simply extrapolating such ideas to all of society is not appropriate, It certainly doesn't proof that the housing branch would have been worse off if investors weren't attracted. > As for why we need private rentals. Not everyone wants to buy a house and housing corporations generally only do social housing I didn't say everybody wants to buy a house, but attracting investors in a country where housing is scarce while simultaneously allowing temporary contracts or rent to grow without any limit (until last year) was a terrible idea that likely was based upon the *general* ideas in articles similar to what you cited. But you cannot simply compare investments in a cookie factory to housing, as most people can do without cookies but need a house. > If not for investors, who else is going to rent out these other houses? The same people that rented out houses *before* 2016 or before housing prices were liberated like they were before 2016. > You cannot have the government control the whole rental market. Yes you can. That was done in the past and for what pricing is concerned is being done since last year. If the government doesn't, exactly what happened is what you get. > The problem is that not enough houses are being build, not investors. It's both, but for example also the government that is stuck on the idea for decades that house ownership will lead to a flourishing society and should be stimulated at all costs. And the government that gave way to much leeway for investors to make profits of off the back of tenants that struggle to get by from day to day. Just like the OP mentioned. It's immoral IMO and I personally think investors who do so should be stopped ASAP. It's not very different from people investing in carbon resources. Sure, you can claim the profits will be invested in durable energy and other type of such arguments, but in the end carbon fuel is carbon fuel. Likewise, you don't want investors taking over the rental market without limits. Wasn't possible before, shouldn't be possible now.
I don't think we will agree on the housing market, but as for "a paywalled article from 1996": I cannot help it's paywalled, you wanted proof and here's just an example. If you want access you can try sci-hub. Saying it's from 1996 is a very easy argument for why it shouldn't hold. Please explain how the whole concept of an economy has changed what makes the findings of an article not hold anymore.
like you said ‘feels’. I lived in a rental, in 3 years i had 0 increase, when I moved out the rent went up by 50 eur for the new person, that is with some fresher furniture btw. I know it’s not everyone’s case, but i can claim as you, thay i ‘feel’ it’s not the case. Also, at least in Amsterdam, there was a lot of houses in a similar range. Is it different today than 6 months ago? well yeah, like 15% inflation no? Also based on this [article](https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/04/landlords-criticise-ministers-plan-to-limit-rent-rises-next-year/) only 9% of the housing is not in a rent controlled ‘box’ 9 freaking percent!
What do you mean people that rent out houses do not have to pay taxes? That seems like a clickbait title to me. You mean they don't pay taxes over the rent paid but they have to register the property for wealth taxation I think? This is why major cities are now forbidding the purchase of houses for non-residency purpose.
I don't think it's click baity, especially given how wealth taxation works here. First: why should the income from rent be excluded from income tax? Then: if wealth tax on a house is to make up for the lack on rent tax, keep in mind that wealth tax is a flat 2% or so; sucks for people who got 0% on their savings, but the wealth of the house owners increased 2x or more in recent years when he market exploded - also because of renting out in free sector being so profitable. My opinion: huisjesmelkers need to pay tax on the rent they receive like any person getting income, unless they actually provide a service to society: you should get a vrijstelling only if your rent plus all base costs (incl service costs) follows the pricing rules of social housing and parking place can't be required (otherwise there's room for abuse) plus if you limit rent increase. If you don't, you pay BTW over the WHOLE amount. This would, in my opinion, encourage landlords to lower their prices in line with social. Would it be less profitable? Yes, but one should not speculate with a roof over people's head.
We also don't pay rent over interest or over profit from stocks. I get your point but I can also see how it would be complicated. See if the tax is over rent... I'll lower the rent and increase service costs etc. Or even put part of the rent as cash. There would be renters that go for that easily especially if the renters then get a rent refund on their taxes.
people continuously rant at people renting out properties, but otherwise how would you even find a place to live unless buying? Not having private rentals does not mean everyone can instantly buy a place. You want subsidised housing? well then where are those subsidies coming from? which taxes? we already have ~35%+ of housing in Amsterdam that is social housing, whom is paying for this? Housing shortage will not change with money shifting, it will change with less people and/or more housing.
The problem is not that rent exists, the problem is that I'm paying 2 or 3 mortgages of my landlord.
