The debate on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028-2034  is well under way. Since the Commission’s proposal was presented in summer 2025, EU institutions have been debating not only the size of the next EU budget, funding priorities and the design of the planned National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs), but also the revenue side, as financing is also central to questions of distribution and policy-making. A recent study assessed various options against several criteria, including distributional implications.

Member State contributions are the main source of EU budget funding

National contributions now fund about 70 per cent of the EU budget. Member States contribute according to their gross national income, up to limit respectively the revenue ceiling that cannot be exceeded. Other traditional EU own resources comprise customs duties on imports from third countries and revenue from value-added tax. Debate has long continued over new own resources to finance the EU budget, particularly to reduce Member States’ contributions or prevent them from rising further.

The debate on new own resources arose in the context of financing NextGenerationEU and the 2021–2027 MFF. Agreement was reached on revenue from non-recycled plastic packaging waste. However, the Commission’s other proposals - based on the Emissions Trading System, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and temporary own resources linked to corporate profits - have not yet been implemented.

Renewed debate on own resources in the current EU budget discussion

While substantial funding needs are repeatedly stressed, not least because of geopolitical upheavals, proposals to cut spending - such as agricultural funding - or raise Member State contributions face strong resistance. The European Commission’s proposal to generate €58.2 billion (2025 prices) a year through new own resources and adjustments to existing ones under the forthcoming MFF should be seen in this context. The Commission is again proposing own resources based on the Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Additional proposals concern revenue from uncollected electronic waste (e-waste), a tobacco excise duty and an annual flat-rate contribution from large companies (CORE).

In April 2026, the MFF was debated in a plenary session of the European Parliament, where Members also called for developing new sources of own resources. Further proposals concerned levies on digital services, online gambling and capital gains from cryptocurrencies. Although several proposals have now been put forward and there appears to be broad openness to considering them, agreement on specific own-resource sources has still not been reached.

New own resources: a broad issue for EU politics

In their study “The future financing of the European Union: An analysis of options for new own resources in the EU budget 2028-2034”, Bernhard Schütz and Philipp Heimberger stress that new own resources raise broad political and economic questions that also affect the future course of European integration. The authors are highly critical of making the EU budget even more dependent on national contributions, particularly because these rely heavily on taxes and duties on wage income and consumption.

The study evaluates options for new own resources according to their European dimension, distributional implications, ability to address negative externalities and revenue potential. It finds that financial transaction taxes, European-level digital or corporate taxation, bank levies, aviation-related taxes and taxes on ultra-high-net-worth individuals could both generate revenue and help tackle tax avoidance, financial instability, climate change and rising inequality.

Assessing the various options

The authors identify EU-level coordination as a key assessment criterion, asking whether it would make taxation more effective and stable than national approaches. This would apply where it reduces tax competition, regulatory fragmentation and opportunities for cross-border tax avoidance. They conclude that EU-level implementation is particularly suitable for mobile tax bases, where tax sources can easily be shifted to another country. Political feasibility also depends on whether new own resources strengthen the EU’s fiscal capacity without significantly weakening national revenue potential, as with taxes on ultra-high wealth or crypto-asset transactions.

All in all, a broader mix of own resources could also distribute the financing burden more evenly across Member States and economic sectors. The authors conclude that a stronger and more autonomous system of EU revenues, complemented by common EU borrowing for strategic investment purposes, could support the financing of European public goods and further strengthen the EU’s fiscal capacity as well as its ability to act in an increasingly difficult geopolitical and economic environment.

Further information

EU Commission An ambitious budget for a stronger Europe: 2028-2034*
EU Commission: Own Resources - European Commission
WIIW Study: The future financing of the European Union: An analysis of options for new own resources in the EU budget 2028 – 2034
AK EUROPA: New EU budget from 2028. A difficult agreement process lies ahead
AK EUROPA: The future of Cohesion Policy: Will the next EU-Budget mean less Funding for Social matters?
AK EUROPA: New own resources. How should the future EU budget be financed?