When a Country Changes Your FIRE Math: The Case for Geographic Cash-Out

A friend in the Netherlands is close to the point where work becomes optional. Then a tax change turned their FIRE plan into a location question.

They have done many of the ordinary things right: a portfolio, controlled spending, a realistic withdrawal plan and enough flexibility that retirement no longer feels like a fantasy. But the Netherlands is working toward a new Box 3 system from 2028. Their attention has shifted from “Can we afford to stop?” to “Where should we be tax resident when we start spending this portfolio?”

They are now looking at homes in Belgium. Not because Belgium is automatically the answer for every investor, but because the comparison makes a larger FIRE idea visible: a portfolio's location can change its usable income.

I call this geographic cash-out: deliberately choosing where to live and become tax resident during the years when you begin converting accumulated assets into life.

This is not a formal tax term, and it is not an invitation to chase the lowest rate on a map. It is a reminder that the place where you live can change the tax treatment of saving, holding, selling, inheriting and spending.

Why 2028 has their attention

The Dutch government's current target is for the Wet werkelijk rendement box 3—a Box 3 system based on actual return—to begin on 1 January 2028. As of September 2026, the proposal has passed the House of Representatives, while the government is still examining possible adjustments. That means a serious FIRE plan should treat the 2028 rules as important, but not frozen. The government's Box 3 timeline is the right place to watch the process.

The proposed direction is a major change in what is being measured. The new system is intended to tax actual return rather than the current notional-return approach. Under the proposal, returns such as interest, dividends and many annual value changes would matter; real estate and startup shares are proposed to receive a sale-based treatment instead. The government's explanation of the bill describes this combination of annual-accrual and realised-gain taxation.

For a couple who expects to live partly from a growing portfolio, this changes the question. A low-spending year may not look low from a tax perspective if holdings have a strong year. A portfolio can create taxable return even when the family has not sold much to fund daily life.

Until new legislation takes effect, the Dutch Tax Administration says the interim system continues to use notional returns unless reporting actual return is more favourable. Its definition of actual return is broad: it includes income such as interest and dividends, as well as value changes in shares, a second home and crypto. Belastingdienst's current guidance is useful context for anyone modelling the transition.

Belgium is not “tax free”—but the timing is different

The version of the story my friend first told was simple: “Belgium has no wealth tax. You only pay when you sell.” The useful version is more careful.

Belgium's 2026 capital-gains regime for financial assets sets a 10% rate under the standard regime and provides an annual €10,000 exemption per individual, subject to the detailed rules. If two people each qualify independently, that can mean up to €20,000 of gains sheltered at household level in a year—but it is an individual allowance, not one shared automatic household pot. Loss treatment, the kind of asset, historical gains, significant shareholdings and the way a sale is structured can all change the result. The Belgian federal government's announcement outlines the rate, exemption and special regime for substantial holdings.

That is meaningfully different from an annual tax on unrealised return for someone funding life by selling portions of a portfolio. In a sale-based system, the timing and size of realised gains can become part of the withdrawal plan. A couple may be able to spread sales across years rather than having every increase in portfolio value immediately shape the tax bill.

But Belgium has other taxes. It is misleading to call it a blanket “no wealth tax” jurisdiction. For example, Belgium's annual tax on qualifying securities accounts was raised to 0.30% from 1 June 2026. FPS Finance's notice confirms the rate change. Dividends, transaction taxes, property taxes, inheritance rules, health insurance, municipal charges and a particular family's income mix can also matter.

The lesson is not “the Netherlands bad, Belgium good.” The lesson is that the tax base and the timing of tax can matter as much as the headline rate.

A €2 million 90/10 withdrawal illustration: Netherlands versus Belgium

The difference becomes easier to see with numbers—but only if the assumptions are visible. This is a simplified educational illustration for a married or legally cohabiting couple, not a tax calculation or a recommendation to move.

The model assumes:

• €2,000,000 at the start of 2028, held in one 90/10 stock-and-short-government-bond portfolio;
• a constant 5.0% nominal total return before personal taxes and after fund fees; this is a modelling assumption, not a forecast;
• €80,000 of annual household spending, held flat in nominal euros for comparison; no pension, salary, mortgage, inflation increase, dividend withholding tax, transaction tax, healthcare, property tax or other income is included;
• Dutch residence: tax equal to 36% of that year’s 5% total return, with no allowance. The 36% is the published 2026 Box 3 rate used as a transparent placeholder—not a confirmed 2028 rate. The intended 2028 system taxes actual return, including many annual value changes, but the Senate and future legislation can still change the final design and rate. See the Dutch government’s 2028 timeline.
• Belgian residence: a 10% tax on realised financial gains above a combined €20,000 annual allowance, using the 2026 general-regime rate and €10,000 allowance per person. Instead of assuming a single €2 million securities account, this illustration assumes the household has structured accounts so that the annual securities-account tax is not modelled. It does include a 0.12% TOB on each sale, but only as an example for an instrument and transaction that actually qualifies for that rate. TOB rates, caps, fund registration, broker location and transaction type can change the result. The model uses a moving cost basis to estimate the gain within each sale. It does not include dividend withholding tax, special funds, non-Belgian brokers, exit taxes, or the many facts that can change a real result. Belgium’s official announcement describes the 10% rate and allowance.

