The Netherlands is chasing wealth. Who pays next?

On paper, it looks like a political victory: the government wants to raise an additional €1 billion from wealthy taxpayers and use the proceeds to reduce taxes on employment income. But what happens if the people who build businesses, create jobs and finance a significant part of the economy decide that the Netherlands is no longer attractive? A measure intended to raise more revenue could ultimately create a much larger economic bill.

The Hague wants to redistribute €1 billion

On 11 November 2026, D66, CDA, PRO and Volt reached an agreement on a revised tax plan. The parties want to shift part of the tax burden from wealth to labour. The original proposal from PRO and Volt involved €1.5 billion. The revised agreement reduces that amount to €1 billion.

The VVD was not involved in the agreement and has previously raised strong objections to higher taxes on wealth. The political debate is therefore far from over.

The proposed measures are expected to generate the following structural revenue:

Of this revenue, €900 million is intended to reduce the lowest income tax rate in Box 1. The figures remain subject to the Dutch Ministry of Finance's final estimates.

The political message is clear: wealthy people should contribute more so that employees pay less tax. But the question of who ultimately pays the bill is not so straightforward.

A millionaire does not always have millions in the bank

According to Statistics Netherlands, the country had approximately 547,000 millionaire households on 1 January 2025. That represents 6.6 percent of all households. The median wealth of this group was €1.5 million.

That sounds as though the Netherlands is full of people with enormous bank accounts. The reality is different.

Statistics Netherlands also includes the value of an owner occupied home, after deducting mortgage debt. More importantly, 39 percent of millionaire household assets consist of business ownership and substantial shareholdings. Among non millionaire households, that figure is only 3 percent.

This means that a significant share of wealth is connected to businesses. Think of companies with employees, machinery, commercial property, stock and investments.

An entrepreneur can therefore be a millionaire on paper without having the money readily available to pay tax bills.

That is why it is too simplistic to treat every millionaire in the same way. Money in a bank account is not the same as capital needed to keep a business operating.

The new tax: what does 38.5 percent actually mean?

The most discussed part of the agreement is the proposed change to Box 3, the Dutch tax category for savings and investments.

The basic rate is set to rise to 35.5 percent. A top rate of 38.5 percent would apply to annual investment returns above €60,000.

This does not mean that someone with €1 million in assets automatically pays 38.5 percent tax on their entire fortune.

According to Volt's explanation, the threshold is reached with approximately €1 million in investments earning an assumed return of 6 percent. For savings earning an assumed return of 2 percent, the threshold is around €6 million.

Calculation: what does the higher rate cost?

Imagine an investor owns €1.5 million in investments and earns a 6 percent return in one year.

• Investment assets: €1,500,000
• Annual return: 6 percent
• Return in euros: €90,000
• Amount above the €60,000 threshold: €30,000
• Difference between the basic and top rate: 3 percentage points

The additional tax resulting solely from the higher top rate would be:

€30,000 × 3 percent = €900 per year.

This is a simplified calculation of the difference between the two proposed rates. It is not the total Box 3 tax bill. The precise impact will depend on the final legislation and the taxpayer's individual circumstances.

However, it is important to look beyond those €900. Investors and business owners do not assess one tax measure in isolation. They consider the total tax burden, future proposals and the predictability of the tax environment.

Middle and higher income earners are not cash machines

Political debate sometimes makes it sound as though the economy will keep running automatically as long as the government can collect enough tax. But who ultimately pays for the services everyone relies on?

Middle income households pay taxes, buy homes, spend money with local businesses and support consumer demand. Higher income households also contribute through income tax and spending. Entrepreneurs create jobs, investment and economic growth.

Consider a company with 30 employees. The owner does not simply pay tax on personal income. The company also pays payroll taxes, employer contributions and corporate income tax. Employees then spend their wages at other businesses.

That is an economic chain.

When governments place an increasingly heavy burden on these groups without properly considering their economic contribution, that chain can weaken.

Of course, everyone should contribute fairly. But fairness does not mean the government can keep collecting more from the same groups without considering the consequences.

What if 1,000 business owners leave the Netherlands?

Imagine that 1,000 entrepreneurs decide to move their businesses, or a significant part of their operations, abroad. For this example, assume each company employs an average of 20 people.

That would put 20,000 jobs at risk in this scenario.

It does not mean that all those jobs would automatically disappear. Some companies might retain a Dutch branch. Others might move only their headquarters or future investments. But if production, staff and business operations genuinely move abroad, the consequences could be significant.

The potential effects can build on one another:

1. Fewer jobs and less income tax revenue.
2. Less business activity and potentially less corporate tax.
3. Lower investment in new buildings, machinery and innovation.
4. Less spending at Dutch shops, restaurants and service providers.
5. Slower economic growth and greater pressure on the taxpayers who remain.

The government could find itself in an uncomfortable position. It is trying to collect more tax while part of the tax base is disappearing.

A country does not collapse because a few wealthy people emigrate. But a sustained departure of entrepreneurs, investors and high earners can weaken its economic foundations.

Research: higher taxes can encourage people to leave

This risk is not merely a political warning.

In October 2026, the American Economic Review published research by Katrine Jakobsen, Henrik Kleven and other researchers on the effects of wealth taxation in Scandinavian countries.

The researchers found that a 1 percentage point increase in the top wealth tax rate was associated with approximately 2 percent fewer wealthy taxpayers.

The businesses of departing entrepreneurs were also affected. The researchers estimated that this migration response was associated with a 0.02 percent reduction in employment, a 0.07 percent reduction in investment and a 0.10 percent reduction in value added.

These are relatively modest effects across the entire economy, but they demonstrate that tax policy influences behaviour.

Note, that this research concerns Scandinavian countries. The findings cannot simply be applied to the Netherlands.

The study also highlights a nuance often missing from political debate: higher taxes can encourage wealthy people to leave, but the overall economic damage is not automatically enormous.

The right conclusion is not that the Netherlands will empty overnight. It is that the government must take these effects seriously before introducing new tax measures.

The government should look at its own spending too

Why does a tax debate almost always begin with the question of where additional money can be collected, and much less often with the question of where the government itself could operate more efficiently?

Bureaucracy, complicated regulations, failed projects and administrative problems all cost taxpayers money. Citizens and entrepreneurs are constantly expected to control their spending. The government should show the same discipline.

An entrepreneur who consistently spends more than they earn will run into trouble. A government cannot solve that problem indefinitely by increasing the tax burden.

Entrepreneurs also need predictability. Anyone investing today wants to know which tax rules will apply tomorrow. A constantly changing tax system makes the Netherlands less attractive as a place to do business.

Who will pay the bill in the end?

Wealthy Dutch residents should contribute to roads, schools, healthcare and public safety. There is no argument about that. But it is short sighted to see wealth only as a source from which the government can continually collect more money.

Middle income households, higher income earners and entrepreneurs are important pillars of society. They create jobs, pay taxes, invest and keep the economy moving.

The government should therefore look not only at the revenue generated by a tax measure, but also at what might be lost over the longer term.

Because if the people who support the economy decide to build their future somewhere else, the government could be left with a smaller economy and an even bigger bill.

This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or tax advice.

Sources

• Volt Netherlands, Agreement between PRO, Volt, CDA and D66 on the tax plan, 11 November 2026
• Statistics Netherlands, Number of millionaires rises again, 27 October 2026
• NOS, D66 and CDA reach agreement with PRO and Volt on tax plan, 11 November 2026
• Dutch Tax Administration, Tax-free wealth allowance 2026
• American Economic Review, Taxing Top Wealth: Migration Responses and Their Aggregate Economic Implications, October 2026