Aggregator

Brussels Eyes Wealth Taxes As Europe’s Fiscal Crisis Spirals

Zero Rss
2 months 2 weeks ago
Brussels Eyes Wealth Taxes As Europe’s Fiscal Crisis Spirals

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

A fatal fiscal dynamic has become entrenched across the European Union. In nearly every member state, public spending is accelerating at all levels — from municipalities and social insurance systems all the way up to the European Commission — while the private economy at best stagnates and its industrial core sectors visibly erode.

This dangerous economic imbalance, in which a shrinking private sector is forced to finance a continuously expanding state apparatus, is already producing fiscal consequences visible in the bond markets. Interest rates have been rising steadily for years, making debt servicing increasingly expensive, while the financing needs of public budgets continue to grow under the ruling ideology of an all-encompassing state. This widening fiscal gap is fueling political appetites for higher taxation — a destructive race among parties to squeeze taxpayers at every level has begun.

And naturally, when it comes to fleecing European taxpayers, the European Commission cannot be absent. Brussels is currently preparing its seven-year budget framework, set to exceed €2 trillion beginning in 2028.

Apollo News recently reported that the European Parliament is even demanding a further 10 percent increase in this budget ceiling. Excess, wastefulness, and a complete detachment from economic reality are driving the EU’s relentless search for new independent tax revenues.

To this end, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen commissioned the Center for Social and Economic Research (CASE) last year to produce a study examining the potential of wealth taxation in the EU — another brick laid in the rapidly expanding tax debate.

//-->

Bluntly put, this reflects the incestuous culture of Brussels, where academic satellites traditionally align themselves with the ideological winds of their political sponsors in order to secure taxpayer-funded grants.

The study focused primarily on the collection methods and revenue shares associated with wealth taxes, capital gains taxation, and the so-called exit tax. In other words, Europe’s tax policy is now moving toward the heart of private property itself. Brussels is unpacking the toolkit of preparatory state propaganda. Terms such as “justice gap,” “redistribution,” and “social justice” appear throughout the report, alongside the usual resentment-driven rhetorical formulas designed for one purpose only: preparing the public for a future in which the fiscal arms of European governments reach ever deeper into family wealth and long-term financial planning.

The central thesis of the CASE study is that private wealth in Europe has grown disproportionately and become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small number of households. Right from the outset, however, the state itself — with its swelling bureaucracy and expensive interventionism in climate policy, the Ukraine conflict, and welfare systems — is carefully removed from scrutiny.

Not a single critical word appears in the study about the darker side of taxing citizens’ accumulated assets. Taxation today is carried out in the spirit of subservience: the taxpayer no longer possesses any meaningful voice. Instead, a debate framed around “fairness” is intended to soften the final pockets of resistance. In the end, everything is reduced to fiscal design and public relations.

One particularly revealing sign of the EU’s fiscal direction can be found in the debate surrounding the so-called exit tax. Combined with the introduction of a digital euro and the possible integration of Switzerland into the EU’s fiscal regime, escape routes for capital would effectively be sealed off. Wealthy citizens would likely flee beforehand, pulling their capital out of the EU while they still can.

What is remarkable is that politicians, institutes, and media organizations appear incapable of drawing conclusions from real-world experience. Norway’s introduction of a wealth tax triggered an exodus of the super-rich, ultimately leading to a noticeable decline in tax revenues. Understandably, Brussels now seems eager to close the gates — and has even helped ignite a wealth-tax debate in Switzerland, though this effort will likely fail. Its climate-policy framing alone makes it highly suspect to Swiss voters.

Switzerland does, of course, already levy wealth taxes at the cantonal level. But the current debate within the EU reaches much further into the direct taxation of citizens’ existing wealth than anything Switzerland has implemented thus far.

Europe’s treatment of its productive classes reveals the deeply statist spirit that now dominates the political and media establishment. The fact that the top 10 percent of income earners in Germany already contribute roughly 55 percent of all income tax revenues is no longer politically relevant. Desperate states will pull every lever available to fill the fiscal holes left behind by the green transformation.

The CASE study also aligns strikingly — both in timing and substance — with the current German debate over abolishing income splitting for married couples, increasing inheritance taxes on business assets, and reintroducing the wealth tax.

