We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Urgent Question to the Minister of Finance
Details
Submitted by[?]: Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party)
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 3941
Description[?]:
| Mr Speaker, I seek leave to ask an urgent question of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is on the public record as having stated that "We will certainly make sure that the deficit is down at the end of this tenure." He said in particular that his preference for cuts was "especially true for sectors such as infrastructure". I'd like to table a copy of the news report containing his statement. In light of his comments, I ask the Minister of Finance: 1) Can he give the house an approximate figure for any cuts to expenditure and any changes to the tax code? 2) Can he guarantee that there will be no cuts to social security? If not, where will those cuts fall and on what basis does he claim that those cuts are necessary and equitable? 3) Can he guarantee that there will be no cuts to health and education? If not, where will those cuts fall and can he guarantee that those cuts will not reduce the quality of services? If not, how can he justify reductions in the quality of services? 4) Can he guarantee that there will be no cuts to trade and industry? If not, where will those cuts fall and can he guarantee that there will be no increase in unemployment as a consequence of those cuts. If not, how he can justify the social costs of the unemployment that he will be inflicting on Kazulians? 5) Can he guarantee that there will be no cuts to infrastructure and transport? If not, where will those cuts fall and which infrastructure projects will be terminated? Further, how can he justify those cuts? 6) Can he guarantee that there will be no cuts to environmental protection? If not, where will those cuts fall and can he guarantee that environmental protection will not be weakened? If not, how does he justify the inevitable degradation of the environment? 7) Can he guarantee that low income earners will not be subject to tax increases, including on consumption? If not, how substantial does he expect those tax increases to be, and how can he justify slugging the disadvantaged despite his aversion to taxing the most privileged? I look forward to the response from the Minister of Finance. Hanne Endal Labour finance spokesperson |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:17:10, August 31, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Urgent Question to the Minister of Finance |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I thank Mrs. Endal for her interest on this subject and will gladly answer them as far as I can without disclosing coalition internalia. 1.) Thas has not yet been settled. But I think it would be adequate to say that the deficit should be a cut at least by a third. On the tax code, we will first and foremost try to bring down the high rate of the luxury tax to make these goods more affordable to the masses. 2.) No, I cannot guarantee that as Social Security currently encompasses much, much more than a solid safety net for the poor. In particular, we will cut funds from this area on the basis that we currently subsidize the rich just as much as the poor, which is not our understanding of how a welfare state should function. We will, however, make sure that the vulnerable remain protected through social security by retaining assistance in the areas of health care etc. 3.) This will depend on the preferences of our coalition partners, but if there are cuts in this area, then we will make sure that these are counter-balanced by new policies that enhance the quality of services without necessarily requiring high levels of public spending, which can be done through a greater private sector involvement if necessary. 4.) Trade and Industry will be one of the areas where we will seek to cut the most, as we do not abide to the idea that it is public spending that should be primarily responsible for guarenteeing employment. Through privatization and liberalization, we have already paved the way for a more market-oriented functioning of the economy where resources are funneled back into the private sector so that entrepreneurs can invest and create jobs. 5.) Infrastructure is also one of the areas where we we will cut on the basis of privatization, that is to say, there is a case to be made for cutting spending if the private sector can provide services more efficiently, at least in part. 6.) We believe that the environment can be protected adequately without highly invasive government regulation. Property rights are important safeguards for ecology, and we will trust the citizens to a greater degree. This may or may not encompass spending cuts, depending on our coalition partners' willingness. 7.) Mr Speaker, taxes on consumption are less harmful than taxes on income as they do not cripple consumption. We might introduce a low-level VAT on basic goods while continuing to reform the economy towards greater productivity and less regulation, allowing businesses to produce at a lower cost. The money raised through this might be used for lowering the deficit or cutting the rate of luxury goods so that they become more accessible to everyone, including the middle and lower classes. However, this tax will be checked for its social impact before, and I can rule out income tax increases for any bracket of income. Prof. Hans Granlund (FV) Minister of Finance |
