Microenterprises are the backbone of Hungary’s economy, yet current tax and regulatory structures make it nearly impossible for them to survive—let alone grow. This essay focuses on retail microbusinesses to illustrate how systemic design, not individual inefficiency, is at the root of underperformance. It calls for a fairer, scalable approach to taxation, support, and policy—before an entire sector is pushed beyond recovery.
Let’s consider a critical question:
Has any politician, policymaker, regulator, or government economist in Hungary ever calculated how much net revenue per employee a microenterprise—or a solo entrepreneur—actually needs to survive, let alone thrive—in today’s economy, within a specific sector?
The likely answer is yes—but if such analysis exists, it’s not being shared.
Hungary’s business environment has some standout features. The 9% corporate tax rate—the lowest in the EU—is attractive on paper. But let’s be honest: that mostly benefits companies already generating significant profits—most of which are large. What about the rest?
According to 2023 data from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH), there were over 900,000 businesses in Hungary. More than 99% fall into the SME category, and nearly 95% are classified as micro-sized. SMEs employ over 2.1 million people—nearly double the employment base of larger firms. (See SME Indicators table below.)
Micro-enterprises in Hungary employ more people than all other company categories combined. Indirectly, total SMEs support the livelihoods of an estimated 4.5 to 5 million citizens, based on an average household size of 2.3 persons. This underscores the critical importance of the sector—not only economically, but socially.
Despite this, the sector has been consistently under-prioritized by policymakers since the fall of communism. A more strategic, long-term focus on SME development is urgently needed to unlock its full potential and ensure inclusive economic growth.
Is it SME Incompetence—or Systemic Sabotage?
For over three decades, Hungarian SMEs—especially microbusinesses often run by just one or two people—have operated under increasingly hostile conditions.
Lack of access to capital, high interest rates, chronic inflation, weak consumer purchasing power, dominance of large players, aggressive price competition, overregulation, unfair competition, arbitrary policymaking, and perhaps most critically, a persistent absence of meaningful government support—these are just a few of the barriers they face.
Yet many political and economic leaders, regardless of party affiliation, continue to blame SMEs for “underperformance” or “inefficiency.”
But perhaps we’re asking the wrong question.
Rather than faulting SMEs, shouldn't we be interrogating the system itself?
Is the economic structure inherently biased in favor of large players—and has it been since the early 1990s?
Are SMEs underperforming due to mismanagement—or is the system designed for them to fail?
Does responsible leadership truly want a thriving SME sector—or merely tolerate it?
These questions are complex, legitimate, and deserve serious examination.
But this post won’t try to answer them all. Instead, it will focus on something more specific, measurable, and concrete:
A closer look at a few systemic barriers SMEs face every day—illustrating just how much the deck is stacked against them.
Microenterprises in Retail: A Case Study in Structural Disadvantage
To explore the deeper systemic question, this essay narrows its focus to a specific scenario: microenterprises operating in the retail sector. There are several reasons for this choice.
Retail micro-businesses—often family-run shops with just one or two employees—offer a highly visible, measurable, and relatable example of how structural barriers impact SMEs in real life. When left to compete under unfair conditions, they illustrate better than most just how the system sets them up to fail.
Across Western Europe, small retailers are adapting to a rapidly changing environment. A digital presence is essential, not optional. Consumers increasingly demand sustainable products, fair practices, and seamless shopping experiences—whether online, on mobile, or in-store. Price competition is fierce, and widespread labor shortages push businesses to adopt new technologies quickly. Amid these pressures, a bright spot emerges: a growing consumer preference for supporting local and independent shops.
In Hungary, the situation is far more precarious. High inflation sharply cuts into consumer spending, pushing shoppers toward discount chains and away from local stores. Many micro-retailers lack the resources to digitalize or upgrade their operations. Labor shortages, especially in rural areas, and regulatory unpredictability add further stress. Unlike their Western counterparts, Hungarian small businesses aren’t just adapting—they’re struggling to survive in a system that often feels rigged against them. It’s no surprise that the Hungarian online retail market is largely dominated by foreign companies.