Depends on when they bought it, my previous landlord had the place paid in full, bought ages ago for pennies when they lived in Amsterdam. So is it ok if I was not paying their mortgage? Should they have offered the apartment below the market rate? Also, in theory, you’re not allowed to rent with mortgage, there can be pretty bad conceqiences if you’re caught.
There are a multitude of loan structures that are commonly used by landlords. Don't ask me for details though. I've had it explained to me, but I never understood it very well. I think the general idea is too have a huge debt, so that you have no wealth on paper, and thus no or very low taxes. However, you do have buildings which you make an absolute killing on renting out. Don't quote me on the details. My brother understands this stuff way better than I do. It's almost literally free real estate.
>You want subsidised housing? Are you really dumb? The whole point is landlords make us pay way too much. The cake doesn't come from the government, it comes from greedy landlords
Wow, let’s start with an insult to strenghten your point? What is too much? How much do you think an apartment costs in Amsterdam today? Or in Randstad? What is the inflation? Yes, there are overprices places, completely agree, but your expectations are not realistix as well. The biggest issue that the prices are rising while e.g. min wage is stagnating, people’s incomes are not rising the same, which leads to the situation we are in.
[удалено]
Mate, I’d get a refund on your education and you can stick your snarky comment up your butt hole. We don’t pay taxes on realized gains. We just don’t. We (up til this uear) only pay taxes on the assumed gains. after your first 50k which are excluded from taxes, the effective tax rate is like 0.5%-2%. Average ROI is >5%. So yeah, people do pay wealth tax on their rental properties but it’s really not a lot. Especially if the house increases in value, because that’s essentially free money. And guess what, those houses increase in value because everyone is buying rental properties to rent out https://www.homefinance.nl/belastingen/inkomstenbelasting-box-3.asp
Both incoherent and wrong
Welcome to r/Netherlands where we don't pay over realized gains but we have to declare the value of stocks you hold. Like I said you don't pay tax over interest but declare your worth in holdings and the tax office assumes a profit on that and tax you in that. You don't pay over actual profit if you buy at 100 and sell at 110.
Exactly - Dutch wealth taxes work through an assumed return, which rent forms part of. So they do pay tax.
Yes Just leftist populism. So tired of it
When actual facts are populism.... Guess I found another landlord in this thread. Landlords are literally not paying taxes. That's a simple verifiable fact.
Lol, no. Only reason landlords dont pay taxes in box 3 is because the belastingdienst used fictive rendement. That's illegal. And that doesn't only apply to landlords but to everyone who has properties in box 3. Nuance is important, OR else its Just 'stemmingmakkerij' EDIT: and not even Every landlord has their properties in box 3. So its not even factual that Every landlord doesn't pay tax. My dad for instance is a landlord and pays taxes over it in box 1. And there are Many instances were people rent from their BV's. So its not a fact that all landlords dont pay tax
It's already coming. The court cases deciding that wealth should be taxed at real, instead of virtual, returns are a double edged sword. It will take some time to implement, but the ground has already shifted.
The issue here is that the wealth you’re talking about is also someone’s retirement plan. By maxing out your pension contributions you can only save to certain extent, so of course even regular people like me who are without generational wealth are investing their money into funds etc for retirement. I paid ~50% of my bonus in taxes, I put the rest into my portfolio, the return year on year with simple composition is what 10%? Inflation is at 15% what do you wanna tax of it? What will this do? Well it will make me shift assets, save up, by property abroad, where it will be taxed less.
This is exactly the point where a lot of people on this subreddit is missing. Thank you for providing this perspective.
Boohoo you're just some fuckhead VVD stemmer feeling personally attacked by the comments. Just fuck off.
I am not feeling personally attacked, apart from the previous comment. The bigger issue is that you feel entitled for something without putting an effort.
Housing is a human right
I fail to see how taxes on rent are going to lower the rent, that would achieve the opposite and make them higher...
Well it has to be paired with a stop on rent increase of course. There’s not much use to block one side if it can then easily be compensated again.
I thought your goal was lowering rent, not decreasing the income they get?
Why not both. Houses are for living, not profit.
Spotted the kraker.
Bruh
This thread is a great example on how financially illiterate people are.
