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: Budget (3911)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes to change the allocation of funds in the budget. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 3912
Description[?]:
| Budget proposal of 3911 |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Sales tax on essential goods such as food and non-luxury clothing.
Old value:: 0
Current: 15
Proposed: 8
Article 2
| Ministry | Current Budget | Old Budget | Propesed Budget |
| Head of Government | 499,000,000 KKR | 400,000,000 KKR | 400,000,000 KKR |
| Foreign Affairs | 14,534,000,000 KKR | 12,738,575,460 KKR | 7,123,815,249 KKR |
| Internal Affairs | 21,334,000,000 KKR | 22,738,575,460 KKR | 22,738,575,460 KKR |
| Finance | 5,395,000,000 KKR | 13,492,383,640 KKR | 13,492,383,640 KKR |
| Defence | 82,678,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR |
| Justice | 22,731,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR | 44,385,239,790 KKR |
| Infrastructure and Transport | 140,000,000,000 KKR | 95,477,150,920 KKR | 89,862,390,709 KKR |
| Health and Social Services | 1,291,060,000 KKR | 176,984,767,280 KKR | 171,370,007,070 KKR |
| Education and Culture | 1,090,050,000 KKR | 150,000,000,000 KKR | 150,000,000,000 KKR |
| Science and Technology | 37,436,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR | 50,000,000,000 KKR |
| Food and Agriculture | 11,433,000,000 KKR | 28,492,383,640 KKR | 27,088,693,588 KKR |
| Environment and Tourism | 307,110,000 KKR | 28,492,383,640 KKR | 29,896,073,692 KKR |
| Trade and Industry | 26,656,000,000 KKR | 16,431,452,758 KKR | 9,413,002,495 KKR |
| Total | 365,384,220,000 KKR | 695,247,672,798 KKR | 665,770,181,693 KKR |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:48:31, September 23, 2015 CET | From | Sivilisasjonspartiet | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | We will vote in favour. |
| Date | 14:47:17, September 23, 2015 CET | From | Høyre (Right Vote!) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Support. |
| Date | 17:58:21, September 23, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Mr Speaker, this government has promised to overhaul the fiscal policies we inherited from a long streak of left-wing governments. As a first step, this budget proposal will outline the distribution of cuts we intend to implement to realize the two aims of reducing the deficit and at the same time cutting taxes. Our method is based on the approach coined by my noble predecessor and fellow liberal Professor Granlund, and embraces a doctrine of gradually balancing the budget. Overall, spending is cut by 4% through this proposal, which is about the same dimension of cuts that was past when FV was in government last time. The cuts correspond to the reforms we have proposed in separate bills on social services, economy, foreign affairs and other areas, and reflect this administration's commitment to a smaller state which, not despite but precisely because of its reduced size, is able to deliver vital services more efficiently and more innovatively, employing the values of competition and choice and not hesitating to involve the private sector, which has always been the main driving force behind modernization and improvement. With these reductions in spending, we intend to account for around 70% of the tax cuts we will propose in the near future. The remainder shall, if possible, be offset by the introduction of a General Sales Tax with the preliminary rate of eight percent. As estimations regarding the amount of revenue a GST can bring in vary greatly among economists, this rate is not carved into stone and can be adjusted according to the needs of the treasury once we know how much we can expect from it. We can, however, rule out another increase in GST should the current rate prove too low - if this happens, we will pass another round of spending reductions based on the allocation of cuts in this proposal. We are aware of the effects a GST might have on the level of prices, but we are determined to make sure that its introduction is flanked by a series of changes and reforms that boost productivity and increase industrial output so that consumers are better off in the end. An important measure in this respect will be a reduction in corporate tax, which stands out as one of the world's highest and greatly hampers our economy's potential of shining. We will also reduce the confiscatory tax burden currently being imposed on those in the top bracket of income, which prevents them from investing their capital into the economy and thus creating jobs and opportunity. Overall, this budget is the centerpiece of this administration's commitment to reform and liberalization, serving as the flagship of our agenda alongside the tax-related changes which we will propose once this bill has passed. I also wish to draw attention to the fact that we have chosen to retain current spending levels on education so that the school choice bill that is set to receive the Storting's approval has the financial firepower it needs to make a difference for our communities. We have also chosen to include a 5% increase in environmental spending as a demonstration of the commitment to the environment that Kazulia is famous for and which we will retain, albeit with a focus on less state-centric and more economically sensible solutions. We ask the Storting for approval and hope that we will receive broad support for these long overdue corrections. Leya Nordahl (FV) Minister of Finance |
| Date | 18:00:39, September 23, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | (OOC: Wasn't Green Kazulia defeated, actually? Will give either Gamst Pedersen's or Opland's response later.) |
| Date | 18:02:46, September 23, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | OOC: I just realized that it was indeed defeated, so I adjusted Nordahl's remarks. The environmental increase is now a symbolic measure and aimed at courting the Green party. |
