Capital gains tax: where do Belgium's parties stand in 2026?

What is the capital gains tax that came into force in 2026?

Since 1 January 2026, Belgium has taxed capital gains on financial assets at 10%: shares, bonds, funds, trackers, cryptocurrencies. In practice, when you sell an investment at a profit, a share of that gain goes to the State. Each individual still keeps a yearly exemption of €10,000, indexed, and carriable up to €15,000 over five years if unused.

It is a break in the Belgian tax landscape, long one of the few in Europe not to tax individuals' capital gains. The measure in principle only hits gains after 31 December 2025: the value of portfolios on that date is the starting point, so gains built up before the tax took effect are not caught.

The mechanism has special cases. For a so-called substantial participation — at least 20% of a company's capital — a separate regime applies: one million euros exempt over five years, then progressive rates of 1.25%, 2.25%, 5% and 10% by bracket of gain. A sale to a legal entity established outside the European Economic Area is taxed at 16.5%. These details matter: they explain why the same tax is seen as moderate by some and punitive by others.

How do you read the parties' positions without taking sides?

Each party gets a sign here, not a mark: a green + when it clearly backs the approach, an amber ~ for an intermediate or conditional position, a red − when it opposes it. This system deliberately replaces stars or marks out of 5, which would suggest a moral ranking.

The key point: no column designates a "good" party. A party marked with a + on the tax is often marked with a − on the idea of going further, and vice versa. The two columns answer different priorities — fiscal fairness and revenue on one side, protecting savings and attractiveness on the other — backed by different voters. Reading the table means spotting the lever each party favours, not handing out a prize for virtue.

This table is not a ranking: the left column reflects support for the measure as adopted, the right column the appetite for broader wealth taxation. A + does not mean "better" — it marks a direction, not a quality.

Which parties got the tax adopted, and which opposed it?

The Chamber adopted the capital gains tax in early April 2026, after long negotiations. The Arizona majority — N-VA, MR, Vooruit, CD&V and Les Engagés — voted in favour. Less expected, it was joined by two left-wing opposition parties, the PS and the PTB·PVDA, which had long called for taxing capital. The Vlaams Belang and DéFI voted against.

This crossover vote is telling. It shows that a tax brought by a centre-right government can gather votes from part of the left opposition, not out of support for the government, but out of agreement with the principle. Conversely, the far right rejected it in the name of protecting households' savings — a stance no other party voting against the measure shares for the same reasons.

Testing promises against the votes is the best antidote to electoral marketing. On paper, several parties said they favoured "making the better-off contribute"; the April vote shows who turned that talk into law and who kept their distance.

Why did Vooruit make this tax a condition for joining the government?

Vooruit set the capital gains tax as a condition of its participation in the Arizona coalition. For the Flemish socialists, a centre-right government that cuts certain spending had, in return, to ask an effort of capital holders — a matter of political balance as much as budget.

That choice explains much of the tension in 2025. The measure was negotiated, amended and renegotiated for months, each partner pulling the cursor. The result is a compromise: a single 10% rate, lower than what the left demanded, but paired with exemptions and automatic withholding that reassure savers and banks.

Conner Rousseau, Vooruit's chair, put his "millionaire's tax" back on the table in spring 2026, a sign that the capital gains tax is, for his party, only a first step. His majority allies gave the idea a cold welcome, some seeing mainly a publicity move ahead of 1 May. The disagreement is not about the tax already voted, but about what comes next.

Why were the MR and the N-VA holding back?

The MR and the N-VA accepted the tax without wanting it, and made that clear. The MR, the most reluctant, long fought the idea of a tax on capital, its chair denouncing a "taxation rage" it deemed at odds with the country's economic attractiveness. The N-VA stressed the risk of capital flight: taxing financial gains would, in its view, push savers and entrepreneurs to invest elsewhere.

Their final backing rests on the coalition compromise. In exchange, the liberals and the nationalists secured safeguards: a rate capped at 10%, the €10,000 exemption, the exclusion of gains before 2026 and withholding at source that avoids an administrative maze. For them, the measure was the price of forming a government, not a conviction.

The core argument is competitiveness: light taxation of savings and investment, they say, attracts capital and funds the real economy. The criticism, from the left, is that this reasoning mainly protects the highest fortunes and shifts the budget effort onto labour and consumption. The same figure — 10% — thus feeds two opposite readings.

Is the left satisfied with this tax?

The left backed the tax while calling it too timid. The PTB·PVDA, which has for years defended a tax on great fortunes, voted the measure as a first step while arguing that a 10% rate with €10,000 exempt stays well short of what would be needed to rebalance Belgian taxation. The PS shares this line: yes to the principle, but the ambition is not there.

Ecolo and Groen approve of taxing income from capital as income from labour, in the name of fiscal fairness and funding public services. They stress, however, the many exceptions and the single rate, which in their view limit the mechanism's real reach. Hence their caveat on going further: favourable in principle, cautious on the details.

Les Engagés hold a particular place. The party supported taxing capital gains against the MR and the N-VA, and its chair Yvan Verougstraete defends an annual contribution targeting high financial assets — from €500,000 of financial wealth, excluding real estate. On that ground, the centrist humanists stand closer to the left than to their liberal partners.

Should Belgium go further with a "millionaire's tax"?

This is the real fault line of 2026, and it is not about the tax already voted. The "millionaire's tax" is an annual, progressive contribution on the financial wealth of the richest, independent of any sale. Vooruit, the PS and the PTB·PVDA call for it; Les Engagés propose a version starting at €500,000 of financial assets; the MR and the N-VA reject it outright.

The arguments clash sharply. Supporters say a handful of very large fortunes could fund part of the deficit without touching labour income, and that Belgium taxes wealth lightly compared with its neighbours. Valerie Van Peel, the N-VA's chair, replied that "this millionaire's tax does not exist and never will", fearing capital flight; the MR calls it an idea "more radical than the communists".

None of these positions is neutral, and none is absurd. A wealth contribution can raise revenue and cut inequality, but its real yield depends on the base chosen and the ability to prevent avoidance. Refusing it protects attractiveness and savings, but leaves the question open: how to fund the deficit otherwise? The 2027 debate will largely play out there.

What this comparison does not settle

This table does not say which approach "works" best. The real effect of a capital gains tax depends on investor behaviour, the revenue actually collected, market conditions and European choices that go beyond Belgium alone. Nor does it factor in your situation: small saver, regular investor, entrepreneur or holder of a savings plan, you will not be affected in the same way.

So the right reflex is not to remember a winning camp, but to link each position to the lever it pulls — revenue and fairness on one side, attractiveness and protecting savings on the other — then to test this overview against what you expect from a tax policy.

How can you check these positions yourself?

You can reconstruct each position from public sources. The 2024 manifestos set out each party's course; the federal government agreement and the votes in the Chamber show who turned talk into law; the Federal Public Service Finance pages detail the tax mechanism, as do the analyses by Test-Achats and the banks.

To go faster, the comparator puts two parties side by side on taxation, the ranking sums up positions theme by theme, and the quiz starts from your priorities rather than a manifesto. For the wider picture of Belgian taxation, our taxation comparison of the parties places this tax in the broader debate on taxes. The methodology explains how these positions are gathered and remains open to challenge.