Part I — Situation overview

On the afternoon of 6 October 2026, Prime Minister Péter Magyar announced in a Facebook video that the Government had decided on the wealth tax, on extending the KATA, that is, the itemised tax of small-taxpayer enterprises, and on abolishing the tax allowance of professional athletes. On the same day the Ministry of Finance put the draft acts on the wealth tax and on the itemised tax of small-taxpayer sole proprietors out for public consultation on the Government’s website. The deadline for submitting comments is 14 October for both. According to a tax adviser speaking to Telex, the wealth-tax draft is 32 pages long. According to Portfolio, it comes with a 23-page explanatory memorandum and an impact assessment sheet. Under the draft, the net wealth portion between HUF 1 billion and HUF 100 billion would be taxed at 1 per cent a year, and the portion above that at 1.5 per cent. The act would enter into force on 15 December 2026, and the first return, based on the wealth position on 31 December 2026, would be due by 31 August 2027. The impact assessment sheet reckons with 15 thousand private individuals and 2,000 wealth-management taxpayers, such as assets held in fiduciary asset management or private foundations. The expected additional revenue is HUF 800 billion over four years. From 2027 the new KATA would cost HUF 100 thousand a month for full-time sole proprietors and HUF 50 thousand for those with a secondary occupation. Revenue from payers, that is, companies and organisations, would be subject to a 15 per cent supplementary tax, against which the itemised tax is credited. The revenue ceiling rises to HUF 22 million. From 2027 the threshold for athletes in the EKHO, that is, the simplified public contribution, would fall from HUF 500 million to the general HUF 60 million. Portfolio also reported on a bill submitted on Tuesday. Under it, the National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV) would examine, through mandatory risk analysis, the asset growth of members of Parliament, members of the government and other government leaders, as well as their relatives. The examination would also extend to those whose mandate ended in the past five years. In all three cases the acts are adopted by Parliament; the Government has decided on drafts.

MIAK has so far written three analyses of the wealth tax. In June it wrote about constitutional defensibility and beneficial-ownership transparency, in August about valuation methodology, and on 27 September about the bracket-by-bracket revenue estimate, the KATA entitlement table and a joint impact assessment of the two measures. The draft meets several of these requests. It contains detailed valuation rules set out in an order of precedence. It treats an asset manager registered abroad but controlled from Hungary as domestic. And the KATA draft ends eligibility if at least half of the revenue comes from a single payer. The revenue estimate, however, arrived as a single sum, without a breakdown or assumptions.

MIAK’s reading: the package is thorough in its content but as narrow as possible in its procedure. The eight-day consultation is exactly the statutory minimum. According to the Ministry’s own entry, the impact assessment sheet of the wealth tax was prepared in three working days and that of the KATA in two days, both with empty mandatory fields. The asset-growth examination of office-holders is a strong tool, but according to the published description it contains no explicit right to be heard. The credibility of a new tax is determined not only by its rate but also by the way it comes into being.

Part II — Foundations in the literature

Three classical authors provide an interpretive framework for the topic. John Locke, the 17th-century English philosopher, is one of the founders of liberal constitutionalism. In his Second Treatise of Government he writes that everyone must contribute proportionately to the upkeep of government, but that this must happen with the consent of the majority, through their own chosen representatives. This is the principled basis for the quality of public consultation and of parliamentary debate. John Stuart Mill, the 19th-century English philosopher and economist, interprets equality of taxation in his Principles of Political Economy as the principle of equal sacrifice. It follows that the fairness of a tax can only be debated if it is visible who bears how great a burden. Adam Smith, the Scottish moral philosopher and founder of modern economics, counts the certainty of taxation among the most important maxims in The Wealth of Nations. In his view, an uncertain tax puts the taxpayer at the mercy of the tax-gatherer’s discretion, and frequent, vexatious examination is itself a burden. The detailed discussion of the literature — by author, with quotations — can be found in section 6.4 Literature in detail.

