But you need: a staff level engineer to guide it, great standardization and testing best practices. And yes in that situation you can go 10-50x faster. Many teams/products are not in that environment though.
I work on a big ball of open source spaghetti and AI has become invaluable in helping me navigate my way through it. Even when it's wrong - it gives me valuable clues.
Tend to agree here. The slowdown here has more to do with the financial ecosystem. IE less capital available for some companies, higher salaries and a changed approach to work.
The title here mostly doesn't match the article right? Quote: "But unlike the capital growth tax, capital gains tax will, in principle, only be levied at the time of realisation. This is usually when the relevant asset is sold, but also when immovable property exits Box 3 for another reason, such as emigration."
Looks like they're coining a new legal term "Capital Growth Tax", under which they are going to tax unrealized capital gains. I'm not aware of any other country that taxes them like that (besides wealth/exit taxes), so maybe they're the world's first here!
Some countries have wealth taxes - but they are usually flat or scale with wealth, not the yearly increase in wealth. Note that currently NL does de facto have a wealth tax in Box 3 system - shares are presumed to have a fictional fixed yield of around 5-6% per year on which they charge you income tax, so it works out to about 2% wealth tax.
For real estate, yes, but it's a quite different type of asset with a stable value that (mostly) only goes up.
What about stocks or crypto (the assets this new law targets)? They can have wild value fluctuations in a year. If your crypto or startup's options have +1M paper gain this year and turn worthless the next year, is it fair to ask people to cough up some 300-500k of real cash in tax?
> For real estate, yes, but it's a quite different type of asset with a stable value that (mostly) only goes up.
It's still a tax on wealth. So you just can't use this argument (the argument that we dont tax anything based on wealth and therefore is justification not to do it now).
> is it fair to ask people to cough up some 300-500k of real cash in tax?
I actually disagree that we should tax anything on asset value. Yes, RE is illiquid and thus has "stable" values. What's worse is that the value is tied to appraised values (and potentially government imposed caps) which you have no (or limited) control over.
Maybe? You can deduct losses.
If you have to sell a little of your crypto while the price is high to pay your taxes, then what have you lost after it goes to zero? At least the tax office get something out of it in tat case.
Not really, property taxes in the U.S. are revenue-driven (sometimes called “budget-driven”), not rate-driven. The taxing authority adds up how much money it needs, then apportions it based on property values.
Huh? You're talking about budgeted values for the payee, not the rate that an individual payer. I'm talking about the rate established for the payer, which is based on the value of your property. In absolute value terms I may pay more than my next door neighbor if my property is deemed to have a higher asset value. This would be no different if both my neighbor and I owned AAPL stock, but if I held more stock than him, I would owe more (theoretically) in taxes on that stock.
> The bill regarding Box 3 introduces two main categories of taxation: capital growth tax and capital gains tax. The capital growth tax will apply to most assets, taxing both realised and unrealised returns, including appreciation in value and income from assets like shares, cryptocurrencies, and savings. Exchange results on bank balances in currencies other than EUR will also be taxed.
And normally unrealized capital gains on these sorts of assets aren't taxed.
I think in more general usage if you asked people what assets "taxing unrealized capital gains" would cover, you could get a basket if things like shares, real property, businesses, etc.
The article indicates that the Dutch government has decided to treat startups and real estate under the bucket "capital gains", and stuff under "capital growth".
So for an more informal standpoint, the title is a reasonable way to summarize what's happening to the layish person.
As I understand it most things like stocks with be under the capital growth scheme, taxed yearly, but they left a carve out for real-estate where it only is levied at sale/realization time.
Classic loophole. We tell ourselves this is to protect the little people who own homes, but the actual little people don’t have homes at all and rent. Meanwhile, anyone with money will get the picture invest all of it in real estate, once again enriching homeowner as well impoverishing the rest of us.
I totally get that it’s an understandable political strategy. I just think it’s in defensible as anything but a political strategy, and that it will ultimately make life worse for more people versus simply treating assets as assets, including homes. If homeowners do not wish their homes to be treated as assets, then they could simply forgo the right to profits, but I suspect they will not do that.
While I don’t disagree, I think it’s worth noting that the Netherlands has a pretty good level of social housing. Not perfect, but I think it’s 26% based on the stats link in the parent.
