They have been many and they have shouted loudly. The aquaculture industry, the power industry, small businesses with high electricity consumption, people on social security, poor families with children, aid organisations. They have all pointed to the government. It is fair and reasonable. But politically it is also relevant to ask the question: What is the alternative? This is an analysis of how this autumn’s most controversial issues are met by the opposition. It gives some surprising perspective. The problems for the government are at least as demanding for the opposition. Everyone needed the power money The government proposes to get more money from the power industry, especially when the price of electricity is extra high. For 2023, the government’s model brings in NOK 3 billion. The scheme has been criticized by the industry and the owner municipalities. The critics believe it will be able to help manipulate the operation of the water reservoirs and prevent investments in new, green energy because the tax is not performance-based. In practice, the Conservative Party does the same as the government, but promises to discontinue the scheme from 2024. The FRP uses the income from the high-price contribution from the second half of 2023, but cuts the scheme in the first half. KrF wants the tax to be calculated differently, but based on the same income for the state. The Liberals create – in contrast to the Conservatives, who only point to the problem – a result-based tax. But Venstre uses the same amount from the same industry to make the budget go up. The party also wants a slightly lower basic interest tax for the power industry permanently than the government proposes. Retains part of tax growth In the government’s budget proposal, taxes and duties increase by a total of NOK 45 billion. The Conservative Party cuts the overall tax burden by NOK 10 billion (22 per cent of the government’s increases). The Liberal Party cuts NOK 5.6 billion. KrF increases by NOK 3.8 billion. The main reason why the government pursues a different tax policy than the opposition is because the government wants more redistribution. Right now, some of the tax increases are due to expenses increasing faster and more sharply than expected. So there are far more people than the government parties who see themselves having to partially agree with it. With 47 billion in an unexpected electricity subsidy bill, it was not enough to improve public efficiency and save corona expenses. The FRP completely stands out and cuts NOK 55 billion in taxes and duties. On the other side for the government, the three parties increased taxes and duties. MDG, Rødt and SV increase taxes twice and three times as much as the Conservative Party cuts them. Greater distance between the Conservative Party and FRP than the Conservative Party and the government The government is keen to hold back on spending in order to avoid further interest rate increases. The Liberals and the Conservatives are cutting another 2 billion in the use of oil money. SV technically cuts 109 million. KrF, MDG and SV argue that the aid funds do not create pressure in the Norwegian economy and in slightly different ways, but with the same effect, they use oil money to increase aid. In any case, the three parties will take around 20 billion “from future generations in Norway” to pay the aid bill next year. The political distance between the Conservative Party and the FRP increases when you compare the budget proposals. Photo: Håkon Mosvold Larsen / NTB Frp does not get its supplies from the Statens Pensjonsfond Abroad (Oil Fund), but needs NOK 27.5 billion from the Statens Pensjonsfond Inland. The FRP’s move shows that the party is struggling to a greater extent than the Conservatives and Liberals in creating an operating budget that does not require piggy-bank crushing. That is the big difference. The FRP’s budget also has a number of non-feasible or actually funded measures, such as liquidating regional health undertakings, the county council and the state administrator from 1 January without counting on any liquidation costs and notice period for employees. If the opposition is to criticize the government for not calculating the costs of disbanding counties and municipalities, it is strange to keep going like this. Measured in kroner, the distance between the Conservative Party and the government is 10 billion in taxes and 2 billion in fund withdrawals. Between the Conservative Party and the FRP, it is 47 billion in taxes and 27 billion in fund withdrawals. With its budget moves, the FRP chooses a strategic solo approach which, strictly speaking, is probably as big as the political one. The question in the long term is what this does to the possibility and probability of a new civic gathering and cooperation. Far from a majority for a different electricity policy Since the late summer, the electricity debate has really taken off. Even with generous electricity support for households, the demand for a maximum price, business support, support for teams and associations and other things have characterized the debate. It is now clear what the government is faced with by opposition politics. In practice, the Conservatives, Liberals and SV are in complete agreement with the government. The Conservative Party’s previously proposed 800 million for electricity support for business, typically dry cleaners and butchers, is not to be found in the budget alternative, nevertheless. On top of the government’s 47 billion, KrF will use 13.4 billion for private (maximum price 50 øre), the voluntary sector, agriculture and small shops. (Not business.) KrF will tax those with the highest incomes more to afford this. FRP will use 22 billion for electricity support in the first half of the year for households, cottages and businesses. Rødt (maximum price 35 øre) and MDG (NOK 10,000 paid per person) also have alternative electricity support models that give money back to households. A debate about what the welfare state should be The parties think differently about child benefit. It is a pretty perfect illustration of what the welfare state should be in the future. Should the state offer families with children services, such as direct support, taxable income or less tax expenses? Photo: Gorm Kallestad / NTB The government thinks the most important thing is to offer concrete services. Therefore, 1.7 billion is allocated at a reduced maximum price in kindergarten, free kindergarten for child number three and a half-day place in the after-school scheme for all first-graders. The Conservative Party and KrF would rather offer money to everyone regardless of income. Child benefit is therefore increased. The Conservative Party actually spends more money than the KrF on the KrF’s long-standing battle. The parties believe this is the most targeted in the fight against poverty. KrF even reverses SFO (free service) to finance increased child benefit. The Conservatives want both. The Liberals will not spend more of the state’s money. Therefore, child benefit is taxed as income for the richest in order to be able to offer a lower child benefit than the Conservative Party, but more than the government. The FRP believes that the state should neither offer more money nor free services. The FRP wants people to keep more of their income even from the start, so tax and duty cuts are the answer. Probable broad settlement on salmon tax Much noise and much partly justified criticism of the process: The government seems to have a broad majority in favor of ground rent for aquaculture, if the cards are played correctly next year. Neither the Liberal Party, KrF nor the Conservative Party refuse to vote for an adjusted model of the government’s proposal. SV, Rødt and MDG will apparently also support this. The FRP are clearly opposed to any adjustments. Still full aid gap on the civilian side The government lacks NOK 14.3 billion for international aid to be 1 per cent of our gross national income. KrF increases aid by DKK 22 billion to 1.1 per cent. Liberal pluses of NOK 3.75 billion, not enough for 1 per cent. The Conservative Party cuts NOK 845 million. FRP cuts NOK 10.6 billion. Where individual election promises go to die The alternative budgets are undervalued documents. They will never be adopted, is the refrain. Very few party programs or representative proposals in the Storting do that. But this is where all election promises to “invest in” and “strengthen” must be outlined as concrete proposals for decisions. The alternative budgets are the only comprehensive message from the Storting groups in opposition to the voters and the national meetings about how the party program can be implemented. Are the policies connected? Does it stand the test of reality and do the calculations work out? KrF must drop key election promises such as holiday weeks for parents of young children and cash support to “help sick parents”. We couldn’t afford that this year. The Conservatives can only take home one science lesson for everyone, not one extra, optional school year. That’s something to write home about, too.
ttn-69
Everyone needed the money – Speech