Germany already imposes a form of exit tax under certain circumstances when companies relocate abroad. What may be missing is only the Dutch approach: the comprehensive fictitious taxation of unrealized capital gains. The Netherlands is serving as the testing ground. Such taxation would likely become the next maneuver of a bloated state apparatus that has lost control of its spending.

What we are witnessing is a political class that continues to believe in building an eco-socialist surveillance state despite economic reality, visible deindustrialization, and social decay. And like every socialist project before it, environmental statism will eventually damage its host economy so severely that the laws of economics, logic, and resource scarcity will ultimately bring it down.

* * *

About the author:  Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/26/2026 - 03:30
Tyler Durden

Russell Crowe warns autograph hunters gathered outside his Paris hotel: ‘Don’t f–king push in on me’

NY Post
2 months 2 weeks ago
Russell Crowe issued a blistering warning to fans who had gathered outside his Paris hotel desperate for an autograph. The “Gladiator” star, 62, issued a set of rules to autograph hunters before warning he would abandon the impromptu meet and greet if just one person acted like a “d–k.” “Are you listening?” Crowe asked. “Stay...
Chris Bradford

Finland Flourishes As Freedom Flounders In The 'Land Of The Free'

Zero Rss
2 months 2 weeks ago
Finland Flourishes As Freedom Flounders In The 'Land Of The Free'

Global freedom declined for the 20th consecutive year in 2025, according to Freedom House. More than 50 countries saw political rights and civil liberties deteriorate, including the United States.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Gabriel Cohen, ranks the world’s most and least free countries using Freedom House’s 2026 Freedom in the World report, which evaluates political rights and civil liberties across 195 countries and territories.

Finland topped the rankings with a perfect score of 100, followed by New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden at 99. Meanwhile, South Sudan scored 0, the lowest possible rating, highlighting the widening divide between the world’s strongest democracies and most repressive regimes.

Why Europe Dominates the Freedom Rankings

Europe accounts for most of the world’s highest-scoring countries, led by the Nordics and Western Europe. Strong electoral systems, independent courts, press freedom, and protections for civil liberties helped countries like Finland, Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands rank near the top globally.

There are two European outliers with low scores out of 100: Belarus (7) and Russia (12). Both are run by repressive autocratic regimes that have been in power for over two decades. The two Eastern European countries feature neither press independence nor free and fair elections, and rank among the least free countries worldwide.

The below data table shows the countries with the highest freedom scores in 2025:

Outside of Europe, the world’s freest countries include New Zealand (99), Canada and Uruguay (97), and Japan (96).

Within each of these countries, robust civil society and independent journalism help keep elected officials accountable, while political transitions are handled without fear of violence.

The Decline of the U.S.

Alongside Bulgaria and Italy, the United States had one of the steepest declines in its score in 2025 among countries classified as Free. The world’s leading superpower fell to a score of 81, its lowest on record, tying South Africa and falling behind Panama (82).

Over the past two decades, the U.S. score has slipped by 12 points, driven by rising polarization and political violence. The 2025 decline was caused in part by government efforts to crack down on nonviolent expression by citizens and noncitizens alike.

The weakening of anticorruption safeguards and enforcement practices by the new U.S. presidential administration was also cited as contributing to the lower score compared to previous years.

The World’s Least Free Countries

While the U.S. remains firmly classified as “Free,” the gap between democratic and authoritarian countries remains stark. The lowest-ranked countries were concentrated across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, where elections are restricted, opposition movements are suppressed, and civil liberties remain severely limited.

South Sudan, one of the world’s youngest countries, obtained the worst possible score of 0, followed by a tie between Sudan and Turkmenistan (both 1). In each of these countries, minority rights are under assault and political freedoms are nonexistent.

Larger countries across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East also rank poorly. Vietnam scored 20, while Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates tied at 18.

Three regimes in the Americas also appear within this bottom tier of Not Free countries: Cuba (9), Nicaragua (14), and Venezuela (13).

Curious to see how other countries have changed their fortunes since last year? Check out The State of Freedom Around the World on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/26/2026 - 02:45
Tyler Durden

The Digital Euro As Europe's Backdoor Capital Control System

Zero Rss
2 months 2 weeks ago
The Digital Euro As Europe's Backdoor Capital Control System

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The digital euro ranks among the most ambitious projects within the political architecture of the European Union. As the Eurosystem and the EU increasingly merge into identical and integrated political spaces, it can no longer be denied that this CBDC project is primarily a geopolitical power play by Brussels. Yet the euro-CBDC — shorthand for “central bank digital currency” — remains stuck in a loop. Originally envisioned years ago as already being in the project phase, the first digital wallets are now not expected before the end of 2029. Bundesbank President Nagel pointed this out in his interview with Handelsblatt.