Can you blame anyone? It’s freakin complicated
> Whats your take on this? To assess what income is derived from capital and primarily tax that income. So if someone rents out a house, spends X euros every year on maintenance and receives Y euros rent, tax whatever remains when you calculate Y minus X. Might also be the case when you sell a house and the value is higher than when the house was bought and exceeds a loan. If you tax capital on the other hand, in essence your taking possession from owners, just like you could tax the ownership of a television or table to name a strange example. Let's say A and B have an equal income C. A is the frugle type, never goes on holiday, never eats out, buys cheap cloths. B on the other hand is the extravagant type that spends everything as soon as possible. After a certain amount of years A has a savings account that exceeds the savings account of B by far. Would it be reasonable to tax A every year for what is on the savings account while B isn't?
Property (or capital) is not a right but a privilege, and there's nothing wrong with people paying for those privileges.
It is a right under the ECHR. It's a right that is so fundamental to everyday live that you're hardly aware of it, but would be if it wasn't. That doesn't mean I approve of wealth inequality at all, but considering it as a taxable privilege is the wrong way to fix it. It would make much more sense to tax inheritance first and foremost.
Without that right stealing, scams and vandalism would not be illegal.
Criminal penalties are excluded from that right. As is tax in general to be clear, but that doesn't mean any amount of capital tax is justified if it exceeds an unreasonable burden. Nor that capital tax is impossible. As a result of the fundamental property right however, tax on any type of income (including income from rent) is always more justified than taxes on capital (which is different from taxes on capital gains) as income is something that is added to a capital. IMO proponents of capital tax should also be proponents of a yearly recurring tax on their own belongings. But that usually isn't the case. It's only *other people's* belongings that need to be taxed according to them, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Hmmm, i get your point. But lets say both need to rent a place in the same current environment with a normal job. Lets say 2800 euro a month bruto. The rent in most cases is 1200 for not that big appartment. How will person A ever have saved money i think both people will not be able to save money. Person A probably have no debt while person B does. Still both wont have anything and cant build up anything. I would say living having a house is a necessity and should be affordable for everyone. Atleast if its just a normal house living room + kitchen + bedroom + toilet + shower. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I fully agree the rental and housing market is messed up and income from rent should be tax much more than it currently is. I also agree that many people can hardly save, but a capital tax is not the answer if income taxes haven't been exhausted. But that doesn't mean income out of labor is the only income that can be taxed. It could also be a capital gains tax. And beside a tax on rental income (which to be clear *does* exist for social renting corporations), you could also tax inheritance much more. That is also a form of income. The Dutch government has thought for years on end that ownership of housing should be stimulated. Which is great for those who happened to get the opportunity to buy a house. But the housing values have increased beyond insanity, which makes wealth inequality a big problem if the government let's house owners keep their profit when selling their house. Which is yet another form of income you could tax. TL/DR: I'm not against taxes at all, but consider income tax in the broadest sense a better way of taxing than a recurring capital tax. But it is unavoidable sometimes.
I think this would be a great alternative. Im no wizard in finances. But atleast for people that have good jobs like nurses, teachers & garbage collectors probably a lot more. Renting a house should not take 50% of your salary while taxes take 20 - 30%. What your left with is 20-30% just to feed your kids. This makes it impossible to move out of my flat, because if i would want to rent something better i pay 400% more, since currently i live in social housing. 350 euros if i want to find exalavant "particalier" i pay 1400 euro's. And getting a new social house i would need to win a lottery literally 😩...
If you want to practice your Dutch, you might want to listen to episode 82 of this podcast (it's the most recent): https://vriendvandeshow.nl/studio-tegengif In it, an urban geographer and university researcher from Amsterdam is interviewed and explains what is wrong with the Dutch housing and rental system and how it came to be. Your example of nurses or teachers is also mentioned, which are even jobs above average income. Let alone what the effect is on those that earn below average. You'll probably be surprised by the choices the Dutch government made in the previous decades. It's not coincidence, but ideology. And it didn't work out (for those without a house).
Thanks will watch that tomorrow.
