The Netherlands’ lower chamber moved a sweeping capital-gains plan forward on Thursday, proposing a 36% tax on savings and most liquid assets, including cryptocurrencies. The bill cleared the House of Representatives with 93 lawmakers voting in favor, meeting and surpassing the threshold of 75 required to advance the measure. It would apply regardless of whether the assets are sold, extending to savings accounts, crypto holdings, most equity investments and gains from interest-bearing instruments. If the Senate signs off, the policy would take effect in the 2028 tax year. Critics argue the plan risks driving capital out of the Netherlands as investors seek jurisdictions with more favorable tax conditions. The discussion comes amid a broader global conversation about crypto taxation and how unrealized gains should be treated for high-net-worth and retail investors alike. The Dutch tally, published by the House, confirms the legislative momentum behind the proposal.

Key takeaways

The bill would impose a 36% capital-gains tax on savings and most liquid investments, explicitly including cryptocurrencies, with the tax levied even if assets are not disposed of.
The measure advanced after a 93-to-what-it-took vote in the Dutch House, surpassing the 75-vote threshold to proceed, signaling strong political alignment in favor of the reform.
Enactment hinges on Senate approval; if passed, the policy would apply beginning with the 2028 tax year, giving policymakers and investors time to prepare for the transition and for further details to emerge on implementation.
Critics warn the proposal could trigger capital flight from the Netherlands to jurisdictions with lower tax burdens, drawing on historical examples where similar levies spurred relocation of entrepreneurship and investment activity.
Analysts and industry figures have offered stark projections about the long-term impact on wealth accumulation, including widely cited calculations showing substantial reductions in compound growth under an unrealized-gains tax regime; comparisons to other tax debates in major markets underscore the broader risk environment for crypto and tech capital.

Tickers mentioned:

Sentiment: Bearish

Market context: The Netherlands’ proposal sits within a wider European and global dialogue on crypto taxation, where authorities weigh revenue needs against innovation incentives. As tax authorities assess how unrealized gains should be treated, the Dutch plan adds to considerations around how digital-asset holdings are accounted for in personal and investment taxation, echoing debates across the EU about consistency, enforcement, and the boundaries of capital taxation in a digital era.

Why it matters

The central premise — taxing unrealized gains on a broad swath of assets, including cryptocurrencies — marks a notable shift in how governments might approach wealth and investment in an era of rapid digital-asset adoption. Proponents argue that a real-time tax on gains helps address perceived inequities in how passive wealth is taxed versus earned income, potentially increasing public revenue to fund social and infrastructure initiatives. Yet, the immediate reaction from market participants and crypto executives has been skeptical, raising concerns about distortions to investment decisions and the long-run competitiveness of the Netherlands as a home for startups and asset management.

Analysts highlighted the unintended consequences of such a policy. Denis Payre, co-founder of logistics firm Kiala, invoked a historical parallel, noting that France’s experience with an earlier capital-sweep proposal led to a pronounced exodus of entrepreneurs. The sentiment among several industry observers echoed this caution, with crypto market analyst Michaël van de Poppe describing the proposal as counterproductive and predicting a material shift of capital to more favorable environments. The underlying critique is that high tax rates on unrealized gains could dampen risk appetite and deter early-stage capital formation, especially for innovative sectors where growth often hinges on reinvested profits rather than realized gains.

Beyond the Netherlands, the broader economic calculus is clear: tax policy can have a measurable impact on how wealth compounds over decades. For instance, a widely cited hypothetical scenario contrasts outcomes with and without unrealized-gains taxation. Starting with 10,000 euros and contributing 1,000 euros monthly for 40 years, one study suggested the pre-tax outcome might reach around 3.32 million euros, whereas applying a 36% unrealized gains tax would reduce the final tally to roughly 1.89 million euros, a gap of about 1.435 million euros. While such projections depend on many assumptions, they illustrate how timing and recognition of gains influence long-term wealth accumulation, particularly for asset classes that can experience both rapid appreciation and volatility.

The policy also lands in the context of a U.S. debate around wealth taxes and crypto regulation. California, for example, has faced controversy over proposals to impose wealth taxes on billionaires, sparking a broader discourse about the balance between tax fairness and the incentives for innovation. While the Dutch measure focuses on unrealized gains across a wide array of assets, the parallel debates illustrate a growing global sensitivity to how digital assets are taxed and how such tax rules interact with entrepreneurship and capital formation.

As investors digest these signals, the crypto community has echoed concerns about the practicalities of enforcing a 36% rate on assets that can be volatile and illiquid, and about how such taxation affects portfolio strategies, cross-border activity, and the flow of capital to jurisdictions deemed more crypto-friendly. The discussion points to a broader trend where policymakers are still navigating the line between revenue-generation aims and the need to sustain a supportive environment for innovation and decentralized finance.

What to watch next

Whether the Dutch Senate approves the bill and whether amendments alter the scope or rate of the proposed tax.
How the government and tax authorities define and enforce unrealized gains on a diverse set of assets, including cryptocurrencies.
Potential investor behavior in response to the policy, including any observed shifts to foreign domiciliation or cross-border holdings.
Any forthcoming data or studies assessing the macroeconomic impact of the reform on investment, entrepreneurship, and innovation in the Netherlands.
Broader EU considerations on crypto taxation and cross-border consistency as other member states weigh similar approaches.

Sources & verification

Tweep: Dutch House tally page showing the vote threshold and tally details for the bill (dossier 36748; id 2025Z09723). Verify the official tally and the threshold requirement here: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/wetsvoorstellen/detail?dossier=36748&id=2025Z09723#wetgevingsproces
Investing Visuals projection comparing compound growth with and without unrealized gains tax over 40 years. See the analysis referenced in coverage of the proposal’s long-term effects: https://x.com/InvestingVisual/status/2022221938840441335
Statements from Denis Payre on the potential capital flight risk associated with such a tax proposal: https://x.com/DenisPayre/status/2022… (X post linked in coverage)
Commentary from Michaël van de Poppe critiquing the plan: https://x.com/CryptoMichNL/status/2022209120322121928
California’s wealth-tax discussion as a comparative reference in crypto regulation debates: https://cointelegraph.com/news/california-billionaire-tax-crypto-executives-slam

Netherlands advances 36% capital gains tax on savings and crypto

The House of Representatives’ decision to push the 36% capital gains tax proposal forward marks a pivotal moment in how the Netherlands could tax a broad spectrum of wealth. The measure targets not only traditional savings but also a wide range of liquid assets, explicitly including crypto assets, and would tax gains even when assets remain unrealized. The bill’s fate now rests with the Senate, and the clock is set for a 2028 effective date should the upper chamber approve the legislation in its final form. The political calculus surrounding this proposal underscores a broader concern among investors and industry observers: will such a tax regime dampen the country’s appeal as a hub for crypto and tech entrepreneurship, or can it be calibrated in a way that sustains public revenue without stifling innovation?

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js