In the coming months, European governments will intensify their efforts to establish how the EU’s long-term budget for the period 2028-2034 should be financed, with new revenues, called “own resources”, at the centre of the debate.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The discussion on own resources is not new. During the last long-term budget negotiations, the 27 member states failed to agree on any resources at all, and the budget was eventually financed by a national contribution, each country contributing 1.13 percent of its gross national income.
But given the bloc has grand ambitions to make large new investments in strategic sectors such as AI and defence while maintaining investments for sectors such as agriculture and fisheries, it is clear that the EU needs its own money collected and spent in a coordinated manner, rather than fragmented across 27 different national budgets.
European governments are therefore trying to source fresh money – but finding an agreement on new taxes is not easy, and none of the proposals currently on the table are to everyone’s advantage. Member states will have to find a compromise and make the right trade-offs to leave all 27 governments happy – or at least, equally unhappy.
The central problem is that no government welcomes the prospect of new taxes on citizens. This is the central concern EU diplomats expressed to Euronews, speaking on condition of anonymity: how can governments convince their publics to accept a new tax?
After all, taxes introduced at the EU level are often perceived as being “imposed” from above, making them a powerful political issue. They can easily become a focal point in election campaigns and may even contribute to the rise or fall of governments.
There are some countries that are setting their negotiating position even higher. Sweden, for instance, is against any form of own resource, arguing that the EU’s wealthiest member states would have to shoulder a disproportionate financial burden.
At the same time, any new EU-wide taxes will also face significant technical challenges, since they often require a harmonisation of the bloc’s tax law and would have to be set up at lightning speed to start contributing to the budget as of 2028.
Here, Euronews weighs up the proposals currently on the table. This analysis is based on conversations with EU officials and diplomats as well as documents seen by our newsroom.
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
What you need to know: Conceived as complementary to the Emissions Trading System (ETS),the CBAM applies an equivalent carbon price to imports of selected carbon-intensive goods (currently including iron and steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers, electricity and hydrogen), preventing producers from relocating emissions abroad and ensuring a level playing field.
Pros: EU countries largely support CBAM in principle. Finland, Austria, Portugal and Poland are among its most vocal backers, and Franceis also in favour.
Cons: Similarly to the ETS, CBAM does not create a new tax but simply redirects revenues from an existing tax towards Brussels. And while it is relatively non-controversial, the revenues it would generate are modest.
Odds: ★★★★★
Value: €1.4 billion annually.
Parcel handling fee
What you need to know: The Commission proposed introducing a Union handling fee on low-value e-commerce parcels imported from outside the EU, mainly targeting Chinese platforms such as Shein and Temu. The rationale is to cover the growing costs incurred by customs authorities in processing billions of small consignments.
Since 1 July, the bloc has levied a temporary €3 flat tax on small parcels under €150 of value. This temporary levy will be in place until the EU implements its tax reform, including the set up of the new EU Tax Authority based in the French city of Lille, which will serve as a so-called Tax Data Hub to improve the speed and efficiency of tax administration across the bloc.
Pros: The proposal aligns with the EU’s broader effort to “rebalance” economic relations with China, confronting a widening trade surplus driven by a flood of cheap Chinese goods that often do not respect European safety standards or counterfeit laws.
Cons: There is still no clarity on how much revenue the handling fee will actually generate, and it also creates an economic disincentive to order low-value parcels. Circumvention is another major problem, with e-commerce platforms likely to respond by increasing their warehouse capacity within the EU.
Odds: ★★★★☆
Value: No official estimate. According to the latest figures, close to 5.9 billion low-value parcels entered the EU in 2025. However, the new fee might shift the share of parcels shipped directly to consumers, which would be charged €2, in favour of parcels shipped from warehouses located in the EU, for which only a €0.50 fee applies.
Online gambling tax
What you need to know: EU officials are focused on two ongoing trends in the gambling world: the shift from physical to online, and the growing proliferation of illicit activities. Data on the market is scarce, and an online gambling tax might take some time to set up.
Pros: The new tax might help address several ongoing issues related to online gambling, such as underage gambling, betting on illicit subjects and organised crime. It might also increase the revenues for countries where most gambling websites are located, among them Malta.
Cons: Malta in particular remains fiercely against an online gambling tax, a major obstacle given the EU budget can only be adopted unanimously. The question is what Valletta might be offered in return for concessions. Besides this, there are also questions about disparity between the treatment of online gambling activities and offline ones.
Odds: ★★★★☆
Value: €1.9 billion annually.