During the interview, Nagel emerged as an articulate advocate of a euro-CBDC, despite the fact that its introduction would inevitably hand enormous power to the European Central Bank as issuer and administrator of digital wallets. This would coincide with the dismantling of core business areas currently controlled by commercial banks. Nagel downplayed the danger of large-scale capital flight from accounts held at savings banks, Deutsche Bank, and others, arguing that planned digital wallets would be capped at €3,000. With this argument, Nagel attempts to minimize the undeniable risk that the technology could later be expanded far beyond its initial limits.

Unfortunately, the interview fails to clarify the substantive difference between the CBDC envisioned for the eurozone and the already existing stablecoins, most of which are denominated in U.S. dollars. There is a fundamental distinction between programmable digital money issued by a centralized state authority and digital currency services provided by multiple competing private-sector issuers.

A full-scale battle between systems is increasingly taking shape in the realm of digital money. On one side stand European institutions pushing for systematic centralization of power. On the other side of the Atlantic lies a model that, compared with the EU approach, resembles a return to Wild West capitalism: more deregulation, a shrinking state apparatus, and in monetary policy, a gradual return to private-sector money creation through privately issued stablecoins.

Fiat-linked digital currencies, so-called stablecoins, are currently one of the hottest trends in American finance. The largest private issuer of a dollar stablecoin is Tether, whose digital dollar has now reached a market volume of roughly $190 billion. These privately issued digital dollars represent a major innovation within blockchain technology. In particular, they enable real-time transfers, operate without banking holidays, and provide access outside the traditional SWIFT system for anyone with an internet connection.

Users essentially need nothing more than a smartphone and an installed wallet app — no traditional bank account required. Another advantage lies in potentially lower fees and, in some cases, higher yields, since providers avoid the bloated administrative structures of traditional banks. Stablecoins undoubtedly represent a major increase in individual sovereignty - at least until issuers, possibly under government pressure, decide to freeze access to users’ holdings.

The fact that the eurozone has so far neither agreed on a digital CBDC control standard nor trapped citizens inside such a digital financial prison stems from several factors. One is technological. The threat posed by quantum computing dramatically intensifies the risks involved. A centralized digital financial system such as the euro-CBDC would face massive hacking attempts and manipulation from the moment of its launch. This is the classic weakness of centralized systems: they provide attackers with one clearly defined point of attack. Moreover, the European Union and the Eurosystem together form an over-bureaucratized and fully centralized power structure that inevitably lags behind current technological standards.

For precisely this reason, decentralized financial ecosystems such as the Bitcoin network are technologically superior. Bitcoin is secured by a decentralized network of independent miners and node operators. Every participant defends the structure out of direct self-interest. With well over 100 million Bitcoin holders worldwide and tens of thousands of miners, an almost impenetrable protective wall emerges. Contrary to Nagel’s remarks in the interview, the commercial banking sector is obviously also resisting the centralization of the financial system in the hands of the ECB. The reason is simple: a full rollout of the digital euro would make the traditional banking business model — accounts, savings products, and transfer services — largely obsolete.

But the real reason there has so far been relative calm on the CBDC front inside the Eurosystem becomes obvious once one observes the speed at which global capital flees crisis zones. The introduction of a CBDC would signal that the ECB intends to build in a mechanism for capital controls, possibly in anticipation of a full-scale financial or sovereign debt crisis in the euro area. A dramatic surge in interest rates triggered by a selloff in European bonds would once again force the ECB to intervene as lender of last resort, on a scale potentially far greater than anything seen during the financial and sovereign debt crises of the past decade and a half. Such intervention would inevitably raise fundamental questions about the long-term stability of the euro itself.

That the eurozone will eventually face another debt crisis is hardly in doubt. The only uncertainty is timing — namely, when bond markets, confronted with Europe’s relentless debt binge, in which even Germany is now enthusiastically participating, will finally give the thumbs down.

* * *

About the author:  Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/26/2026 - 02:00
Tyler Durden

zero rss