The debate on wealth taxation deserves better than a "rich versus the rest" framing.

The debate on wealth taxation deserves better than a "rich versus the rest" framing.

Fabien Pinckaers' testimony points to a genuine technical issue, regardless of any partisan position.

Taxing the unrealized value of a shareholding raises three difficulties familiar to any corporate finance practitioner:

1. Liquidity. A company's value is not available cash. The majority shareholder of a business valued at several billion may hold personal bank assets bearing no relation to that valuation. Paying an annual tax on the asset would then require selling shares — and, over time, diluting or losing control.

2. Volatility of the tax base. A valuation is not a fact; it is an estimate, sensitive to market conditions and to the methods applied. Basing a recurring tax on an unstable, non-monetized metric creates legal uncertainty and considerable valuation litigation.

3. Impact on business continuity and investment. Capital held within a company funds employment, R&D and exports. Taxing it at shareholder level amounts to a trade-off against reinvestment — at the very moment Belgium is seeking to retain its decision-making centers.

Taxing realized remuneration (salaries, dividends — already heavily taxed) is a legitimate debate. Taxing unrealized capital is another one altogether, with far more severe economic consequences, which warrants a rigorous impact assessment before any implementation.