Part III — MIAK’s concrete proposal

MIAK proposes three measurable steps. The first two concern the legislative practice of the Ministry of Finance and can be implemented without amending any law. The third requires a parliamentary amendment to the bill on the NAV examination; Parliament decides on this. The proposals are not about the rate of the wealth tax, but about the procedure and the safeguards with which the package becomes law.

3.1 A public consultation account on the same day the bill is submitted (in October 2026)

Under Section 10(2) of Act CXXXI of 2010 on social participation in the preparation of legislation, the deadline for comments may not be shorter than eight days. The period between 6 and 14 October is exactly that. Under Section 11, the minister prepares a summary, by type, of the comments received and of the reasons for rejecting them, but in the case of an act publishes it only after submission to Parliament. There is no obligation to respond individually. MIAK proposes that the Ministry commit to three things beyond this minimum. First: the summary by type and the list of commenters should appear on the day the bill is submitted, together with a list of changes. The list should show point by point what was modified compared with the draft and on the basis of which comment. Second: a separate written justification should be prepared on the three most contested questions. These are the valuation of unlisted company shareholdings based on a 15 per cent capitalisation rate, the order of precedence for valuing real estate, and the liquidity and dividend pressure on the owners of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Third: Parliament’s Budget Committee should request the comments received under Section 11(3), and present their main directions before the detailed debate. The A11 programme point proposes exactly this practice: the list of accepted and rejected proposals should be public. According to Locke’s argument (see 6.4.1), the legitimacy of a public burden stems from representative consent. Consent is meaningful if representatives see what those affected said and what became of their comments.

3.2 A completed impact assessment sheet accompanying the wealth-tax and KATA bills (simultaneously with submission)

The two published impact assessment sheets leave several mandatory fields of the form empty. For the wealth tax, there is no indication of who was involved in the assessment or what time horizon was examined. The change in administrative burdens appears as HUF 0, even though the draft itself reckons with the fees of independent valuers, since it makes half of them deductible up to HUF 2 million a year. The HUF 800 billion is a single sum “over a further four years” without a breakdown, and the ex-post impact assessment field is empty. On the KATA sheet, the number of sole proprietors concerned and the summary of effects are missing. Under employment effects it says “yes”, but no headcount figure is given. The budget field shows a HUF 215 billion shortfall, a HUF 275 billion surplus and a HUF 60 billion net improvement, without derivation. MIAK proposes that the bills submitted be accompanied by a fully completed impact assessment. This should include an annual breakdown, the source of the number of those affected and the assumptions of the revenue estimate (tax base, avoidance, relocation abroad). It should include taxpayers’ compliance costs and the NAV’s implementation costs in forints, and the expected number of KATA switchers by group (new entrants, those returning from flat-rate taxation, those switching from the old KATA). According to the I3 and G20 programme points, it is advisable to make this a general yardstick: a tax act with an impact above HUF 50 billion should not go before the Government with an empty mandatory field. Mill’s principle of equal sacrifice (see 6.4.2) can only be measured if the impact assessment shows who bears how great a burden.

3.3 Procedural safeguards in the tax authority’s asset-growth examination of office-holders (by amendment, during the parliamentary debate)

According to Portfolio’s description, the NAV would complete the risk analysis within sixty days, could access the non-public asset declarations, could request data qualifying as banking and insurance secrets, and would publish statistics monthly. It would publish the names of office-holders with a tax shortfall of at least HUF 5 million only after a final decision. This in itself makes the examination proportionate. The NAV, however, is a government office under the direction of the Finance Minister, and the examination affects both former governing-party and current governing-party politicians. Credibility therefore depends on whether the examination applies equally to everyone. MIAK proposes four amendments. First: the person examined should receive the draft of the closing document and be able to make written observations within 15 days, before the NAV decides on a tax audit or a criminal complaint. Second: the banking and insurance data of relatives should only be requestable if a risk emerges from the office-holder’s own data. Every request should be logged, and the log should be checked annually by the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (NAIH). Third: the criteria and thresholds of the risk analysis should be laid down publicly in a NAV guideline; individual scoring may remain internal. Fourth: the transitional circle reaching back five years should be processed in full according to a timetable published in advance, and the statistics should also be published by type of office and by government or opposition status during the period examined. According to Smith’s warning (see 6.4.3), an uncertain rule puts the taxpayer at the mercy of the tax-gatherer’s discretion. The machine-readable asset declarations of the A3 programme point and the investigation model based on unjustified asset growth of the A10 programme point require the same framework of safeguards.

