It happened in those days that orders went out from Løvebakken that billions should be distributed. Norwegian politicians did not hand out gold, frankincense and myrrh, but corona compensation, an oil tax package and electricity subsidies. These crisis packages gave mostly to the biggest companies and those with solid profits, work for foreign hires and those who earn the most. The price for the large crisis packages in the period after 2020 has probably exceeded NOK 100 billion. That is more than three times more than Norway spends on the police in one year. In contrast to the picture below, Ap, Sp and Høyre have been unanimous in their yes to the crisis packages. Sp, Ap and Høyre have largely voted for the same crisis packages in recent years. Photo: Berit Roald / NTB Those who earned the most, got the most The electricity support for people is by far the largest of the crisis packages. In 2022, NOK 32.6 billion was distributed through the scheme. Until October, NOK 6.4 billion had been paid out last year. The aim of the scheme was to help “ordinary people throughout the country” to deal with the record high electricity prices. But news’s analyzes have shown that those who earn the most have received the most electricity subsidies and save the least on electricity. Power consumption has also increased when the scheme has become more generous. One of the areas that stood out with a lot of electricity support and high incomes is Holmenkollen in Oslo. Holmenkollen in Oslo. Photo: Javad Parsa / NTB The reason why many have received so much in support is that the scheme covers up to 5,000 kilowatt hours a month. This is three times higher than a detached house’s average monthly consumption. news has spoken with Conservative leader and former prime minister Erna Solberg, SP leader and finance minister Trygve Slagsvold Vedum and Eigil Knutsen (Ap), who is the leader of the finance committee at the Storting. Swipe to see their answer to why their parties supported that the state should turn up in this way: Terje Pedersen / NTB Trygve Slagsvold Vedum (Sp) Finance Minister Vedum says that the high ceiling for electricity consumption benefits both those with high and normal incomes. – Especially for some people with older, poorly insulated houses, electricity consumption could be quite high in the hardest months. That is why it was right to set the ceiling as high as we did. – We do not redistribute through the electricity bill. We redistribute through the tax system, he adds. Gorm Kallestad / NTB Erna Solberg (H)Høyre voted for the government’s electricity subsidy scheme. But they first wanted a slightly different scheme. – Our proposal for electricity support for households had a lower ceiling, and it had a more social profile, says Solberg. Solberg does not want to change the scheme now. – Now it is important to create a certain calm around the arrangements we have. Ole Berg-Rusten / NTB Eigil Knutsen (Ap) Knutsen in the Ap says that the scheme is very good, but not perfect. – Large consumers of electricity get a lot of support, and the ceiling on consumption in the scheme is high. But it is necessary for someone who lives out in District Norway with large, drafty houses. He believes there are other ways to reduce electricity consumption than tightening the scheme. – We are now putting up an ENØK billion in the state budget . Received crisis support despite surplus Companies also received electricity support at the end of 2022. But in the accounts of the companies that received support, there was no major crisis to trace. Companies with a profit received NOK 1.8 out of NOK 2.8 billion of the electricity subsidy for business, news has shown. In addition, up to 170 companies have broken the government’s dividend ban. This is what Vedum, Solberg and Knutsen say about the scheme (sweep): Frode Fjerdingstad / news Erna Solberg (H)Høyre voted for the crisis solution. But they did not want demands for ENØK measures. – If you can afford to take reasonable measures, you basically have better finances. Many of those who struggled the most did not have the opportunity to do the ENØK measures, says Solberg. the result we see now, – The result is that very many of these companies that received electricity support are actually doing well, she adds. Synne Lykkebø Hafsaas Eigil Knutsen (Ap) Knutsen says that we cannot know what would have happened without the Energy Subsidy Scheme. – Then they could have, for example, dismissed people, which has always been the main goal to avoid. – But did they really hit hard enough on the companies that were really struggling? – The most important thing about electricity is to get secure enough access to clean and affordable energy. It is a more long-term picture. Marius André Jenssen Stenberg / news Trygve Slagsvold Vedum (Sp) When asked what he thinks about the fact that most of the electricity support ended up with companies with a profit, Vedum replies: – A lot of it is support measures for ENØK. And it was completely deliberate. Precisely so that we could be sure that you got an extra effect from that money. – Would it have been more desirable if you hit more of the companies that were struggling financially? – We chose to create a scheme that was a lot about energy saving, replies Vedum. The billions for the oil industry When the corona pandemic washed over the world in the spring of 2020, oil prices plunged. To save Norwegian jobs, the Storting gave the oil industry tax breaks to get them to invest. Kjell Inge Røkke’s Aker system had managed the most developments under the tax package. Photo: Anne Skifjeld / news However, after the oil tax package was adopted, increased hiring of employees followed, half of which were brought in from abroad, news has shown. How much the oil tax package has cost in lost tax revenue