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