The three proposals are bound together by one principle: a new public burden is the stronger, the less its procedure can be attacked. Opponents of the wealth tax have so far mainly disputed its rate and its principle. If the consultation is formal, the impact assessment incomplete and the examination of politicians appears one-sided, the debate shifts to the procedure, and there the draft is more vulnerable than in its content. Locke, Mill and Smith arrive at the same point from three different directions: the legitimacy of a public burden requires representative consent, a visible distribution of the burden and predictable enforcement.

Part IV — Expected effects and risks

Dimension Expected effect Risk
Legislation Representatives vote with knowledge of the comments and the changes; the act is less open to challenge on procedural grounds Time is short until entry into force on 15 December; the extra work may squeeze promulgation
Budget The HUF 800 billion and HUF 60 billion estimates become verifiable; the Fiscal Council and the market can price them in If the full calculation shows lower revenue, political pressure grows to raise the rates or to widen the exemptions
Taxpayers and businesses The extent of compliance costs and valuation disputes is visible in advance; the burden on SME owners does not remain hidden The written justification also gives the advisory market a map of avoidance opportunities
Small entrepreneurs The estimate by group shows who is better off and who worse off between the old and the new KATA Publicity of the figures may amplify the protest of current KATA taxpayers against the doubled itemised tax
Anti-corruption institutions Because of the right to be heard and NAIH oversight, the outcome of the examination stands up better in court too The 15-day observation period and the multi-stage data requests slow down the procedure; the 60-day deadline may need amending

The most important question to weigh is time. The wealth tax enters into force on 15 December 2026, and by then Parliament must adopt the act and the President of the Republic must promulgate it. Every additional procedural step takes away from this time. MIAK therefore does not ask for the consultation to be extended, but for the comments already received and the full calculation to be on representatives’ desks at the start of the parliamentary debate. This is extra work measured in days, not weeks.

For the NAV examination, the risk is over-regulation. If the safeguards build in too many stages, the examination drags on, and the public may see the delay as a cover-up. The proposal therefore slows things down at only two points: the right to make observations before the closing document, and the data requests concerning relatives. The other elements are rules of publicity and oversight that do not affect the speed of the examination.

Part V — Measurability and summary

5.1 What is worth following? (suggested KPIs)

MIAK proposes the following performance indicators (KPIs, Key Performance Indicator). These are suggested indicators, not government or parliamentary commitments.

  • Consultation account. Target value: on the day the wealth-tax and KATA bills are submitted, the summary by type, the list of commenters and the point-by-point list of changes are public.
  • Completeness of the impact assessment. Target value: the impact assessment of the bills submitted has no empty mandatory field, and includes the annual revenue breakdown, compliance and implementation costs in forints, and the estimate of KATA switchers by group.
  • Implementation readiness. Target value: the NAV’s national property valuation model and the draft wealth-tax return form are public by 30 November 2026. The impact assessment sheet itself names this as a condition for implementation.
  • Equal application of the asset-growth examination. Target value: 100 per cent of the transitional circle reaching back five years processed according to a published timetable within one year of the act’s entry into force. The monthly statistics are also broken down by type of office and by government or opposition status.

5.2 Summary

MIAK’s request is addressed primarily to the Ministry of Finance and to Parliament. On the day the bills are submitted, the Ministry should publish what comments were received and what became of them, and should attach a fully completed impact assessment, with an annual breakdown and cost estimate. The NAV should publish the property valuation model and the draft return form by the end of November 2026. Parliament should build into the bill on the asset-growth examination of office-holders the right to be heard, the narrowing of data requests concerning relatives, the public set of criteria and the NAIH’s annual oversight. MIAK considers the principle and the rate of the wealth tax a supportable aim. The request does not make these conditional; it strengthens the procedure.