Tobacco excise duty
What you need to know: The exact baseline for the tobacco tax is still a moving target since EU countries are discussing a revision of the Tobacco Taxation Directive, and have already reduced the scope and ambition compared to the initial proposal.
Pros: A tobacco tax could generate significant revenues and is being harmonised at the EU level. It also discourages tobacco usage, especially among poorer users, with positive impacts on health. Opposition is not seen as insurmountable.
Cons: The tax faces opposition from southern European countries, in particular Bulgaria, Czechia, Luxembourg, and Slovenia. There are fears it could fuel the black market and put jobs at stake, and there are disagreements over whether alternative products like e-cigarettes should be taxed on the same level as traditional products.
Odds: ★★★★☆
Value: €11.2 billion annually.
Corporate Resource for Europe (CORE)
What you need to know: The CORE would be an annual lump-sum contribution paid by big companies that operate and sell in the EU with a net annual turnover of €100 million.
Pros: Taxing big companies, particularly Chinese or American, might be easy to sell to the public, and EU officials point out that the amount companies are asked to pay is typically lower than bonuses for top executives. While CORE in its original form is unlikely to survive, officials insist it “isn’t dead yet” since it could be recalibrated to overcome Washington’s opposition to the EU’s digital taxation, since a corporate tax is not sector-specific.
Cons: The idea of creating an EU-level corporate tax is facing significant ideological opposition, as it runs counter to the competitiveness agenda. Although the percentage floated is considered minimal, countries like Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands are against the move in principle, saying it could create a dangerous precedent.
Odds: ★★★☆☆
Value: €6.8 billion annually.
Non-collected e-waste
What you need to know: The Commission proposed to introduce a contribution based on the application of a call rate of €2/kg (annually adjusted for inflation) to the weight of non-collected e-waste.
Pros: A new incentive to collect and recycle e-waste would have environmental benefits whilst making a strategic contribution to grappling with China’s dominance in critical raw materials supply chains.
Cons: The amount would be paid by the member states as a national contribution based on the non-collected e-waste that the capitals declare to Eurostat. This might provide a perverse incentive for governments to under-report the actual volume of e-waste rather than reducing it.
Odds: ★★★☆☆
Value: €15 billion annually.
EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)
What you need to know: Since 2005, the EU’s ETS1 has operated as a “cap-and-trade” scheme aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It sets a limit on the total emissions that companies can produce and requires firms to purchase allowances to cover their pollution, either from the EU or from other companies.
Pros: The European Commission proposed a targeted adjustment of the revenues generated from ETS1 to go to the EU budget**.** Austria is backing the proposal. The overall ETS is aligned with the EU’s green agenda, as the revenues generated are intended to support green transition initiatives.
Cons: Poland is viscerally against the proposal, as are other central and eastern European countries like Estonia, Slovenia, and Bulgaria, who consider it regressive. In addition, the Commission has recently proposed a reform of the ETS1 over industrial competitiveness concerns, with a slower reduction of emissions caps after 2030.
Odds: ★★☆☆☆
Value: €9.6 billion annually.
Digital levy
What you need to know: Introducing a levy on digital services is one of the main ideas floated by the European Parliament. It has yet to be fully developed in terms of design and scope, though the digital taxes already present in France, Spain and Italy could provide a significant precedent.
Pros: The EU countries that already have a digital services tax might support moving it to the European level to avoid direct retaliation from Washington. The tax would also largely fall on non-European businesses, and tech companies pay notoriously low taxes in Europe.
Cons: Washington has already warned it might retaliate if the initiative moves forward. Ireland, the current chair of the EU Council, is also against the proposal, hosting as it does the European headquarters of many of the world’s largest tech companies.
Odds: ★★☆☆☆
Value: €5 billion annually.
Tax on crypto assets
What you need to know: Even though it might be politically viable for the member states to back a cryptocurrency assets tax, getting it up and running and preventing tax avoidance present big problems. “It might be a lot of work for nothing,” EU officials say.
Pros: Cryptocurrencies are facing increasing regulatory pressure due to their use in black market activity, money laundering and other illicit purposes. There is political appetite for further scrutinising this market and better tracking the revenues coming from it.
Cons: Among all the revenue ideas floated at the European Parliament, this might be the least viable. The market it would be focused on is very volatile and fundamentally decentralised, allowing users to escape the scrutiny of public authorities. Some countries already have a capital gains tax that covers crypto, but most users simply do not report it.
Odds: ★☆☆☆☆
Value: €3-4 billion annually for a crypto transaction tax, €1-2.4 billion for a capital gains tax.
Read the full article here