Meanwhile, market concentration continues to increase, driven by the aggressive expansion of international giants across nearly all retail segments. Consumers are growing more price-sensitive, forcing micro-retailers into a race-to-the-bottom on prices—one they are structurally ill-equipped to win.
The Core Question
With all this in mind, it’s worth asking:
What level of annual net revenue per employee must a Hungarian retail microenterprise generate just to break even—before any sustainable profit can even be considered?
This isn’t just an economic calculation—it’s a litmus test for whether the system is viable at all for small players.
Let’s explore that next.
The Preferential Tax Scheme Neglects Most SMEs
Hungary’s SME tax regime is uncompetitive in two key ways.
First, while many EU countries offer VAT exemptions below certain revenue thresholds—usually paired with simplified compliance—Hungary ranks among the least generous in the region. The EU allows thresholds up to €85,000. Hungary’s threshold is just €45,000. (See comparative data here)
Second, Hungary couples this low threshold with an extremely restrictive flat-tax scheme: KATA (Itemized Tax for Small Taxpayers).
Unlike regional peers whose tax schemes include freelancers, part-timers and side-hustlers, Hungary’s KATA— especially after the 2022 reform— applies only to full-time sole proprietors serving private individuals. No corporate clients, no side income, no scaling opportunities.
Before the reform, more than half of SMEs used KATA. Now, only about 20% remained eligible. Over 80% has been excluded from this simplified, affordable tax option.
In contrast, countries like Czechia offer higher thresholds and more flexible schemes support a wider range of small entrepreneurs. In Hungary, entrepreneurs quickly hit hard limits with no viable alternatives.
Most must either:
Enter the full VAT regime, designed for large enterprises; or
Opt into the “preferential” Flat Rate Tax (átalányadózás), a more complex and less forgiving fallback after KATA.
But even beyond tax policy, an even bigger challenge awaits: the sheer scale of revenue micro-entrepreneurs must generate just to survive.
Standard Playbook: A Price That Only Giants Can Afford
A real-world Hungarian retail microbusiness was modeled using conservative assumptions: minimal marketing spend, modest rent, and limited outsourcing. (See Appendix, Section 1: Assumptions & Inputs)
To remain viable long-term—under the standard tax regime and with a sustainable net profit margin—a retail microenterprise must generate 87 million HUF annually. This is well above the typical revenue levels for most Hungarian SMEs.
For a two-person retail operation (an "Entrepreneur Duo"), the break-even point rises to over 119 million HUF. This level of performance is required just to survive—not thrive—and demands efficiency benchmarks closer to those of mid-sized enterprises. (See Appendix, Section 2)
And these figures still exclude major realities:
The initial investment needed to start the business, the build-up period before reaching full operational capacity, and the cash flow strain typical in early years. Factoring those in would raise the threshold even higher, putting sustainable survival firmly out of reach for most microenterprises—unless they operate at a scale only large firms can realistically afford.
Preferential Playbook: The Myth of Fair Competition
Even under the Flat Rate Tax model—often presented as the “supportive” alternative for micro-businesses—the numbers simply don’t add up.
Using the 90% expense deduction scheme, a sole retail entrepreneur is left with just €400/month in net profit—after costs, but before reinvestment, reserves, or savings. (Modeled using Billingo’s official calculator, assuming no family tax benefits.)
For context, the average net wage in Hungary is around €1,200/month. This model delivers only one-third of that, making it barely sufficient for survival—let alone reinvestment, digitalization, or growth. (See Appendix, Section 3)
Of course, real-world scenarios vary. Some micro-retailers operate in premium locations, sell higher-margin products, or leverage strong marketing strategies. But this analysis isn't meant to represent a single "ideal" business case.
Its goal is to highlight something deeper: the structural rules of the game—and how even the so-called preferential schemes leave most microenterprises operating at or even below subsistence level.