| Date | 22:43:34, September 23, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Mr Speaker, The Minister for Finance made the imaginative claim that she would "gradually balance the budget", but the budget presented to this house tonight is hardly gradual in the deep cuts it makes to vital public services, and nor do we on this side of the house see very much balance in the budget - it is instead very clearly intended to serve the interests of the privileged few at the expense of ordinary Kazulian folk and the most disadvantaged in our society and abroad. I want to begin, though, on a note of consensus. Labour applauds the government's decision to increase spending on the environment. It was a necessary and responsible measure to ensure that we bequeath to future generations an environmental as liveable and as pristine as the one we inherited. We are also relieved that the government has decided to spare education from the axe. We can only hope that these spending increases reflect a permanent change in the priorities of the FV in particular, not a cynical political gesture. But I have to admit, Mr Speaker, that I do not have much confidence in that, because the tell-tale fingerprints of the government's harsh, Darwinian (OOC: Is there a Particracy term for that?) ideology are all over the budget presented to the house tonight. Labour will not support a budget founded on such appalling callousness. We will not support a budget which slashes funding for health and social services. For all the Minister's rhetoric about "modernisation and improvement", about "competition and choice" making public services "more efficient and more innovative", what we have seen is nothing less than the undermining the fundamental premise of social insurance: that it is there for everyone, that it is universal, an act of solidarity that binds out society together. Moreover, we have heard no concrete proposals for the "modernisation and improvements" that the Minister refers to other than the flogging off of public services to private investors, converting what should be public good to private profit - yet another servile kowtow to the FV's corporate masters. That is not acceptable. Padding the wallets of the already wealthy will do nothing to ensure that the patients' interests and the job-seekers' interests are looked after. Of course, cutting what the Minister's colleague, the Health Minister, brazenly derides as "folly" is the relatively easy sell, which makes it all the more insidious. What is most concerning is that the government has proposed to slash income support for the unemployed. The legislation provides for nothing more than a "minimum subsistence income". This is not a third-world country, you know. Nobody in a country with this level of wealth should be barely able to scrape together the scraps to feed themselves. Nobody should be left in a cesspool of poverty and deprivation. The sheer cruelty of this proposal is staggering, Mr Speaker, although given the Minister for Finance's record, one would have to be quite naive to be surprised. But there's more, Mr Speaker. After a couple of months, they'll cut off your payments altogether. How will they feed themselves? How will these house themselves? How will they provide for their families? Mr Speaker, what does the Minister propose that these people do? Drop dead? It is impossible to even comprehend what cognitive process would lead the Minister to feel that this proposal is just and equitable, not that that is a criteria for policy success to her, no doubt. Nor can she justify the social impacts of these cuts. She cannot justify the explosion in crime that would occur. She cannot justify the mental health problems that will spiral out of control. She cannot justify the family breakdowns. Frankly, the malignity of this sort of social vandalism exceeds anything that any previous government has proposed. Furthermore, the rhetorical war against the disadvantaged has been ratcheted up to a whole new level by the Minister, who think that disadvantaged and unemployment are "lifestyle choices". Is it a "lifestyle choice" when you lose your job to the massive cuts to industrial subsidies - almost 50% - that this government proposes in this awful budget? Is it a "lifestyle choice" when a farmer loses their job and their farm to cuts to support for agriculture? Of course not. The only person making lifestyle choices is the Minister of Finance, who thinks that the disadvantaged have too opulent a lifestyle. There is no better demonstration of why the FV cannot be trusted to govern Kazulia. Then there is the double-whammy of cuts to the minimum wage. If you are not in work, you will be brought to the edge of subsistence, or not at all if your don't learn to stop being lazy, as hon. members opposite might say, and get off your arse - [Speaker: That is unparliamentary. I ask the hon. member to withdraw.] I withdraw. But as I was saying, you will be paid barely anything or nothing at all if you if you are not in work, and only smidgen more if you do find a job. And yet the Minister, on several occasions, has seen it fit to pontificate about creating incentives for work. And just to rub salt into the wound, Mr Speaker, they're going to hit you with an 8% GST, a regressive tax that hurts the most vulnerable the most and the wealthiest the least. I say to the people of Kazulia, this government wants you to pay more for your essentials. Eight percent more for your groceries, for your electricity bill, for your petrol, for your medications and for your children's school textbooks. Not to worry though: in the long run there won't be an impact on prices because a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions and the mass unemployment that comes with further industrial and agricultural subsidy cuts will "boost productivity and increase industrial output", so you can spend what's left of your payslip to your heart's content, I mean, Mr Speaker, what absurd logical contortions. And don't forget: if the GST doesn't raise as much money as the government would like, they'll just squeeze