5 ms·
That is refreshing to hear. Unfortunately I can't get out because of exit tax, an unrealized capital gains tax for the privilege of leaving the country. That is
by earcar 4mo ago
That is refreshing to hear. Unfortunately I can't get out because of exit tax, an unrealized capital gains tax for the privilege of leaving the country. That is way worse than what I mention in this post and will get its own post soon.
- ExpertAdvisor01 4mo agoYou can delay it until the disposal of your shares , if you move within the Eu
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- tene80i 4mo agoYou phrase this as if it’s absurd. Why should it be possible to offshore your future capital gains without paying an exit tax? You live in a country with a tax system that assumes people pay into it.
- DANmode 4mo ago[flagged]
- munk-a 4mo agoThe premise of taxes?
- DANmode 3mo agoIf you equate (antiquated, paper-based, multi-departmental) bureaucracy with taxes, then that’s a shame.
- WarmWash 4mo agoYour question is more well formed if you challenge the premise that the tax you owe should scale linearly with the value of your assets. Obviously a business benefits from things the state provides, and the business should pay it's share to cover those costs. Maybe, honestly, even a little extra. The challenge is if someone makes a software company, and a team of 20 workers on computers create a €10B business, does the state have a fair claim to €5B of it when the company at most with the most generous possible estimate (and then double it for good measure) used €50M of state services?
- dns_snek 4mo ago> does the state have a fair claim to €5B of it when the company at most with the most generous possible estimate (and then double it for good measure) used €50M of state services? Yes, it does. Quite simply because that's the law, and it's morally right (in principle) because if your business fails then you don't get a bill for 50 million. If "winners" only paid their exact share then these services wouldn't exist.
- WarmWash 4mo agoI explicitly stated (twice) they would (and should) pay more then their exact share. The real cost would likely be in the neighborhood of $500k too (20 SWEs traveling to work doesn't incur much cost, plus the 21/population cost of mainstay services (police, fire, government misc/infra)), never mind the workers are paying taxes on their income too. So $50m would cover their true societal cost (I'll multiply it by 10 for you, call it $5m) 10x over. Its extremely difficult to build a clearly logical structure where a company that made a wildly successful product needs to hand half the value to the government. It's very easy to do if we hand wave with ambiguous terms like "right thing to do" and "morally obligated".
- dns_snek 3mo ago> Its extremely difficult to build a clearly logical structure where a company that made a wildly successful product needs to hand half the value to the government. I think it's rather simple. If they don't do that, does the house of cards that we call a society collapse? > It's very easy to do if we hand wave with ambiguous terms... It's equally easy to be dismissive about the cost of running a stable society. If you want poor people to pick up your 5 billion euro tab then you're never going to make those 10 billion to begin with because people won't have the money to afford whatever it is that you're selling. I've yet to hear a coherent argument on how you think you can pay 99% less in taxes and achieve the same outcomes? It's nothing but magical thinking. You want to pay 99% less and you want poor people to pay (a lot) more. Do you think poor people can afford to pay more? Do you not care? Don't you see that if you do that they'll violently overthrow the entire system that allowed you to become a multi-billionaire?
- lazyasciiart 4mo agoIf that’s what they wanted to do, they would have to realize those gains. The state is doing the opposite of preventing this.
- DANmode 4mo agoAre we reading the same story? How do you realize anything without being able to send an invoice and collect?
- lazyasciiart 4mo agoWe are in a thread about how someone can't even just move the company assets to another country without being taxed on them.
- bloppe 4mo agoUnrealized capital gains taxes generally are a bit absurd, but I can see how the state would feel forced to do it if you're leaving. Seems like there should be some way to get a registered agent or something to keep the old company legally "in Germany" while you leave, but idk
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- user_of_the_wek 4mo agoYou can avoid being taxed on unrealized gains by realizing them first ;)
- ghusto 4mo agoIt is absurd to be taxed on _unrealised_ gains, even more absurd to hold you hostage over it.
- dgellow 4mo agoIs it different from the tax you would face if you just realize your gains?
- anaisbetts 4mo agoThe exit tax doesn't apply to "gains", it applies to the "value of your company" which is calculated in a way that often means you will owe thousands or even millions in money you don't have, and at no time had.
- dgellow 4mo agoSounds indeed pretty terrible…
- lazyasciiart 4mo agoYes - the value of your company is the gain. It is the money you would have if you sold the whole thing.
- procaryote 4mo agoIt's only a gain if you sell. Selling a company and paying tax on the profit in tax is a completely different proposition from paying tax on hypothetical profit you haven't made (and might never make) just because you want to move.
- lazyasciiart 4mo agoThat's what unrealized means. Gains you haven't got because you haven't sold.
- procaryote 3mo agoand if we started taxing them across the board, no one would dare hold stock
- jandrewrogers 4mo ago
- ccozan 4mo agoThat is nothing: wait until you want to _close_ a company in Germany :)
- wink 3mo agoI'm wondering what the problems can be because I've not experienced that (or heard it first hand).