Of MIAK’s foundational values, transparency and data-drivenness are concerned here. Transparency, because public consultation is more than a mailbox only if the person submitting a comment sees what became of it, and the representative also sees what those affected said. Data-drivenness, because there is currently no public calculation behind a new tax estimated at HUF 800 billion and a KATA reform promising a net improvement of HUF 60 billion. And without a calculation, neither the Fiscal Council nor the voter can judge whether the aim has been achieved.

Part VI — Justifications and further sources

6.1 Press framing by spectrum

In the liberal-left band, Telex covered the package in three articles. The news report on the announcement carried the Prime Minister’s words, including his statement that “paid articles disguised as professional” had also appeared against the wealth tax. The explainer on the KATA framed its return by recalling the tightening voted through in a single day in 2022 and the street protests, and used detailed numerical examples to show the effect of raising the benefit base on sick pay and on the childcare allowance. The title of the most extensive analysis already signalled a dual reading: the draft closes many loopholes, but may also create problems. Advisers at Andersen and RSM warned of distortions in the company valuation formula and of the burden on foreign company owners, while the French economist Gabriel Zucman argued for a broad tax base. 444.hu commented on the announcement with a critical, technical eye. It calculated that the itemised tax of HUF 50 thousand, unchanged since 2013, is roughly HUF 88–89 thousand in real terms, and called the mixing of itemised and rate-based tax a “Hungaricum”. In a separate guest opinion piece, two authors defended the wealth tax with arguments from political philosophy against an earlier opinion piece opposing it. Alongside the announcement, HVG published an analysis by an advisory firm saying that compiling the wealth inventory may take months and that valuation will be disputable in NAV audits. Népszava did not carry this topic in the sources processed by MIAK.

In the general public-affairs band, 24.hu gave a point-by-point summary and also carried the assessment of political scientist Gábor Török. In his view, the KATA package is at the same time a tax increase for current KATA taxpayers and a tax cut for those squeezed out in 2022. In a related headline the paper also flagged the criticism of the KDNP (Christian Democratic People’s Party), according to which the wealth tax punishes talent. Index asked the vice-president of the Association of Hungarian Chartered Tax Experts. The interview used numerical examples to show the effect of splitting wealth between spouses, of company valuation and of real-estate indexation, and named the complexity of the return as the draft’s biggest question. Its sports section analysed with a sports economist the additional EKHO burden falling on the larger football clubs, such as Ferencváros. In the business press, Portfolio was the only outlet that also described the impact assessment sheet. It highlighted the three working days of preparation and the contradiction that, according to the sheet, the competitiveness of SMEs does not change substantially, while it may encourage owners to pay out larger dividends. The paper also covered the NAV examination of office-holders and the effect of the KATA on creditworthiness in separate articles.

In the conservative band, Magyar Nemzet’s headlines put the tax increase at the centre: “the KATA doubles”, and the reaction of former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, according to which “Tisza has announced severe tax increases”. The bodies of the articles were not publicly downloadable, so we describe the framing on the basis of the headlines and leads. Mandiner did not appear on this day in the sources processed by MIAK. Common to the whole spectrum is that the debate was about the rate, the winners and the losers. None of the outlets wrote about the fact that the eight days available for submitting comments correspond to the statutory minimum, or about which fields of the impact assessment sheets are empty.

6.2 Facts and data

Main parameters of the wealth-tax draft:

Element Content Source
Tax rate 1% on the net wealth portion between HUF 1 billion and HUF 100 billion, 1.5% on the portion above HUF 100 billion draft and summary of contents (kormany.hu)
Taxpayer domestic and foreign private individuals, domestic and foreign wealth-management taxpayers (fiduciary asset management, private foundation, similar foreign structure) summary of contents
Domestic residence a Hungarian citizen is domestic even if, at the end of the tax year, he or she has not lived abroad habitually for at least 10 years draft (Portfolio)
Spouses wealth must be taken into account separately; the one-billion threshold applies to each of them draft (Portfolio)
Company valuation equity with a weight of one third, earnings value with a weight of two thirds; earnings value: the average after-tax profit of the last three closed years with a 15% capitalisation rate (6.67 multiplier) draft (Portfolio, HVG)
Real-estate value order: transaction value within 12 months, indexed transaction value at most 10 years old, NAV mass valuation model, independent expert; above HUF 500 million at least two models draft (Index, HVG)
Movables works of art, collections and jewellery with an individual value above HUF 3 million and vehicles above HUF 10 million are included draft (Portfolio, Telex)
Deductions certified debts from the tax base; local tax paid on real estate, vehicle tax, tax paid abroad on the same wealth (up to the amount of the Hungarian tax) from the tax; 50% of the valuer’s fee up to HUF 2 million a year draft (Portfolio, HVG)
Payment relief deferral or instalment payment for at most 12, exceptionally 24 months draft (Portfolio)
Allocation the taxpayer may assign 5% of the tax paid to the National Cooperation Fund draft (Portfolio)
Timing entry into force 15 December 2026; first return and payment by 31 August 2027 based on the position on 31 December 2026 draft (Portfolio, Index)
Consultation deadline for comments 14 October 2026 kormany.hu

Completeness of the two impact assessment sheets:

Field Wealth tax (PM/4400/2026, 28.09.2026) KATA (PM/4556/2026, 30.09.2026)
Time spent on preparation 3 working days 2 days
Persons and organisations involved empty empty
Time horizon examined empty empty
Conditions for implementation in place? partly (building the NAV property valuation model, preparing the return forms) yes
Competitiveness (SMEs) does not change substantially; may encourage dividend payments, which may hold back investment improves
Employment no yes, without headcount
Administrative burden, market participants HUF 0 HUF 0
Groups affected 15,000 wealthy private individuals, 2,000 wealth-management taxpayers sole proprietors, without headcount
Budgetary impact HUF 800 billion “over a further four years”, without annual breakdown HUF 215 billion balance-worsening, HUF 275 billion balance-improving, HUF 60 billion net improvement
Ex-post impact assessment not filled in not filled in

Main elements of the KATA draft and of the asset-growth examination:

Element Content Source
New KATA, itemised tax HUF 100 thousand a month in 2027 for full-time, HUF 50 thousand for non-full-time taxpayers; linked to the minimum wage from 2028 KATA summary of contents (kormany.hu)
Supplementary tax 15% on revenue from payers, the itemised tax is credited; for full-time taxpayers it means an actual extra burden above HUF 8 million of corporate revenue a year KATA summary of contents; Telex
Revenue ceiling HUF 22 million instead of 18, above it a 40% special tax KATA summary of contents
Disguised employment if at least half of annual revenue comes from the same payer or its related persons, eligibility ends at the end of the year Telex
Benefit base in the new KATA HUF 317 thousand a month in 2027, the minimum wage from 2028; in the old KATA HUF 161 thousand, then 215 thousand Telex; KATA summary of contents
Old KATA can be chosen until 31 December 2028, only by those already KATA taxpayers on 31 December 2026; HUF 75 thousand a month (2027), then HUF 100 thousand (2028) KATA summary of contents
EKHO the HUF 500 million threshold for professional athletes (HUF 250 million for coaches) falls to the general HUF 60 million from 2027 Telex, Index
Scope of the NAV examination members of Parliament, ministers, state secretaries, administrative state secretaries, government commissioners, prime ministerial and ministerial commissioners, as well as spouse, partner, parent and child living in the same household Portfolio
Scheduling after the second year of the mandate, out of turn when it ends, review after four years; for those whose mandate ended in the preceding five years, it starts within 30 days of entry into force Portfolio
Publicity in the case of a final tax shortfall of at least HUF 5 million, a list by name for between 90 days and 2 years; monthly statistics on risk analyses, audits and criminal complaints Portfolio

Budgetary context: according to the Fiscal Council, the amendment to this year’s budget reckons with a deficit target of 7.5 instead of 3.7 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and growth of 2.0 instead of 4.1 per cent. In October the Government is preparing a new medium-term fiscal-structural plan (Portfolio, 6 October 2026). The four-year estimate for the wealth tax is thus roughly HUF 200 billion a year on average, a substantial but not decisive item on the deficit path.