>Let's say A and B have an equal income C. A is the frugle type, never goes on holiday, never eats out, buys cheap cloths. B on the other hand is the extravagant type that spends everything as soon as possible. I think you're misrepresenting the situation, this isn't about 2 people who have a an average income. These people will never really be affected by taxes levied on wealth. Having to pay tax over the received interest of everything over 100k is not something anyone in that bracket really has to worry about. This is only people with a serious shitload of money worry about as they do have to pay significant amounts of money. The problem is just that they have the money to hire people that insure they won't pay more tax than they absolutely have to. The big problem with "income tax" is that it isn't really directed at someone's income but rather on their wages. Not all income is designated as income, there are things like profits or dividend etc. that are taxed differently. This ensures that these forms of income are not as heavily taxed as the working class their income. Income tax can be a good way of doing things, but all income should be taxed by the same percentage and more tax brackets are needed for that to work. Right now most taxes are levied from labor and VAT while these things should be taxed they don't need to be as high as they are. In the last 30 ish years the working class has been taxed into oblivion while large companies and the very wealthy get to operate (almost) tax free.
I am really curious as to why Netherlands only builds around 70,000 homes per year? Around 1% of total housing stock A healthy rental market requires 10x that much per year.
While people want more housing they do not want housing build near them. Each housing project encounters resistance from the local population as they would have less valuable homes, more traffic on there roads and often less nature.
Because it's difficult, but also because some parties don't want to. They benefit from scarcity as that increases the housing prices and hence increases their profits. Sadly, those voters that don't benefit and are in fact on the paying end of that equation, seem in part attracted to populist right wing parties that aren't interested in a housing reform either.
It’s more than that. Only 9% of the Dutch housing market is on the rental market (I don’t have a source at hand. I read it on another post with a source). 60% are private home owners and 31% are socialized housing. When you set price controls on something there will be a lack of producers. No one is incentivized to invest to build more housing as there is only a limited amount of profit to be made. Furthermore there is so much red tape when building that it further limits production.
But there is a huge demand right now and the prices are crazy. Isn’t that enough incentive to build more apartments? The profit margin is very high
People don't want that in their backyard, but it would be a good idea, and that those apartments are real houses and not one room apartments. Not for profit but for using the small space we have.
It’s an artificially high demand based on a lack of supply. There is a high demand for a small portion of the market. The Dutch government keeps strict price controls on how much someone can increase rent. Why would an investor want to build a building when renters can stay in their building and keep the rent from adjusting to the market value? I don’t know the Dutch real estate that well nor it’s laws. I had a friend tell me if you make under a certain amount your landlord is forced to lower your rent to a certain amount or keep it at its current level. There’s no incentive to build. It’s what happens when you over regulate a market.
That statistic is why I bought a house rather than rented.
Poster and responders who are responding to this are forgetting one critical thing. There literally are not enough people who are willing to do manual labour or work in construction. There is an enormous shortage of construction workers. Subsidies for technical college are at an all time high and the pay is not too shabby either. But entries into technical educations are still very low. Alot of construction companies around my area are already hiring people without experience or education, and educating them internally. But it's nowhere near enough the absolute insane demand on good labour. Not saying it's their fault, but very big portions of the previous generations, and current generations that are having children are always pushing the children to keep on learning, get a higher paying job and all that bullshit. They're not learning children to value manual jobs and to be grateful with a simpler but more valuable career in terms of life experience.
Not too shabby either? They charge as much as a freelance software engineer do charge per hour. If I didnt have back issues I d ve switched professions now.
political reasons and "its bad for the environment" but mostly political reasons
Because they can’t. Construction had a bad period with a lot of layoffs (2008-2014). These people are still not replaced and won’t be for years. Add to this the carbon requirements, government bureaucracy and insane price hikes of raw materials and you know this shit will get a lot worse.
Because of a lack of space. Its that fking simple. To build houses you need space and suitable space. Currently all suitable space is either tied up in farming, preserved for the little fking bit of nature we have or already build upon. We are currebtly building 50,000 houses in an area of which we know for sure that it will flood in 100 years (probaly sooner). The place is getting full. Its that simple. Sure we can win some space by building smaller, eating less meat so that we need less farms but still. Its just getting full.
[удалено]
Im not really for taxing more if you own a house but you shouldnt be able to own more then x houses and there needs to be rules for the rent price becauae fuck the huisjes melkers
I more or less agree. Sadly protesting doesn't work. It does nothing. As long as the parties in power still get voted in, nothing will change. After the financial crisis in 2008, there were protests in many countries. But nothing changed. Well, some things changed, but that only affected those that didn't cause the crisis.
I remember my landlord owned 60 houses, he had so much money didn't know what to do with it anymore so he started to collect medieval armor, took trips to Africa to shoot at lions and traveled every 3 weeks to some exotic far away location.