is unclear. Calculations from the end of 2022 showed that the cost was around NOK 30 billion. This is what the politicians say about the controversial crisis arrangement: Vidar Ruud / NTB Eigil Knutsen (Ap) It was wise to take measures for the oil industry in 2020, Knutsen believes. – We risked that several large shipyards could be bankrupted, as a result of missing assignments. – Did the Storting take too hard on the oil tax package? – The oil tax package was not perfect either, like most schemes introduced by the Storting. After all, the government has subsequently adjusted and reduced the exempt income in the scheme. I think that was wise. Beate Oma Dahle / NTB Trygve Slagsvold Vedum (Sp) Vedum recalls that the lowest oil price was 20 dollars a barrel, and that shipyard jobs were at risk. – We see that there are very large investments in the Norwegian oil and gas industry now. We didn’t know that when we adopted that package. Vedum defends that the oil tax package should last until 2022, even if the drop in oil prices was short-lived. – The actors had to know that there was a long-term plan behind this. Then I took over as Minister of Finance and reduced the exempt income, because the conditions had become so different. Terje Bendiksby / NTB Erna Solberg (H) The oil tax package was too favorable, says Solberg, who was prime minister when it was adopted. – The government proposed a different framework with both a shorter period and a lower level of exempt income, than what was the result in the Storting. When the Conservatives got the majority against them in the Storting, they turned around – What responsibility do you have for it turning out the way it did? – We could choose to be against the latest changes to this scheme. But it would have been passed anyway with the majority in the Storting. The big ones got the most During the pandemic, many industries were shut down. In order to save viable companies, the authorities created a compensation scheme. It cost NOK 14.6 billion. Petter Stordalen’s hotel chain was the group that received the most money from the corona support scheme. Photo: Terje Pedersen / Terje Pedersen A high ceiling on support meant that a few received a lot. Five companies at one point shared almost half of the corona support, news showed. Although incomes fell sharply at many companies, the majority of those who were able to support themselves managed to do well financially. E24 showed that half of the companies that received corona support had a larger profit in 2020 than the year before. The politicians defend the scheme: Håkon Mosvold Larsen / NTB Trygve Slagsvold Vedum (Sp) All that was missing was that companies received support when they were hit by a crisis they were not to blame for, says Vedum. – We did it to save, for example, the tourism industry, which was very much under pressure. Fortunately, we see that things are going better for the tourism industry now than we might have thought would go in spring 2020. Lise Åserud / NTB scanpix Erna Solberg (H) That the state stood up when they shut down was just missing, Solberg believes. – It was generous support, but it was also a responsibility that we took because we had decided that they could not run their own economic activity. And I think that was the right thing to do. Ole Berg-Rusten / NTB Eigil Knutsen (Ap) Knutsen defends the compensation scheme, – It has certainly been worth spending money during the corona to keep people in work. He adds that the Labor Party in the electricity subsidy set demands for, among other things, a ban on dividends. – For future crises, we must ensure that the schemes are fair, so that they have legitimacy among taxpayers. The state gives, Norges Bank takes The support schemes have been broad. This means that no assessments have been made of the individual companies’ need for money. – Sometimes you have to make the systems so simple that even those who do not need help as much, also get help, says Solberg. – We do not want to gamble with people’s jobs and safety. That is why we created these types of measures. Then you can always say in retrospect that we could have done a little less here and a little more there, says Vedum. At the same time as the state has distributed billions in crisis support, Norges Bank has set interest rates so that people and businesses will spend less money. The aim is to fight inflation, i.e. rising prices. The central bank has raised the interest rate far more than expected, and most Norwegians will receive a housing interest rate close to 6 per cent after the interest rate increase in December. Theoretically, Norway could have had lower inflation without the crisis packages, says Vedum. But he believes that part of the spending has nevertheless been correct. – We believe it has been far too brutal not to support the broad strata of the population through electricity support, he says. – Could some of the crisis packages have been too favorable? – It’s a bit like when you buy insurance, you might think that you might be insuring yourself a little too much on certain things, replies Vedum. Solberg points to the oil tax package as too extensive, and believes that it has contributed to pressure on the economy. – I believe the other packages were correct, she says. One of the first projects that came after the oil tax package was Aker BP’s HOD development, where Aker Solutions got much of the work. Photo: Tariq Alisubh / news In Ap, Knutsen says that they will not hesitate with new crisis packages, but that the politicians must learn. – We must manage to hit the companies and workplaces that are most in need of help, he says. You can read more about the crisis packages here:
ttn-69
The crisis packages where the rich got the most – news Norway – Overview of news from different parts of the country
