{"id":89610,"date":"2018-09-13T13:43:38","date_gmt":"2018-09-13T11:43:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=89610"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:23:05","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:23:05","slug":"hoe-alles-moet-wijken-voor-het-vestigingsklimaat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2018\/09\/13\/hoe-alles-moet-wijken-voor-het-vestigingsklimaat\/","title":{"rendered":"How improving Dutch business climate dictates everything"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

Even though there is no political support for the measure, the withholding tax on dividends in the Netherlands will in all likelihood be abolished. What is the return for the Netherlands from abolishing the dividend withholding tax, which costs 2 billion euros tax in revenue? Economist Bas Jacobs: \u201cOur politicians are struggling to find a good economic justification, but there simply isn\u2019t one.\u201d<\/p>\n\t

\n\t\t

<\/p>\n

Bas Jacobs is professor of Economics and Public Finance at Erasmus School of Economics. He specialises in optimal taxation, macroeconomics and welfare economics. During this academic year he is Wim Duisenberg Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n

Let\u2019s start with the most important question: is there economic evidence that abolishing the dividend withholding tax will result in larger investment and more jobs?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cNo. The economic reasoning of the government is shaky. That\u2019s in part due to a lack of understanding of the nature of the tax. The dividend tax is generally withholding tax, similar to the withholding payroll taxes of employers. The tax is withheld from the dividends that companies pay out to their shareholders and it is then transferred to the tax authorities. In the vast majority of OESO countries, shareholders of companies who have paid dividend taxes in the Netherlands can subsequently credit their tax payments in the Netherlands against their personal income tax to avoid being taxed twice.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is important, because it undermines the reasoning that it will be easier to raise equity capital if there would be no dividend tax. Whether the dividend tax is abolished or not, it will probably have little effects on the willingness to invest or to create employment because it will have negligible effects on the user cost of capital for companies.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why is there such vigorous lobbying by companies such as Philips, Akzo Nobel, Shell and the employers\u2019 organisation Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers VNO-NCW?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cAs I understand it, multinational companies like Shell and Unilever, that have their headquarters located in both the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, have been badgered for many years by British shareholders who want to get rid of being taxed twice. This is because the United Kingdom is one of the few countries where shareholders can\u2019t credit the dividend withholding tax they\u2019ve paid abroad against their personal income tax. As a result, Unilever\u2019s CEO Paul Polman\u00a0now seems to be acting<\/a> as a main representative of the British shareholders. That is very peculiar to say the least. The Dutch dividend tax is of course a nuisance to British shareholders, but I don\u2019t see why it would create problems for Unilever. They can always find shareholders who don\u2019t pay any dividend tax, such as our pension funds, or shareholders who can credit their withholding taxes against their income tax.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/svg>\n\t\t<\/button>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018Due to these kind of things, people lose their trust in politics\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

Almost 80 percent of the Dutch public is now against this measure. Yet it will still be implemented. How is that possible?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s cynical. There is virtually no democratic legitimacy for the measure: no party had proposed it in their party manifestos during the last elections, ChristenUnie and D66 obviously oppose the measure. A majority of the Lower House doesn\u2019t want it. However, it is politically fascinating that Mark Rutte introduced the measure during the coalition talks to form a new government, which took everyone by surprise. According to Gert-Jan Seegers (ChristenUnie), this was apparently a deal breaker. And now Rutte refuses to make a political turn to preserve his political credibility, even though he might have been conned by his corporate friends and the measure is not in the general interest. Due to these kind of things, people lose their trust in politics.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

Een lijst met artikelen<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t