Over 30 years, the Dutch illustration pays roughly €908,000 of modelled Box 3 tax and ends with about €1.214 million. At the same fixed €80,000 withdrawal and assumptions, it reaches zero during year 52. The Belgian illustration pays about €233,000 of modelled realised-gain tax and €6,000 of modelled TOB in its first 30 years, yet ends near €3.218 million. It does not reach zero in the 60-year extension of this model because the assumed return remains higher than the fixed withdrawal plus modelled taxes.

That gap is not a promised tax saving. It is a demonstration of timing: taxing annual value growth and taxing realised gains can produce very different cash-flow paths. Change the return, withdrawal, inflation, account structure, allowance, tax rate or residency facts and the result can reverse. A cross-border adviser should model the household’s actual holdings and move date before any decision.

Try the model with your own assumptions: Open the Netherlands vs Belgium FIRE Tax Comparison →

Want to compare beyond these two countries? Open the Global FIRE Tax Comparison →

This adjustable chart turns the illustration into your own scenario. It remains a planning tool—not a personal tax calculation—and makes each assumption visible.

What geographic cash-out means

During the accumulation years, most people think in terms of a portfolio's market return. During the spending years, the more relevant figure is often the after-tax amount that reaches your life.

Geographic cash-out asks four practical questions:

• Where will I be tax resident when I sell assets to fund ordinary spending?
• Does that place tax annual paper gains, realised gains, dividends, wealth, or some combination?
• How are my specific holdings treated—not a generic “portfolio,” but my funds, shares, cash, pension accounts and property?
• What does it cost in housing, healthcare, language, family distance, transport and community to live there?

The fourth question prevents the concept becoming tax tourism. Moving to save €8,000 a year while giving up a support network, accepting a much worse commute or buying an unsuitable house may not improve a FIRE life. A lower tax bill is only useful if the whole life still works.

The hidden difference between accumulation and decumulation

Tax planning belongs on both sides of FIRE.

While you are accumulating

Small annual frictions compound. Dividend withholding, fund domicile, taxable interest, investment turnover, tax-advantaged accounts, employee equity and the treatment of a rental property can all change the amount that remains invested. The right choice depends on your residence, employer, citizenship, account type and future plans.

For a household that may move later, records matter. Keep purchase dates, cost bases, reinvested distributions, account statements, gift and inheritance documents, and evidence of tax already paid. A cross-border adviser cannot reconstruct a clean history from a single current portfolio value.

Once you are spending

The sale itself becomes part of the system. A good withdrawal plan considers not only how much to take, but which account, which asset and which year. In a realised-gain system, taxable gains are not the same thing as the cash withdrawn. In an annual-return system, tax can arise even without a sale.

This can change the ideal mix of cash buffer, bonds, equities, pensions, part-time income and planned rebalancing. It can also change the FIRE number. Two people with identical €1 million portfolios can have different sustainable spending simply because they live under different tax rules.

A move is a life decision first, a tax decision second

My friends are not treating a Belgian home listing as a magic button. They are checking whether they would actually like the town, whether their children's routines would work, where their social connections would come from, and whether the border would make family life easier or harder.

They also know that cross-border moves can create consequences before, during and after the move: residence tests, treaty rules, departure rules, asset valuations on the move date, withholding taxes, pension treatment and reporting obligations. A proposed saving can disappear if the move is only nominal or if an exit rule has been ignored.

Before acting, their checklist is simple:

1. Model several years, not one sale: strong markets, weak markets and ordinary withdrawals.
2. Compare the full tax stack, including securities, property, income, inheritance and transaction taxes.
3. Confirm tax residence with a qualified adviser who understands both countries.
4. Price the move itself: purchase costs, selling costs, renovation, healthcare, schools and travel.
5. Decide whether the new place remains attractive if the tax advantage narrows.

Location is a FIRE lever, not a loophole

The point of financial independence is not to win a tax spreadsheet. It is to create a life with more choice and less dependence on a single employer.

For some households, geographic cash-out may mean moving across a border. For others, it may mean staying put, changing the portfolio's withdrawal order, working one more flexible year, or choosing a lower-cost region inside the same country. The same principle applies: location influences the money that remains available for life.