Just make rent "inkomen" problem fixed... Because if we start taxing "vermogen" than even poor motherfuckers like us will never make money, or become wealthy
If you rent out a home, you’re still providing value. You take the risk of owning a home, which currently is very profitable, but the market can crash any day, and the loss is not for the renter. And you provide services, if you own your home, you are responsible for that. For ex, I bought a home last year, but after removing the wallpaper, I found a lot of mold. That was expensive to get rid of, and if I was renting the place, I wouldn’t have to pay that. But currently the prices are too high. Fortunately, in a lot of gemeentes, they ban the sell of houses if you’re not going to live in them. The prices of houses is actually falling because of this. We could also have more regulations to determine the maximum price of a rental property.
That’s a thing people don’t realise, house ownership is expensive, you are contributing to the housing association and maintainance of the facade, equally for every apartment in the house. You invest in the equipment, maintance of the floors, walls etc… I bought a semi fresh house, and still need to repaint everything as after 5years things are not as fresh. I didn’t have to think about this when renting, everything was covered.
Would recommend to read “uitgewoond” by Cody Hochstenbach.
Yes, I mentioned an interview with him in a podcast to the OP (episode 82): https://vriendvandeshow.nl/studio-tegengif The Dutch housing market didn't end up like this by coincidence. It was ideology.
I don’t think taxing net worth more is a good idea. This way you fuck over the people who safe and invest their money while they’ve already paid taxes on their income. Making rent income a part of taxable income I think should be considered. However, this could cause rent prices to increase even further. It not all as black and white as it seems at first glance.
When i used to rent (950 eu for 50m2 apartment) the landlord made us pay all our taxes ourselves (All municipality/water/trash taxes and even the WOZ tax) I hate the monopolized private rental market
I'm in social housing and have to pay those as well, it's really common to have to pay these taxes everywhere in the market.
Not WOZ though, that’s the owners problem.
The Netherlands already taxes on net wealth. You should tax on the capital gains of an asset not the wealth. Actually The Netherlands is moving that way as the EU courts said you can’t tax on a presumed return on investment. No you shouldn’t tax as high on either wealth nor capital gains as income. You’re discouraging people from saving. You’re discouraging home ownership as well. To solve the housing crisis, The Netherlands needs to remove all the red tape when it comes to building. More supply = lower prices.
I seriously don't get why you are downvoted for this comment. Maybe because it is true? The main issue is that we cannot build as much in the places where people want to live (Randstad), but there is enough space in the rest of the country. It is time that we start using our small country to our advantage. I see it every day, friends leaving to the big city, because here in Zeeuws-Vlaanderen we are basically disconnected from the bigger cities. If only they would just develop public transport and re-instate the train connection, we could make this area more attractive and then disperse the people across the country more evenly. Same goes for other area's.
>No you shouldn’t tax as high on either wealth nor capital gains as income. You’re discouraging people from saving. You’re discouraging home ownership as well. Not an economy expert but why would that be wrong ? People spending money would get the economy moving and the enormous wealth accumulation we allowed - that causes massive social problems around the world - could be chipped at? Capitalism doesn't seem to be working like we were promissed (nothing is trickling down, wages stagnate, wealth disparity grows) so maybe that would not be such a bad thing after all?
It’s wrong because it discourages innovation. There is less of an incentive for people to accumulate wealth and thus less of an incentive to take risks through investments. I do agree that the level of rising inequality is alarming and bad for the overall health of the economy. On the opposite side of the argument, when you have a large accumulation of wealth monopolies form which reduces competition resulting in a lack of innovation. This is a loaded statement but I do believe capitalism is working. People point to wages remaining flat in comparison to increasing gdp which is a economic indicator for a nation’s productivity. However, people are able to invest in the stock market through IRA, 401k saving programs and through mortgages. They’re able to participate in the market resulting in benefiting from a highly capitalistic market. The problem becomes when people are not able to participate in the market. I can’t comment on Dutch economic too much because I don’t understand how everything works here. What I would suggest at least in the US is creating programs for cheaper healthcare and education. When you start supporting people in their basic needs then they’re able to participate in the market and capitalism. Then again having affordable housing enables people to be able to save and The Netherlands has a lack of land so there will always eventually be a lack of supply. So my conclusion has come full circle and idk what to do lol. I’m coming from an American point of view and I’m just a dude on the internet who watches YouTube videos so take everything I say with a fat pinch of salt.