| Date | 12:35:11, August 31, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Urgent Question to the Minister of Finance |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. Nevertheless, there are many aspects of his response that the Labour Party finds profoundly problematic. Let me go through the issues one by one. 1) While the Labour Party does not in principle object to reducing the budget deficit per se, it is not acceptable for a government to abandon its duty to provide public services and investment in pursuit of this objective. Furthermore, I see a fundamental contradiction between the government's stated objective of tax cuts and its promises of a balanced budget. So much for the hon. gentleman's [Granlund's] repeated statements in the past about fiscal responsibility. Unless, of course, the spending cuts that he intends to implement are so savage that the deficit can be reduced even with tax cuts, which is obviously extremely concerning to the Labour Party and would represent an absolute betrayal of the people of Kazulia. 2) We are relieved that the hon. gentleman has committed to retaining a safety net for the most vulnerable, and I thank him for his commitment, but let him be warned: we will hold him to his promise. Let me also express the Labour Party's objections to the policy of removing social support for the more well-off. Labour sees all Kazulians as deserving of the solidarity of their fellow citizens, and it is deeply ironic for a party which claims to reject class warfare to be advocating cuts that strip Kazulians of social insurance on the basis of class. 3) It is unfortunate that the Minister cannot commit to retaining the valuable investment that the last Labour government made in the areas of health and education. It will be to the lasting detriment of those who depend on these services, and the impact of the cuts, if they occur, will be felt for years given that the education system now will be producing the workers and citizens of Kazulia for decades to come. Moreover, the hon. gentleman has failed to identify any policy that will be implemented to counter-act spending cuts, and in my view it is not sufficient for him to simply make vague references to "new policies" and expect the people of Kazulia to be content while the axe of spending reductions is dangled over their vital public services. Let me also make the point that the hon. gentleman has not been able to provide any reassurance that private sector involvement will not lead to the profit motive taking precedence over the users of these services, and nor has he taken account of the inequities that will inevitably arise as a result. 4) It is a disappointment that the Minister has allowed his ideological biases against public spending to come before consideration of the very real social costs of unemployment. Surely the people who will suffer as a consequence of the massive cuts that he has openly promised - we can at least credit him for his honesty - should come before these ideological shibboleths. Moreover, it is also disappointing that the hon. gentleman has not been able to persuasively explain why the government should step back from its duty to provide support for employment in favour of the private sector. He has not provided any reassurance as to the inequities that will likely result from greater public sector involvement. 5) I reiterate my concerns as stated above in regards to the Minister's responses to questions 3 and 4. Furthermore, I note that the Minister has not actually been able to identify any projects that will be terminated as a consequence of his cuts. For a man who prides himself on his integrity, it is a shame that he has chosen to be evasive in this regard. But wherever the cuts fall, I fear that not only will the stimulatory effect of infrastructure investment be lost, but years of potential gains from these investments will be forgone. The Labour Party finds it deeply regrettable that the short-termism of surplus fetishism has gotten in the way of long-term economic planning. 6) Unfortunately Labour does not share the hon. gentleman's confidence in the market system. If the hon. gentleman genuinely believes that the market is sufficient to protect the environment, he will have to account for the degradation of the environment that regularly occurs in market economies all around the world. Let me make clear that Labour stands for the protection of our environment because it is economically right and more importantly ethically right, and we are willing to spend money on it if needs be. 7) We are glad that the hon. gentleman has ruled out tax increases, especially for the most vulnerable. However, what the Minister fails to understand is that consumption taxes are fundamentally inequitable as they are inherently regressive. We in the Labour Party can only hope that he will come to that understanding when he undertakes his promised study into the social impact of such a consumption tax. Nevertheless, we can give our tentative support to the possibility of a reduction in luxury taxes, although again I reiterate that there is a contradiction between his conflicting objectives of balancing the budget and cutting taxes. Mr Speaker, as I said at the beginning, I am grateful that the Minister has taken the time to respond to this urgent question. Although he has on occasions been evasive, one might thank him for being more candid than one might expect of a Finance Minister promising deep cuts in public spending. Nevertheless, no amount of candour and openness will be sufficient to mitigate the social harms of his policies. The Minister was unable to guarantee health and education spending and unable to guarantee spending on environmental protection. Furthermore, he has made clear his intention to slash social security, trade and industry, and infrastructure, and has even raised the possibility of a regressive consumption tax. These policies are deeply inequitable. They strike at the heart of the welfare of ordinary Kazulians and at the social contract which has bound this society together. As much as I thank the Minister for addressing the questions put to him today, unfortunately I can only say that I deeply regret the substance of those answers, and I equally fear the policies which have been left unsaid. Hanne Endal Labour finance spokesperson |
| Date | 23:21:41, November 20, 2015 CET | From |  Moderation | To | Debating the Urgent Question to the Minister of Finance |
| Message | OOC: Putting to the vote for archiving. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 69 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 55 |
| Random fact: "Nation raiding" or a malevolent coordinated effort by a single user or group of users to interrupt the gameplay, significantly alter the culture or direction of a nation is strictly prohibited. Players interacting in nation raiding will be sanctioned. |
| Random quote: "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" - Mahatma Gandhi. |