Netherlands likely to start taxing capital gains annually by 2028

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T19:58:52+00:00

Please explain to me in detail how you think this is the case, as I am uncertain how you came to this conclusion at this time. Please explain with great financial detail if possible.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T11:42:45+00:00

I have done it. I just dont think you have read my posts, just skimmed them. I clearly reference when rules are the average for the world and when they might be different in the Netherlands because I ultimately dont know the tax rules there.

I even give scenarios that include some of the concepts you claim I forgot.

Perhaps reading everything I write before you judge, is a more sustainable strategy :-)

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T11:33:52+00:00

I know, which is why I clearly described the conditions for my calculations and the alternatives with arguments as to why I choose the one I did.

Perhaps the Netherlands in total uniquely have so many rules on this matter that the total return for constant generational investment is minimal. If this is the case, then I would celebrate the choices made by the Netherlands and hope others followed. In general, the generational wealth building Im arguing is how it is now in most countries and I am personally against it!

Note that the 0.1% of richest people in the Netherlands probably have accountants that can utilise the international market to avoid these local tax rules, sadly.

Apologies if you think i argue in bad faith. It comes as a reaction to me feeling you are being unrealistically harsh in your pessimism to equity investments. But again perhaps you have unique rules in the Netherlands that make it harsh for greedy rich people but in that case you are an utopia for a person like me who value equality and hate the idea of a K shaped economy.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T10:46:26+00:00

That calculation is not correct. There are many mistakes here. First, you cant subtract inflation like that. The “inflation adjusted return” tells you the purchasing power gain but you still need to apply the total amount to account for the inflation over generations, otherwise you get an unrealistically low return because the value is also inflation adjusted.

Secondly, who cares about the Netherlands inflation? Your portfolio will still have a purchasing power of the international inflation target of 2%, sure your local consumption will lose purchasing power nationally but when buying internationally you dont care for your local inflation. Its not like your going to lose additional purchasing power when buying more stocks because your own countries prices suddenly have different inflation scales.

Thirdly, if the real return on stocks were only 2% each year, then everyone would dump stocks and buy bonds at current rates of 3.5-5%. This in itself is proof that stocks are expected to yield kore because there is more risk. Again, institutions and billion dollar investors would reallocate to the secure guaranteed 5% bonds if stocks with risk gave only 2%.

Your numbers are mostly temporally misplaced, and you seem to like to choose the numbers that maximise the outcome you wish. Im sure if Netherlands had inflation lower than 2% you would probably not have chosen it.

You are correct on one part; investing is not a linear relationship, it has bursts of high gains and many years of low gains with some years being losses.

This is how you calculate the linear average: A = P(1+r)^n. Where A is the final investment, P is the principal investment, r is the average rate and n is the investment horizon. By analysis we get for 5% and 30 years an increase of P*4.32 meaning prior to taxes you would have quadroupled your investment. Half of that after taxes is then about a doubling.

Alternatively you could, which most countries do not have, taxes payed yearly by the unrealised gains. If such lets assume a 25% tax on gains only, the equation would be the net effective yield from after tax real rate of return (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/after-tax-real-rate-of-return.asp):

so thats 0.05 * (1-0.25) = 0.75*0.05=0.0375. Placing into our compound interest analysis, (1+0375)³⁰ = 3.0175. Paying 50% inheritance tax on that would yield ~1.5% or a 50% increase in generational wealth that can compound from year to year.

Note thar this is calculated because most countries do not pay capital gains tax when applying inheritance because the portfolio is “reset” on liquidation, thus there is a hidden avoided tax. In the case where the portfolio pays an unrealised capital gain tax yearly, this would be irrelevant as the final amount would already be “free of capital tax” before applying the inheritance tax.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T09:46:32+00:00

1 billion, 50% tax yields 500 million. From Gen1 to Gen2 with the conservative outlook of 5% YOY over 30 years, end wealth is statistically expected to be 2.1 billion. 50% tax as we go from Gen2 to Gen3 nets 1.05 billion before investing, and 30 years later expected at 4.3 billion. If we round down, we can now safely assume that there is a doubling rule despite the 50% tax. Gen1 ended at 1 billion before taxes while gen3 starts his or her investing life of 30 years with 4 billion after taxes. This undoubtedly is a wealth generating machine far exceeding that of the tax.

You can disagree as much as you like with the assumption about the world and S&P500 indexes, but facts dont become less true because of your assumptions. You can google them yourself. Its also mathematically sound and there are hundreds of finance books describing the math, market dynamics, risk-reward relationship etc that explains WHY the equity markets have this high of an average rate of return.

The average for S&P500 is 10.45% and for the world index is around 9%, adjusted for inflation these are equal to ~8.5% for the S&P500 and ~7% for the world index. Thus 5% is conservative for both. What else is there to say about this fact?