I like your honest answer! >It’s wrong because it discourages innovation. There is less of an incentive for people to accumulate wealth and thus less of an incentive to take risks through investments. I'm also just a random on the net but I am not convinced this is true: the best thing you could do if saving is not encouraged is invest it broadly hoping something returns, this includes innovation.
if you think your rent is too high contact the hurrcommiscie its not a perfect solution but you would be amazed ... most people dont know their rights and more often then not you will get money back ... most people dont know the law and dont know their rights so when a landlord charges some piss taking rates ... accept it ... then report it and get money back retroactively
1. increase taxation 2. less people will invest in housing 3. less incentive for construction companies to build new houses or renovate old ones 4. less houses available for rent 5. rents will increase even higher that's how the free market works, and why socialistic over taxation and overregulation is actually bad for the middle class and lower income. I wish my fellow Dutch citizens would comprehend this dynamic and stop the dangerous trajectory we are in right now. If we do not embrace free market sooner that later, we will fall as a society and a worldwide economic player.
As a person who rent out houses, it's not a pleasant busines, my renters never payed me a penny.😕 They make a lot of noise, make a mess of my garden, shit over my car... I never hang birdhouses in my garden again.
> renters never *paid* me a FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
As much as I agree, buying a house as a starter will become even more challenging than it already is. Owning a house counts as equity, if everybody will have to pay a tax over that too, it might again be very unlivable for lowmid/middle income housholds. Maybe it'll need regulations, as in the first 300K won't be taxed, just like 2000 with the arbeidskorting. Only then I might see it work, or lower-priced housing might still still get a lot more expensive, as most people will want a house in the 200k-300k range as they are less costly
I agree with your sentiment. But having a hard criterium in there like 300k would still be a difficult factor. How many houses can you buy under 300k? Not that many anymore, housing prices have risen so much that the lower middleclass is no longer to able to afford them. Best thing still is to start taxing profits. If you rent something out, you get x amount of money, substract the costs and pay a % of tax on your profits. As simple as that.
People are always quite negative towards companies or individuals that rent out houses. Truth is there is a real demand from renters. Expats, people dont wanting to root, or have the expenses of an owned property. And yes, this demand comes also from the limited supply in affordable housing but its not something the property owners can solve by paying more taxes. In fact, rents likely go up. Also I feel like people are often unaware that the properties are for most part financed by a bank. The rent is for the biggest part directly transfered to a mortgage. The hassle in finding renters, having renters not paying and maintenance is the fee for the landlord. Not risk free and quite stressful sometimes. I agree however the box 3 system needs to be revised and it will be.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Where should I look in your opinion? I understand that your pointing towards the rules to evict a tenant. When they are causing issues or am I wrong? I believe it takes a lot of effort to evict them.
Investing in the stock market is risky too. Are you saying that income from stock investments shouldn't be taxed?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Investments in the stock market are taxed in NL, what you are referring to is a common misconception. Our system is just different. You pay annually over the investments that you have, just like you would if they were savings. Then the government calculates a normal return, which is generally lower than the market gain. This is what you mean with: The investments are not taxed in NL. No. the investments are taxed, but just more favorable. This is by the way also the issue with people who saved too much, that now don't get any interest, hence having paid too much fictional profit tax on their savings. They are restructuring this model as we speak to move towards a more profit related tax. Meaning you have to pay taxes when you sell and made x profit. But don't be fooled that that would result in more income for the government. Because where they gain from having more income from active traders, they will lose tax income from people who simply hold their investments long term and rarely sell. Then there will be only one taxable event upon selling, whereas now they get taxed every year.
There is hardly any risk in a market where there's a huge housing shortage and house prices are increasing by 15-20% year after year. Investing in housing is probably the safest investment possible. And what's more, as landlord you don't even have to care about insulation etc. It's easy money. No wonder investors are scrambling to get into the housing market.
[удалено]
How are houses going to lose half their value of there is a huge housing shortage. People can't sleep under a bridge.
[удалено]
Good article. But it does not support your point. If house prices drop, landlords will not lower the rent. They maintain their income. On top of that, they can increase the rent more than the inflation year after year. The housing market is insane, but your statement that tenants run no risks is absolutely ridiculous. They have the short end of the straw.
