![\"\"](\"https:\/\/foundationmaxvanderstoel.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/IMG_4797-225x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
At the congress of the Party of European Socialists (PES) in Amsterdam, a classic theme for left-wing politics was on the agenda twice. As FMS, together with Oxfam Novib and Tax Justice NL, we\u00a0<\/span>a panel discussion<\/span><\/a>\u00a0with experts on national and European initiatives to achieve a fairer tax system. The main stage featured Gabriel Zucman, a French economist who is rapidly gaining the kind of rock star status enjoyed by Thomas Piketty, for example. He presents\u00a0<\/span>a simple plan<\/span><\/a>: let the ultra-rich pay at least 2 per cent tax on assets above 100 million euros \u2013 the so-called Zucman tax. In many European countries, this idea is leading to heated debates. In the Netherlands, however, it remains remarkably quiet. How is it possible that a country with high wealth inequality has hardly any political debate about taxing extreme wealth?<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That the Zucman tax is political<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>traction\u00a0<\/span>was demonstrated this year in France. The Socialist Party supported Zucman's idea and even went further with a proposal for a 3% tax on assets above \u20ac10 million. According to party leader Olivier Faure, this was the best way to avert an impending crisis. However, 86% of French people\u00a0<\/span>before a capital gains tax<\/span><\/a>\u00a0did not matter much. For the right, the \u2018Zucman tax\u2019 was too left-wing and the party<\/span>\u00a0Emmanuel Macron and Les R\u00e9publicains voted against it.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The debate also flared up in Norway. After the 2021 elections, the existing wealth tax, the\u00a0<\/span>wealth tax<\/span><\/i>, tightened. Unfortunately, it became a central theme in this year's elections. Right-wing populists, led by Sylvi Listhaug, warned of capital flight and portrayed the measure as a threat to entrepreneurship and innovation. That message was eagerly taken up on social media and\u00a0<\/span>YouTube channels<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that target young men. The underlying logic was always the same: taxing wealth drives capital out of the country.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Organisations such as Oxfam\u00a0<\/span>warn<\/span><\/a>\u00a0for growing wealth inequality. The richest 10 per cent now own 56 per cent of all Dutch wealth. If we look at\u00a0<\/span>the richest 1 per cent<\/span><\/a>, who owns almost\u00a0<\/span>a quarter of the total<\/span>. The wealthiest Dutch individuals in the Quote 500 saw their assets increase by\u00a0<\/span>increase by 8 per cent<\/span><\/a>\u00a0up to \u20ac273 billion, partly thanks to investments in crypto and artificial intelligence. At the same time, on average, they pay,\u00a0<\/span>significantly lower tax<\/span><\/a>\u00a0than the rest of the population. Whereas most people pay around 45 per cent tax on their income, the effective rate for this group is around 20 per cent.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That is no coincidence. The Dutch tax system heavily taxes labour and lightly taxes property. Assets can easily be placed in\u00a0<\/span>private limited companies, holding companies and family foundations<\/span><\/a>. Parties say they are concerned about inequality, but shy away when it comes to extreme wealth. Since the High Court's box 3 ruling in 2021, politicians have also been keen to hide behind the argument of \u2018complexity\u2019. A wealth tax would be too risky legally and too complicated technically.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n An important part of the answer lies in public perception. Dutch people\u00a0<\/span>underestimate<\/span><\/a>\u00a0structural inequality in the distribution of wealth. Right-wing voters in particular underestimate wealth inequality far more than it actually is. This misperception is not harmless. It influences how people think about taxes, opportunities and justice.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n During the recent elections, several parties, including GroenLinks-PvdA, D66, Volt, ChristenUnie and SP, included proposals for a form of wealth tax in their manifestos.\u00a0<\/span>their programmes<\/span><\/a>. Together, they hold 53 seats. Not enough for a majority, but enough to put the issue on the agenda in a structural way. Nevertheless, the debate on economic inequality remained superficial, overshadowed by politically safer topics such as mortgage interest relief.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Initiatives such as the Zucman tax are dismissed as threatening economic growth and investment. This argument is often repeated, but rarely substantiated. A wealth tax for the very richest will not reverse inequality in one fell swoop. At most, it will\u00a0slow down its growth<\/a>. That is precisely where the political significance lies. Extreme concentration of wealth is not only an economic problem, but also a democratic one. When a small group contributes less on a structural basis, while still benefiting from public services and political influence, this undermines support for the entire tax system.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\nThe wealth debate in Europe\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Where is the Netherlands in the debate?\u00a0<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n
The blind spot<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n
Extreme wealth as an issue <\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n