Taxation: what do Belgium's 10 parties propose in 2026?

What do Belgium's parties propose on taxation in 2026?

In 2026, Belgium's ten main parties fall into two families on taxation. On one side, the PS, Ecolo, Groen and the PTB·PVDA want capital and high net worth to contribute more: a wealth tax, heavier taxation of capital gains, and an end to the "loopholes" that favour financial income. On the other, the N-VA, MR, Open VLD and Vlaams Belang want to ease taxes on companies and capital income to support competitiveness and jobs. The CD&V and Les Engagés sit between the two, and Vooruit, socialist but a member of the Arizona coalition, pushes part of the left-wing agenda from inside the government.

This dividing line does not pit a "good" manifesto against a "bad" one. It pits two answers to the same question: who should pay to fund the State, and with what effect on the economy. The first bets on tax justice and a greater effort from capital. The second bets on attractiveness and lower levies to revive activity. Both camps say they want a fairer and more efficient system; they simply pull different levers.

By the numbers, the framework shifted this year. The Arizona government introduced a 10% tax on capital gains from financial assets on 1 January 2026, after months of arm-wrestling. That compromise, and the never-settled debate on a wealth tax, shape the whole tax discussion this year.

How do you read these positions without taking sides?

Each party gets a sign per lever here: a green + when it clearly backs that approach, an amber ~ for an intermediate or conditional position, a red − when it opposes it. This system 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 taxing capital is almost always marked with a − on easing its taxation, and vice versa. The two levers answer different priorities — reducing inequality and funding public services for one, supporting investment and jobs for the other — backed by different voters. Reading the table means spotting the lever each party favours, not handing out a prize for virtue.

For example, the PTB·PVDA gets a + on taxing high net worth and a − on easing its taxation, which it deems unfair. The MR has the opposite profile. Neither is "in the lead": they are not playing on the same field.

The capital gains tax: what changes in 2026?

The big tax novelty of 2026 is the 10% tax on capital gains from financial assets, sometimes called the "solidarity contribution". In practice, it applies to gains realised from 1 January 2026 when selling shares, bonds, fund units, cryptocurrencies or investment insurance (branch 21 and 23). Gains accumulated up to 31 December 2025 remain exempt.

The scheme includes several safeguards for small savers. The first 10,000 euros of gains per year are exempt, and the unused part of a year can be carried over, at 1,000 euros per year over five years, raising the exemption to a maximum of 15,000 euros. For holders of at least 20% of a company, a special regime provides an exemption of up to 1 million euros. The tax is in principle withheld at source by the Belgian bank, but the taxpayer can opt for a personal declaration ("opt-out"), notably to claim losses.

Politically, this tax is the symbol of the Arizona compromise. According to the RTBF and La Libre, it was demanded for months by Vooruit, which tied its stay in the coalition to its adoption, while the MR accepted it reluctantly and sought to dilute its reach. Finance Minister Jan Jambon (N-VA) carried the reform while trying, unsuccessfully, to slip in exceptions, such as exempting assets held for more than ten years. The same text can thus be seen as a step forward for tax justice by some and as a concession wrung out by others.

What do the parties wanting to tax capital and high net worth propose?

Left-wing parties want capital and large fortunes to contribute more, in the name of tax justice. The PTB·PVDA carries the best-known measure: a millionaires' tax of 2% on net wealth above 5 million euros and 3% above 10 million, targeting the richest 1%. The Federal Planning Bureau put its yield at around 3.9 billion euros. The party also wants to raise the minimum tax on multinationals and tax windfall profits.

The PS also backs a wealth tax, but of a different form: a lower rate (0.4 to 1.5%) applied to a broader base, that is 4 to 5% of households, for a yield estimated by the Planning Bureau at around 7.6 billion euros. Ecolo and Groen stress instead the "globalisation" of income: making sure a euro of capital income is not taxed less than a euro of salary, and funding in parallel an employment bonus for low and middle incomes.

