On January 1, the new and controversial salmon tax came into force. From now on, salmon producers must pay 40 per cent of their surplus to the state. But the deadline for providing input on the proposal does not expire until today. Over 200 have submitted hearing recordings. The Regulatory Council has also done that. It is a professionally independent council that is subject to the Ministry of Trade and Industry. They believe that the report from the ministry has several weaknesses. The council insists, among other things, that the tax will come into force before the consultation round is over. – It is possible that I am becoming forgetful, but I have never experienced this before. I don’t think it’s normal. In any case, the Rules Council believes that it is unfortunate. AVOIDED ARGUES: – Perhaps several disagreements and some of the noise would have been resolved if there had been good involvement in advance. Photo: Regelradet.no This is according to the head of the Regelrådet, Sandra Riise. Record before final decision He elaborates: – It is an unfortunate use of the hearing institute. – When you send cases out for consultation, it is to get input that is important to be considered before a final decision is made. One should therefore get to know and know what has been received from hearing responses, according to Riise. – This is the usual thing to do before the authorities make a final decision. – The industry is not sufficiently involved. In addition, there is a new law with a new tax. Then the Regulatory Council believes that it would be natural to carry out an evaluation after a given period of time. – It is not in the proposal, and we think it should be. We must constantly think about how we can involve business in the most efficient way possible. Riise emphasizes that there is a lot of good quality when it comes to the basis for the decision. It is still not good enough for a green light. – I think perhaps it came about a bit surprisingly and unexpectedly, and that the industry was not sufficiently involved in advance. She points out that there was an input meeting with the authorities, but that this was carried out after the case was sent for hearing. Frp: – Pinleg It was during a press conference at the Blaafarveværket in Modum in Buskerud in September that Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finance Minister Trygve Slagsvold Vedum took the salmon industry to bed. There was a row almost immediately. The share price fell and several predicted job losses along the coast. But the government has stood its ground. The community needs the money, is their conclusion. And rich breeders can afford to pay more, they believe. Dagfinn Olsen in the FRP sees the statement from the Rules Council as a clear signal to the government. – It is embarrassing that they themselves are undressed to such an extent by this regulation. POSTPONE: – When your own advice is taken in this way, it should be the strongest signal that you put the brakes on and put the whole thing off until they have done a proper job. Photo: Mathias Mikalsen / news The party itself has said that there is no basis for ground rent. Olsen explains that such fish do not come into existence by themselves, such as, for example, oil, gas and hydropower. – But: if the industry wants it, then one must at least sit down with the industry and go through it. – Not surprised Olve Grotle is fisheries policy spokesperson in Høgre. He is also critical of the process. – It is premature. Then it is important that you get back in so that you can finally get a land rent tax that can gather a broad majority in the Storting and stand for a long time. – For me, it is not surprising. UNFORTUNATE: – The unfortunate thing is that the aquaculture industry is subject to a new tax regime that has clear shortcomings, is uncertain, and has come about in an unfortunate, not to say irresponsible, way. Photo: Ole Kollstrøm Heilevang / news Grotle points out that there are many who have come forward with hearing responses. These refer, according to Grotle, to what he calls the obvious shortcomings that the entire land rent tax has when it comes to the proceedings. – We have been clear all along that we should have had a normal, normal process. – Where one does not, in any case, decide that the system shall come into force before the consultation deadline has expired and before the Storting has considered the matter. Grotle explains that they have therefore requested that the government take a step back and follow the normal procedure. Grotle believes that the government must take into account that the industry has come up with its proposal, and then they must also consider this in the work to be done going forward. Responding to the criticism news has been in contact with the Ministry of Finance, which cannot comment quietly this evening. Geir Pollestad speaks on behalf of the Center Party and thinks the yellow light from the Rules Council is something to live with. – It is a broad professional work that lies at the bottom of this case. Then there is a political majority that wants to implement a ground rent tax on farming, and we are doing that now. – I think that when the matter comes to a decision, there will be a broad political majority who either give up on the government’s plan or who in any case support the principle of introducing the tax. THE ACTORS ARE AWARE OF THAT: – So it is important that you get an orderly process for legal work and the implementation of the tax. The actors know that they get such a tax, and so I think that the facility will have less impact on how they actually run production this year. Photo: Odin Omland / news – Isn’t it a little strange that the consultation deadline is set after the tax has been introduced? – We say that a basic interest tax will apply for the income year 2023. The actors know that. – We have had a dialogue with the players and made changes to what they pointed out when it comes to determining the value of the salmon. We have met them on that. – Could they have involved the industry to a greater extent, as the Regulatory Council points out? – Now I don’t think that stock market sensitivity is the Regulatory Council’s main area of expertise. – Our assessment was that someone here should, out of consideration for equal treatment of shareholders, announce this at some point. According to Pollestad, it was seen that this had an impact on the stock market value. Therefore, he believes that it was the right way to do it. – If you ask an industry if they want 4 billion more in taxes, you will get no as an answer. It is quite obvious. It is a political wish for that tax to be implemented. – We are doing this because we think it is a better way to collect this money, than to collect it from people with ordinary wage income.
ttn-69
Explanation on ground rent tax has weaknesses – news Nordland