A Tilted Playing Field
At times, it feels as though the system is deliberately designed to let micro-entrepreneurs scrape by—but never truly get ahead. Bureaucratic burdens have grown, while their room to maneuver has steadily narrowed. It’s a kind of controlled austerity—not driven by economic necessity, but embedded by design.
The message is subtle but unmistakable: “Don’t even try.”
Let’s be honest—under rules like these, this isn’t a free market. It’s a rigged game.
Small businesses are expected to shoulder tax burdens comparable to those of large corporations, without access to scale, bulk purchasing power, or structural safety nets. They’re told to compete on “equal terms” while operating under decidedly unequal conditions—especially compared to their peers in other parts of Europe.
Some may argue: “Then don’t run that kind of business.”
But is that the right question?
Should the freedom to run a modest, honest business come with structural penalties? Should surviving as an independent shopkeeper really require matching the operational efficiency of Coca-Cola?
What a Fair System Would Do
If Hungary genuinely values SME productivity, competitiveness, and innovation, then the system must reflect that priority in practice—not just in rhetoric.
A fair and functional system would:
Stop penalizing small businesses with disproportionate costs, compliance burdens, and structural disadvantages.
Introduce scalable, flexible tax models that evolve with a business’s size and stage—not trap them in survival mode.
Tailor regulations to firm size, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach disproportionately harms microenterprises.
Provide continuous, rather than ad-hoc, targeted government support programs—such as accessible financing, training, and advisory services—to help micro and small enterprises overcome barriers to growth.
Acknowledge that competitiveness isn’t just about effort—it depends on the environment: access to capital, fair taxation, predictable policy, and room to grow.
Fairness doesn't mean protectionism. It means removing structural bias so that small businesses have a real chance—not just to exist, but to succeed.
The System Must Be Fixed
Only recently—after more than 30 years—has a Hungarian government introduced a targeted stimulus program for SMEs: the Demján Sándor Program.
The Demján Sándor Capital Program is officially communicated as the most significant SME capital program ever launched in Hungary. Its target group is defined as Hungarian micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises with at least two closed financial years, average annual revenue of at least HUF 300 million (≈ €750k), a minimum of two employees, and ≥ 50% Hungarian ownership.
However, a closer look at the eligibility criteria reveals how narrow the real target audience is:
Microenterprises (73% of all SMEs) are excluded by default, since most operate with 0–1 employee.
Among microenterprises with 2–9 employees, the vast majority are also filtered out, as their revenues might not reach the revenue threshold. The average revenue per employee in this segment is around €55k.
In a maximum scenario this leaves only the top-performing 10% of SMEs—primarily larger small firms and medium-sized enterprises—as realistically eligible.
The program therefore cannot be considered systemic reform; it strengthens only the upper tier of SMEs that are already more competitive. While welcome for those few who qualify, it does little to address the structural weaknesses of Hungary’s broader SME sector, especially microenterprises that make up the overwhelming majority.
The core structural problems remain untouched.
That’s not a policy oversight—it’s systemic inertia.
Over 850,000 micro-enterprises employ almost 1.3 million people in Hungary, indirectly supporting an estimated 2.5 to 3 million citizens. To limit their potential—and then ignore them in policymaking—isn’t just poor economics. It’s a betrayal of fairness.
But it doesn’t have to stay this way.
Hungary’s economic future won’t be built by multinationals alone. It will be shaped by the resilience and talent of everyday Hungarian entrepreneurs—if the system finally gives them a fair shot.
APPENDIX
Section 1: Assumptions & Inputs Used
To better understand what it takes to be competitive in the standard playbook, the below disaster check exercise is modeling a one- and a two-person micro-business involved in standard taxation scheme by the following general assumptions:
A modest brick-and-mortar retail store in Budapest (30–35 sqm, non-central).
A bilingual e-commerce shop (Hungarian + English) with up to 25,000 SKUs.