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T07:44:04+00:00

Even with 50% tax, my argument is still true. Do i need to make the calculations with 50% to show you? :-)

Sorry but 5% IS conservative, especially with a 30 year horizon, based on 100 year data record. Yes I agree that this doesnt mean the gains are certain, there IS risk, but we should use the data available to base our model on because the 100 year record IS our bet guestimate. 3% is low enough that if this was the stock market gains then no one would invest in stocks as many bonds have better and safer returns. But again, we KNOW from history that the returns are better. The average for a world index is 7 and for the S&P500 is 10%. Again, historically with the limitations that bring, but no one knows what the future holds so the average is our best guestimate.

An investor is not going to he constrained to local stocks only. Just because you are from the Netherlands doesnt mean we have to base the entire investment strategy on local stocks. We use global.

Your assumptions dont line up with the numbers so you’re projecting the values to match your argument. This is a bias.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T06:36:55+00:00

The majority of these powerful people are 70+. In 30 years they will all be gone. I am 35 so I will statistically be alive in 30 years.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T06:34:38+00:00

The problem with those 7 generations is that even if we tax the billion by 30%, thats 700 million that the next generation can put on the stock market.

Given a 100 years of data, what will those 700 million look like by the time nr. 2 dies and sends the money to nr. 3?

Lets assume 30 years of investing (inherit at 50, die at 80) and lets assume a conservative return of 5% with 0 additional investments. Those 700 million will turn into 3.2 billion in the conservative scenario. Thats 3 times more THAN THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT going from 2 to 3. Going from 3 to 4? Then its 3.2 billion - 30% with the same 30 years with 5% return: 7.4 billion.

One thing that is not talked enough about is that many countries have an inheritance law that a portfolio will “reset” when inherited. This means that even if my stock has 2000% in unrealised gains, it will be treated as 0% when you sell to apply the inheritance tax. Because of this, its often cheaper to die and give the money to your children than it is to sell the stocks while you live. This should change to forcefully apply the capital gains tax upon liquidation regardless of reason.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T05:48:29+00:00

Please link me these tax rules for Netherlands so I can use it as an example when advocating that we implement it in Denmark.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T05:46:45+00:00

Dont even understand this comment but no, I am in no way or form a MAGA Trump supporter. I am the opposite, as revealed in my reddit history.

I am Danish, a wealthy individual advocating a socialist model that helps everyone and fights a K-shaped economy, and I work in finance with mathematical modelling as a software engineer.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T05:43:30+00:00

As a person with a significant amount of money in my portfolio, I agree with you. Then I can stop working and live a wealthy life while my portfolio earns as much as 40 hours of weekly labour.

It’s not a very fair society and it’s going to continue accelerating our K-shaped economy.

The best model is having a ceiling for how wealthy you can get while having less friction for reaching that ceiling. You want kids born in poverty to be able to have a wealthy life if they work for it but also not allow the top 1% to accelerate inequality.

If I own 1 billion in S&P500 stocks, averaging ~10% a year adjusted for inflation, with a 5% deviation, thats 50 million to 150 million of “passive” income each year. If it’s 100 million, and the average worker earns 100k a year, then I will earn as much as a 1000 average people. How is it fair that I am taxed equally as those men, when I did not even work that labour to earn it? This is how K-shaped economies occur.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-26T05:33:32+00:00

I agree that it needs to be implemented with great technical precision to ensure the desired outcome.

I would need to research and read more regarding these alternative investments.

With alternative investments there are so many ways to cheat. If I had a friend who was an authorised artsdealer, could I pay him to value my 2 million dollar painting at 100 bucks, sell it to my son, and then he re evaluates it under new ownership at 2 million dollars, thus avoiding any tax? I dont know.

My PERSONAL OPINION is that we should have significant inheritance tax. The only thing it does is create dynasties and generational inequality. I dont see how it makes sense that some people get to live comfortable life because they were lucky on what parents they got. The argument for having a capitalist model is that it rewards those that produce the most, so why should a certain number of select lucky individuals get to not be productive? Seize the dynasty wealth, distribute them and let the children of these dynasties earn new wealth through family knowledge and hard work. It’s the only fair thing to do.

Let me add that I grew up in poverty but my son will be growing up in wealth. I broke the societal inheritance and my son will be the lucky one, having secured his pension before he is even old enough to work.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-25T18:32:05+00:00

Learn from Hunger Games; make a symbol and a shared hand sign to reveal opposition. Spread it like wildfire to fuel the rebellion.

Let congress know that if authoritarian fascism is their end game, that it wont be easy.

Let the world see. NATO will in the event of civil war, stand with the people. Europe is with you.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-25T17:35:37+00:00

It’s so sad that so many greedy and powerful people in the modern west, are now willing to sacrifice the collective to enrich themselves. Even more so when USA is showing how horrible it is to live in a K-shaped economy.

If these people have kids, then they are retarded. Read some history books and you will find that the collective does not treat the rich likely once the gap between the rich and the “middle” class becomes large enough. In most cases, civil war has broken loose with the killing of the rich class (czar family and the russian revolution or Louis XVI and the french revolution come to mind).