Also rent controls. Although these also tend to reward people who have been in the system longer (which _might_ be by design, but that’s just like my opinion)
Social housing and rent controls are not a substitute for basic tax fairness. Of course, as a political tactic, it’s a great way to distract from tilting the entire tax system toward those who already have the most rather than trying to at least try to achieve some sort of a level playing field.
In a way I agree with you that this will cause market distortion in the form of greater demand for real estate over eg. equities. But there are plenty of such tax distortions; for example many countries have favourable tax treatment for domestic dividends.
Regardless, I assume the logic behind this exception is that while you can easily sell a portion of your holdings of publicly traded stocks to cover your annual tax burden, you can't sell a portion of a house. You could of course finance, but that's going to disproportionately benefit lenders.
“The capital growth tax will apply to most assets, taxing both realised and unrealised returns, including appreciation in value and income from assets like shares, cryptocurrencies, and savings.”
One thing I don't like when it comes to Golang jobs - it is rare to see pure software engineering positions. For some reason, most Go jobs requirements include AWS, Kubernetes/Docker, CI/CD setup, etc... DevOps stuff, which is not the case for positions in other stacks.
I haven't been able to find a job anywhere, using any language, that didn't require all that stuff these days. I wish I could go back to pure development, but now we all get this entire infra-crap thrown at us too. Which then means... you support the environments, the runtime, and the code. It's a 24/7 world and I don't care for it anymore.
It's like the factorio moment where you unlock the roboport. No more manual changes to the world, drone swarms to build housing, roads, bridges, parks etc. so exciting.
I'm Dutch, the media narrative is a major problem. It's not being honest about the level of relative decline between USA & NL. 20 years of diverging growth rates has had a massive impact. This trend will continue, since NL missed most of the internet, mobile, social and AI startups.
Here in Colorado even people at entry level jobs can afford a nice home. Salaries are way lower in NL, and housing is incredibly expensive.
But the media just doesn't report on it. You don't notice it unless you live in both places. Still a beautiful country though and USA has it's own problems as well.
I'm dutch as well and travel relatively frequently to the US (just came back from Washington DC). I'm not sure I see the impact of this "decline" you seem to notice. Perhaps this is also why the "media narrative" is not reporting on it, since it is not really felt that way?
Housing is expensive and we built far too little in the last decades, but this is also extremely expensive the the areas of the US where you actually want to live (The coastal cities, usually). Besides, this seems to be a global issue you read about everywhere.
I feel that, on average, most things in the Netherlands are of a higher standard — from public infrastructure and transportation to healthcare and the overall quality of everyday things, whether it’s food, trains, hotels, or even the items in your bathroom. Every time I travel back and forth I notice this.
Sure, salaries for certain jobs are much higher in the US, but I wouldn't want to switch except to begin a startup, maybe. I like doing business in the US and would visit for the amazing national parks, but prefer actually living in NL. That said, a rise in salaries and perhaps a more business and capital friendly environment are things I support.
> Salaries are way lower in NL, and housing is incredibly expensive.
This is true, however there is so much that is already paid for with the Dutch salaries that you have to arrange individually in the USA. Mind you a lot is collectively organized which would be impossible to arrange individually to the same level.
I think there are a lot of people in the USA with "entry level jobs" choosing to afford a nice home but perhaps have some other things not as well arranged skewing the observers image, for example working a lot of hours or not having a better health insurance coverage.
In the end I feel like the welfare of the median person in each country is very important and I feel like the NL scores on that way higher when compared to the USA.
For example healthcare, education, infrastructure, food safety etc.
Above the average(note average is not median) you are probably better of in the USA but below the average you are probably better of in NL.
It's stagnation in the headline, not decline. There's a massive difference. European GDP per capita has been roughly 75% of America's for the last 50 years.
Over that same period, American GDP per capita has more than doubled, even after adjusting for inflation.
Which means that European GDP per capita has also more than doubled. 75% of an increasing number is also an increasing number.
A lot of Polish media outlets seem to have completely forgone reporting from abroad. I don't even think it's propaganda, they just lost viewership to the Internet and found that there are cheaper ways to fill the airwaves than news from faraway countries requiring expensive local crews/reporters.
But yes, even many policy wonks / talking heads don't seem to realize the divergence between EU15 and the US since 2007.
But you need: a staff level engineer to guide it, great standardization and testing best practices. And yes in that situation you can go 10-50x faster. Many teams/products are not in that environment though.
reply