The core argument is fairness: for years, this camp has held that labour income is taxed more heavily than capital income, and that an effort from the better-off would fund public services without penalising wages. The criticism, voiced by the right and some economists, is that a wealth tax is hard to collect, drives mobile assets abroad and often raises less than expected — the experience of several European countries that scrapped this kind of tax is regularly cited in support.

What do the parties wanting to ease taxes on capital and companies propose?

Centre-right and right-wing parties want to reduce the tax burden on companies and capital to stimulate investment and jobs. The Vlaams Belang offers the most precise figure: lowering corporate tax from 25% to 20%. The N-VA, MR and Open VLD share the same logic without always setting a rate: simpler, more predictable and more attractive taxation, and a flat refusal of a wealth tax they deem counterproductive.

This camp also stresses cutting taxes on labour, but through a different channel than the left. The Arizona reform plans to raise the tax-free allowance to lift net wages without touching gross pay, with a first increase in 2026 and a stronger effect from 2029. According to the RTBF, the budget agreement nonetheless pushed part of this increase back to 2030, which illustrates the tension between the promise of relief and the constraint of the deficit.

The core argument is competitiveness: lighter taxation on companies attracts investment, supports jobs and, over time, broadens the tax base. The criticism, voiced by the left, is that these cuts mainly benefit high incomes and companies, widen the deficit and shift the effort onto public services or onto lower-income households via VAT and excise duties. The debate on the tax-free allowance — announced then partly postponed — shows that the promised relief depends closely on the state of public finances.

Where do Vooruit, Les Engagés and the CD&V stand?

These three parties occupy the middle ground and blur the left-right split. Vooruit, socialist but a member of the Arizona coalition, secured the capital gains tax and keeps pushing a redistributive agenda from inside the government. Hence its + on taxing capital and its ~ on easing its taxation: it accepts competitiveness measures in the name of government cohesion, while claiming the effort asked of asset holders.

Les Engagés cultivate an assumed centrist position. The party does not back a classic wealth tax but does not rule out a contribution from the better-off, and puts forward taxation "in the service of work and families". Hence the double ~: neither the systematic heavier taxation of capital advocated on the left, nor the clear relief defended on the right, but a balance presented as pragmatic. This pivot position makes the party hard to label, which is also a strategic choice.

The CD&V, finally, backs the spirit of the tax reform begun by its former Finance Minister Vincent Van Peteghem, with targeted cuts — for instance reduced VAT on certain basic goods and care. On capital, it leans towards relief rather than a new wealth tax, hence its + on that lever and its ~ on taxing net worth: it accepts one-off contributions, like the capital gains tax voted in coalition, without making it a central plank.

Taxation: what do the votes and actions say?

Beyond the manifestos, the 2026 actions confirm the dividing line. The Arizona majority — N-VA, MR, Vooruit, CD&V, Les Engagés — passed the 10% capital gains tax and the gradual rise in the tax-free allowance, a package that mixes a gesture to the left (taxing capital) and a gesture to the right (easing labour and companies). The PS, Ecolo, Groen and the PTB·PVDA, in the federal opposition, deem the capital gains tax too modest and call for a genuine wealth tax.

Testing promises against actions is the best antidote to electoral marketing. A party can talk about "tax justice" or "purchasing power" in both camps; it is the texts voted, the government agreement and the budgets that reveal the lever actually pulled. Vooruit's case is telling: it made the capital gains tax a condition of its participation, where the MR did everything to reduce it.

To dig further, the comparator lets you put 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. The methodology details how these positions are gathered and remains open to challenge.

What this comparison does not settle

This table does not say which approach "works" best: the real effect of a wealth tax or of a corporate tax cut depends on the mobility of capital, the behaviour of investors, the economic climate and European rules that go beyond Belgium alone. Nor does it factor in your situation — employee, self-employed, saver, owner or not — which often weighs more than a national average.

So the right reflex is not to remember a winning camp, but to link each position to the lever it pulls, then to test this overview against what you expect from a tax policy.