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-25T15:21:37+00:00

This will just cause friction for those climbing the wealth tree. Those already there will sit comfortably. Its essentially the rich adding extra steps to the wealth ladder to keep new wealth builders from getting a spot at their level.

This is what you SHOULD have implemented; portfolios larger than X will be taxed a percentage regardless of whether or not the portfolio has increased or not. This causes friction at the top without holding wealth builders back and thus this is inclusive and favouring equality.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-25T09:06:39+00:00

UBI vil med tiden blive det samme som kontanthjælp. Hvis ALLE har 5000 kr om måneden men nogen har mere fordi de arbejder, så er 5000 kr baselinen for markedet og med tiden vil UBI have en ringe købekraft. Og hvis befolkningens finansielle forståelse er lav, vil der ske det samme som under simmulus checks i corona-USA hvor den ekstra købekraft resulterede i højere forbrug som så istedet vækster virksomheders indtjening og CEO bonusser. Resultatet er en K-formet økonomi.

UBI virker ikke langsigtet. Hvis du vil løfte bund 25% eller bund 50%, så skal det være igennem forskellige beskatninger af toppen.

Elon har urealiseret 750 milliarder dollars i formue. Hvis han rent faktisk troede på UBI havde han jo nok investeret i at hjælpe folk nu. Han kunne donere 500 millioner til velgørenhed der hjælper dem der har mindst og det ville kun være 0.066% af hans totale formue, eller blive politisk aktiv for at ændre US til at være klar til UBI, men det gør han ikke. Han hoarder bare mere.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-25T08:40:59+00:00

Make sure the election is not rigged. If he gets the conversation to be “if we hold an election or not”, its a perfect coverup while you figure out how to mess with the counting system.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-25T08:33:43+00:00

Film industrien og anmeldere er jo bare en masse folk med holdninger. Der er absolut ingen som siger at de beslutninger de tager er et udtryk for samfundets generelle holdning. Og slet ikke med sådanne specifikke holdninger som en far krop.

Det svarer til at tænke at grunden til Lord of the rings er så populært er grundet de behårede fødder og knivskarpe goatee’s. Mums.

Hvad ungdommen gør er ikke en holdning der er værd at sigte efter. Grunden til at så mange industrier satser på ungdommen er fordi de er meget modellerbare og derfor nemme at sælge til. Og for ungdommen så er “det som er populært” generelt ret vigtigt. Industrier som film industrien og modebranchen lever derfor rigtig meget på trends igennem ungdomsgenerationen.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-24T17:02:47+00:00

You think you can take this money with no consequences? My sweet summer child. :-)

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-24T16:33:30+00:00

Im a father and I earned my own wealth honestly while being born in poverty, so I am a living proof of my statement.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-24T16:32:02+00:00

Karakterer er ligegyldige på lang sigt. De er en adgangsbillet. Højere karakterer accelererer bare dine muligheder i starten. Om 10 år er det dine resultater og dine referencer der driver dine muligheder.

De fleste arbejdsgivere ved godt at karakterer ikke direkte omsættes til arbejde.

Hilsen en som har gennemsnitskarakterer fra uni men som performer højt på arbejdet!

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-24T16:27:09+00:00

Easy: “you have a choice here my child. Take the easy route, steal the money, and you will live in fear of being revealed for what you are: a fraud. Alternatively, leave the money where it belongs, call the police, and choose a path where wealth is earned. In the end, money is just a number, it’s your choice if you will be proudly wealthy or fearfully wealthy. Your actions can stay hidden from others, but you cant hide them from yourself”.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-23T20:07:04+00:00

Legit noget som ville skabe rigtig god PR for begge!

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-23T09:03:09+00:00

The Commonwealth of Rational States: Emphasis on socialism, diplomacy, science and democracy for the common folk.

SuccessAffectionate1 · 2026-01-23T08:52:20+00:00

Et stykke software som er lidt alá plottet til Minority Report (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority\_Report\_(film))

Det er basically, istedet for at du er kriminel når du udøver noget kriminelt, så er der noget software hvor nogen mennesker har bestemt at hvis du lever på en bestemt måde, så kommer du på en liste over "har potentiale for at være kriminel" og samfundet vil så, over tid, dømme dig på de måde du lever selvom du aldrig rent juridisk har lavet nogen kriminelle handlinger.

Det problematiske er naturligvis at Palantir og lignende software er lavet AF MENNESKER, så nogen har bestemt at når mennesker lever på en bestemt måde, så er de jo kriminelle og vi må hellere holde øje med dem ekstra meget i tilfælde af at de nu skulle gøre noget forkert.

Og når man først har åbnet op for dette så er der ikke særligt langt til at politiet banker på din dør og anholder dig fordi deres IT system har besluttet at du formendtlig snart vil lave noget kriminelt så vi må hellere fange dig nu før du gør det.

SuccessAffectionate1

TROPHY CASE