The statutory minimum of public consultation (Act CXXXI of 2010): the summary of the preliminary impact assessment must be published together with the draft [Section 8(3)]. The deadline for comments may not be shorter than eight days, and at least five days must be allowed for considering the comments before the Government decides [Section 10(2) and (4)]. In the case of an act, the summary by type must be published after submission; there is no obligation to respond individually [Section 11(1)–(2)]. The comments must be made accessible at the request of the parliamentary committee debating the bill [Section 11(3)]. The text is taken from the version in force downloaded from the National Legislation Database on 7 October 2026.

6.3 Policy dimensions

  • Economy (programme points) — progressive tax reform (programme point ID: G3); anonymised statistics of wealth-tax returns as a data source on wealth inequality (programme point ID: G7); Smith’s maxims of taxation, including certainty and the cost of collection (programme point ID: G16); a mandatory, completed and ex-post reviewed impact assessment (programme point ID: G20);
  • Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points) — machine-readable asset declarations and automatic cross-checking (programme point ID: A3); examination of unjustified asset growth (programme point ID: A10); a public consultation account (programme point ID: A11);
  • Justice (programme points) — a public legislative impact assessment for every new act (programme point ID: I3);
  • Employment policy and labour market (programme points) — tracking the effect of KATA switches and of the disguised-employment rule from the NAV’s anonymised data (programme point ID: FO1);
  • Legal foundations (background material) — the Government decides on the draft, the act is adopted by Parliament; a final decision of the NAV as tax authority is not a finding of criminal liability: suspicion of a criminal offence is a matter for the investigating authority and the prosecution service, and guilt is decided exclusively by a court; the NAIH is an autonomous regulatory body.

6.4 Literature in detail

6.4.1 John Locke: Second Treatise of Government

In the chapter on the limits of the legislative power, Locke links two theses. One is that government cannot be maintained without cost, so whoever enjoys its protection must contribute proportionately from his estate. The other is that this contribution cannot be one-sided: “But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them.” In other words: the contribution must rest on the consent of the majority, given either directly or through the representatives they have chosen. Locke regards the protection of property as the purpose of government, which is why opponents of the wealth tax also often invoke him. The text, however, does not assert that wealth is exempt from tax, but that the setting of a public burden depends on representative consent. For the Hungarian wealth tax, this means that the draft’s legitimacy is conferred not by the Government’s decision but by Parliament’s vote. The vote reflects meaningful consent if representatives know the views of those affected and the changes to the draft. Point 3.1 fulfils this condition.

📖 Source: John Locke: Second Treatise of Government (1690)

6.4.2 John Stuart Mill: Principles of Political Economy

In the chapter on the general principles of taxation, Mill starts from Smith’s four maxims and then elaborates the first, the principle of equality, in detail. His thesis: “Equality of taxation, therefore, as a maxim of politics, means equality of sacrifice.” In other words: as a political maxim, equality of taxation means equality of sacrifice. Mill adds that if someone bears less than his fair share, someone else must bear more. In the same part he also warns that a fine-sounding rule of taxation is only fair if the form of returns and the evidence required rule out abuse. Mill, incidentally, sharply criticised a tax narrowed to particular kinds of property, because it falls on the owners at the time of its introduction and is built into the price of the property. This speaks for the broad tax base of the Hungarian draft, not against it. Applied to the Hungarian debate: the principle of equal sacrifice can only be judged if the impact assessment shows who bears the burden. The question is whether the burden is borne by the wealthy private individual, the SME owner, the company’s investment through dividend pressure, or the taxpayer under the old or the new KATA. The current sheets do not show this. Point 3.2 fills this gap.

