• RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Les critères pour définir un « ultra-riche » devraient varier d’un pays de l’UE à un autre en raison des différences économiques, fiscales et sociales entre les Etats membres. A titre d’exemple, en Belgique, nous proposons que toute personne qui dispose de 1,25 million d’euros en plus de son habitation principale et des avoirs affectés à son activité professionnelle soit qualifiée d’ « ultra-riche ».

    If disposable assets (in addition to your house and normal expenses) of €1.25M counts as ultra-rich in Belgium what is rich then? And well-off? Isn’t the whole “eat the rich” idea targeted at billionaires which is a whole other level than this definition?

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree that I would not call it “ultra rich”, but I don’t see why you shouldn’t pay more taxes at that point. You’re clearly still incredibly well off, and the ceiling & opportunities are much higher for you at that point too, to make even more money.

    • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Call me crazy but having €1,25M in assets (beyond your professional assets and home) while there are still people in need seems like a fine point to start contributing more to society and less to further increasing your personal wealth. If I had anywhere near that much money, I’d happily double my tax rates if it went to supporting those who can’t support themselves and assisting those who could benefit from it.

      I also suspect the home value exception is a major loophole here. The rich would begin investing more than ever into their homes.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      1 million is like a good salary for 30 years (3.000€ Net for almost 28 years, 3K€ is great here in the EU).

      If that’s not some exceptionnal richess, well then I think it should be. Of at least tax them somewhat (the richer you are here, the less you pay in taxes)!

      Billionaires are just ridiculous, parasites of the society, and should be taxed til they are just stupidly rich.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      The “idea” stems from envy. It sounds good when it targets billionaires, but it will end up taxing anyone slightly well-off.

      • SSJMarx
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        1.25M - not including your house and your professional assets - is quite a bit more than “slightly” well off. Any point you place the new tax at is going to be equally as arbitrary as any other point.

          • SSJMarx
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Now you’re getting it!