All goods sourced from EU wholesalers
Outdoor products and sporting category
Product average retail net margin 30% (overestimated vs. average)
Most of the costs underestimated artificially.
Artificially low marketing costs.
No contingency funds calculated.
The disaster check accounts only for the actual break-even year.
The aim of outcomes only directional.
The break-even year only one-off scenario (no time needed period included)
Below is a cost-structure with net cost estimates breakdown used for input with all related assumptions, for the above break-even scenarios:
1. REVENUE & SALES FORECASTING ASSUMPTIONS
For estimating the sales revenue needed for break-even for such a micro SME, the following assumptions are used:
Products: B2C physical and digital commerce
Average gross margin: 30%
Online payments: 57% of sales
Average e-commerce shipping cost to customers: HUF 2,000/parcel.
Number of parcels adjusted to revenue scenario.
2. COST OF GOODS SOLD (COGS)
Inventory: 30% average retail margin used.
Shipping (incoming shipment costs): HUF 600,000/year.
Packaging (cost of packaging): HUF 360,000/year.
Warehouse: Not applicable.
3. OPERATING EXPENSES
These are expenses required to run the business day-to-day, with costs in Hungarian forint (HUF). At the time of this analysis the FX rates are cc. 400 HUF/EUR.
A. Retail Expenses (for physical store)
Rent: HUF 3,600,000/year.
Utilities: HUF 600,000/year.
Insurance: HUF 180,000/year.
Maintenance: HUF 360,000/year.
POS system: Includes calculated yearly total POS operating cost.
Note: The POS (Point-of-Sale) system costs include electronic cashier hardware, thermal paper supplies, monthly software or service usage fees, and the annual mandatory supervisory inspection fee. Online payment processing costs are calculated separately and not included in this estimate.
B. E-commerce Expenses
Hosting/Domain: HUF 312,000/year.
Platform (Shoprenter Gold): HUF 400,000/year.
Payment processing: 1.5% on 57% of revenues.
Product photography: HUF 25,000/year (20 stock photos).
Shipping OPEX: HUF 500,000/year.
C. Marketing & Advertising
Online Ads: HUF 1,800,000/year.
SEO tools: HUF 480,000/year.
Email Marketing: HUF 96,000/year.
Note: These are minimized figures, well below best-practice levels of 12–20% of annual revenue. Artificially excluded to lower the break-even point.
D. Labor Costs
Scenario 1: Solo Entrepreneur (1 employee)
Scenario 2: Small Team (2 employees)
Gross Salary per Employee: HUF 8,017,200/year.
Total Labor Costs per Employee: HUF 9,300,000/year.
Freelancers Activity: minimal outsourcing for graphics and social media.
Freelancers Costs: HUF 120,000/year.
4. FIXED COSTS
Software (invoicing only): HUF 120,000/year.
Accounting: HUF 600,000/year.
Legal retainer: HUF 60,000/year.
Licenses/Permits: Not included.
5. VARIABLE COSTS
Shipping 1 employee (customer orders): HUF 4,900,000/year.
Shipping 2 employee (customer orders): HUF 5,650,000/year.
POS Payment Processing: 1.5% on 12.5% of total revenue (assumes 25% in-store sales, 50% paid by card).
6. EMERGENCY FUND & CONTINGENCY
Recommended: 10–15% of revenue.
Modelled: not included in the model to improve outcome
7. TAXES
Corporate tax rate is a flat rate of 9% on taxable profit. The Local Business Tax (IPA) is not based on net profit, but on a modified gross revenue or turnover based maximum 2% tax.
Section 2: Standard Playbook Output
Section 3: Preferential Playbook Output
Disagree? Good. I don’t write to be right—I write to be tested. Bring your “Tenth Man” view, your sharpest counterpoint, or even a quiet doubt. Sometimes the most useful critique is the one that unsettles my own thinking.
Don’t forget to subscribe for more Critical Hungary Insights!