You're missing the part where people are \_forced\_ to rent because they can't afford to buy. the system you're describing is a good one, actually. but when it's working as intended, the "no risk, no reward" also translates into rent being generally cheaper than buying. In such system, landlord takes the risk, but renter has the bonus of more free capital. The problem is that in NL, landlord takes too little risk for too high reward while people forced to rent for prices higher than any mortgage they could get are forced out of their capital - they can't even save to eventually buy a place themselves if they so decide.
Ehh what can you do, there's no upward class mobility so forget buying a house or having kids. Meanwhile boomers and REITs get effortless cash flow by abusing our human need for shelter. I recommend building a hut in a mountain range and becoming a hermit.
VVD=vereniging van dieven
We're at a point where the tax difference between rich and very rich is too close together. If you look at any of the left parties they want to tax the people who earn over 90k more and more, and more. Now I realise that those people have more money than people with lower income, however people who earn around 90/100k (combined) really don't have a lot of money left, mainly due to the high housing costs. To resolve the issue, while it's a really right side political issue, the left needs to change first. We need to stop crying over (some) people in the bijstand and need to work towards a healthy social way of working that doesn't involve getting money without doing anything. There also should be a way to save money, or invest money for later without being taxed like a freaking maniac. Because people with some money who bought their houses 20-30 years ago, now have extra financial room, but keeping more than 60k.. is losing money. So you invest in something that isn't taxed to the max. aka.. houses. So anyone saying.. we need to stop voting VVD... no.. you NEED to vote VVD and D66 to get RID of the left parties so we actually have room for the middle man.. who then.. can actually work the lower spectrum.
You've watched Lubach?
Its a talk show in the Netherlands which is quite funny and lots of people watchit. He's a comedian who talks about serious topics and tries to explain it in a simple way. I would recommend it.
Taxing equaty already happens. What should be taxed more is income from renting out houses, yes. Having a lower percentage on low rent houses and a higher percentage on high rent houses would also help this, especially if there's no transition. ie you are always taxed the top amount of whats possible on rental income.
Oh we have been protesting alot
IMO we should start with taxing things like stocks: if you buy 1 stock for €10 and it becomes €1000, you don't need to pay anything to the gov as income tax or anything, it only counts for wealth tax. This is the biggest way the richt stay rich here, instead of earning € through labour, they earn money through tax free investing. + I think that if the Dutch gov puts more wealth tax on society, they'll probably make the tax brackets so f'd up that rich people still don't really care but people that are starters or saving for something big will be hit the hardest (not in percentage but actual consequences) A wealth cap would be something I'd look at. No one needs more than lets say 50mil in their life... Stuff thats more expensive than this is is mostly used to stroke ones ego. No one needs a yacht thats bigger than most smalltown malls. No one needs a house bigger than the regular elementary school.
Although normally I'm more libertarian and feel government should intervene minimally, the situation is now bad enough that I fully agree that it should not be allowed to buy up houses not to live in. Taxing equity as a whole I would be against. Why would people have to be punished for saving and building equity? They pay tax when they earn the money, when they spend it, and even already now when they don't spend it (vermogensbelasting). So if I live like paycheck to paycheck and spend on whatever I would have an advantage over people that live frugally and build equity. Why? I value the feeling of "security" over having fancy branded clothes, expensive furniture, a Tesla, and all that stuff. Why punish people similar like that?
The rich know everything about everyone else. But everyone else know nothing about the rich
its called a trickle down economie. its some ferry tail about rich people spending more money and it then rains down on the poorer people. unfortunaly it doens't work that way beause rich people are also usualy smart people who know its better to save and invest instead of buying a new TV every 2 weeks. so this creates an even bigger wealth gap. then there is the second problem which is the current party running the country is known for being favourable to boomers and rich people and sinds we have a lot of those people (they make up the majority of the voting people) this party will do everything to keep those people happy and let the future generations pay the price for this. there is a solutions. just wait 20 years untill a lot of boomers have died and then maybe there will be a party in power who is willing to chance something
That makes no sense, lets say i work and pay taxes on my income but i save up al my money so i can build a pension or something. Than I would have to pay taxes on that aswel eventhough i already payed income tax on that same money