📖 Source: John Stuart Mill: Principles of Political Economy (1848; abridged ed., J. L. Laughlin, 1885)

6.4.3 Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

In the part on taxation, Smith formulates four maxims and places particular emphasis on the second, certainty: “The tax which each individual is bound to pay, ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person.” In other words: the tax everyone is obliged to pay must be certain and not arbitrary, and the time, manner and amount of payment must be clear to the taxpayer and to everyone else. According to Smith, where this is missing, the taxpayer falls into the power of the tax-gatherer. Uncertainty favours abuse, and experience shows that even a small degree of uncertainty is a greater evil than a considerable degree of inequality. Under the fourth maxim he also writes that frequent, vexatious examination is a burden even if, strictly speaking, it is not an expense. In the Hungarian package both theses apply in two places. The valuation rules are good where they are mechanical, and risky where the NAV can weigh whether the statutory formula is “suitable”. And in the examination of office-holders, it is the public set of criteria and the right to be heard that create certainty and proportionality. Point 3.3 lays this down.

📖 Source: Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations (1776), Book V, Chapter II

6.5 International comparison

Few European countries operate an annual net wealth tax today. In Switzerland it is collected by the cantons, on the basis of self-assessment, with cantonal valuation rules. In Norway, too, wealth tax must be paid annually, and the tax authority publishes an annual public tax list of taxpayers’ income, wealth and tax paid. In 2022 Spain introduced, alongside the regional wealth tax, a temporary solidarity tax on the largest fortunes. According to the critics quoted by Telex, European wealth taxes have been phased out with the exception of three countries, and Gabriel Zucman explained the French failure by too many exemptions. The broad tax base of the Hungarian draft and its rule for asset managers based on the “place of effective management” learn from this experience. The common feature of the Swiss and Norwegian examples is predictability: the valuation rules have been stable for years, and the taxpayer knows in advance what he or she will pay. This is the practical realisation of Smith’s principle of certainty.

In consultation practice, the European Commission, under its better regulation practice, keeps public consultations on legislative proposals open for 12 weeks. The 2012 recommendation on regulatory policy and governance of the OECD, the organisation for economic co-operation of developed countries, regards public consultation and ex-ante impact assessment as interlinked tools applied before the decision. The eight-day Hungarian minimum is short by comparison, but MIAK considers achievable now not an extension but a public account of the outcome. For examining the asset growth of office-holders, Romania’s National Integrity Agency is the best-known regional example. Since 2007 it has launched proceedings on the basis of discrepancies in asset declarations. Its lesson is that the credibility of such an institution depends on the publicity of its methodology and on party-neutral application.

Economy

  • G3 — Tax-system simplification and progressive reform
  • G7 — Wealth-inequality monitoring
  • G16 — Algorithmisation of Smithian tax principles
  • G20 — Economic policy impact assessment system (Drucker audit)

Transparency and anti-corruption policy

  • A3 — Publicity of asset declarations
  • A10 — Independent Corruption Investigation Office (CPIB model)
  • A11 — Civil-society partnership programme

Justice

  • I3 — Legislative impact assessment

Employment policy and labour market

  • FO1 — Employment data platform

Proposed new programme point: Procedural safeguards in the tax authority’s asset-growth examination of public office-holders — a right to be heard before the closing document, risk-based and logged data requests concerning relatives, a public set of criteria, independent data-protection oversight and party-neutral statistics — for the Transparency and anti-corruption policy area.

6.7 List of sources

Press sources (MIAK press monitor, 7 October 2026 — topic 1):

Government documents and legal sources:

Knowledge-base references (literature):

  • 📖 John Locke: Second Treatise of Government
  • 📖 John Stuart Mill: Principles of Political Economy
  • 📖 Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

MIAK-internal materials:

  • MIAK policy area: Economy (programme points; programme point ID: G3, G7, G16, G20)
  • MIAK policy area: Transparency and anti-corruption policy (programme points; programme point ID: A3, A10, A11)
  • MIAK policy area: Justice (programme points; programme point ID: I3)
  • MIAK policy area: Employment policy and labour market (programme points; programme point ID: FO1)
  • MIAK legal foundations: typical conceptual errors concerning the branches of power and institutional competences (background material)
  • MIAK press monitor, 7 October 2026 — topic 1, score: 90/100

Supplementary public data sources:

Generation metadata