public services a little bit more. The full injustice of these abhorrent proposals is perhaps most visible when looked at in contrast with the treatment accorded to the most privileged in society: people whom Labour respects like all Kazulians, but whom we believe must make a reasonable contribution to the welfare of the less fortunate. Unfortunately that is not the mentality of this government: corporation tax down by 5%; income tax for the richest down by 10%, your taxes up by 8%. Labour will not stand for the perverse reverse redistribution that this government intends to engage in. But this government is not just shirking its responsibilities to the disadvantaged in this country, it is shirking its responsibilities to the disadvantaged elsewhere. Foreign aid is not something that we do because we like to send money to other countries. We give aid because we believe in the obligation of the more fortunate to the less fortunate, a principle totally lost to this government. The Finance Minister's colleague, the Foreign Minister, went so far as to make the hysterical claim that foreign aid is a threat to our national sovereignty. He was "horrified", he said by the very idea, although clearly he was not horrified by his patronising and misogynistic attitude towards the leader of the FP in that debate, and clearly he was not horrified by the war and disease and poverty that is rife in the countries that he wants to cut loose. Shame on him, Mr Speaker, shame on him. And we have a government which is shirking its responsibilities to future generations. Investment in infrastructure is critical to our economic future. We cannot improve productivity - something that the Minister is very keen about - without improving physical mobility. Kazulia needs to be connected, not just socially but concretely by roads and rail and airports. The investments that we make today in infrastructure will repay themselves many time over through growth and prosperity. They will serve our children for decades hence. But, regrettably the Minister's austerity fetishism means that that is out of the question. It is yet another aspect of the budget that Labour unequivocally condemns. Of course, the Minister is always keen to trot out her standard excuse: the market will deal with it. But even she concedes that "it might be necessary to create additional incentives for our contracted partners". How can she reconcile those "additional incentives" - no doubt including the subsidies that she so abhors - with the cuts to government funding? Once again the Minister's ridiculous ideology of cuts has gotten her into a bit of a logical muddle. Let me close, Mr Speaker, with a word on the justice system. The rehabilitation programs introduced by past governments - Labour governments, I am proud to say - were effective. They reduced crime. They allowed people who had made serious mistakes to rebuild their lives and become once more constructive members of society. That is an impressive record of achievement which will now be utterly undermined by the government's reckless cuts to justice. So too will the effectiveness of the legal system itself, which will be too under-resourced to serve its proper role. It is not just justice for the poor and for working Kazulians that this government is bent on attacking, but the justice which underpins the law too. Mr Speaker, the budget presented by the government tonight is a catalog of assaults on the foundations of our society. It cuts at not just the dignity of the disadvantaged but their very ability to feed themselves, and it puts more people on the scrapheap as a result of its hatcheting of support for industry and agriculture. It cuts as the effectiveness of our health system and infrastructure and justice system. And it cuts at the reputation of Kazulia abroad as a humanitarian nation. Mr Speaker, the pledge Labour makes tonight is this: when the radical right ideologues that occupy the benches opposite hold an axe over the people of Kazulia, we will not stand for it. I condemn this bill to the house. Jonas Hogstad Leader of the Opposition |
| Date | 00:44:57, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Mr Speaker, after having been compelled to listening to this tedious rant for half an hour, I feel like what could be described as a jetlag resulting from a time warp back to the 3880s - if there is one thing the Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated with this bizarre apocalyptic prophecy which equals a spending cut of 4% with a demise into poverty and misery all across the nation, then it is the fact that Labour hasn't learned anything from its past mistakes. Have they forgotten how it ended for them when the hon. gentleman and his fellow communist dinosaurs were last in power? Does he require another battering by the voters? I fear it would be pointless, because the Metzist moron sitting opposite me has proven that it is impossible to knock some sense into him and his ilk even if you make them lose two thirds of their seats as happened when his faction was last in charge! Speaker: The Minister will withdraw the word moron. It is unparliamentary and I will not tolerate its use. Nordahl: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. But let me just point out how utterly nonsensical his accusations are: he claims that this budget comes "at the expense of ordinary Kazulian folk and the most disadvantaged in our society". Would he mind telling us whom he means by that? Is it the rich whose benefits we are scrapping, because we have better use for the money spent on such nonsense? He can continue his pseudo-intellectual babble about it being some sort of mystical "act of solidarity that binds out society together", but at the end of the day it is Labour who are defending tax money going to the wealthy while FV pushes for its abolition. Does he not notice the incoherency and sheer stupidity of blindly defending his obsession with free-for-all-welfare while accusing the government of "padding the wallets of the already wealthy"? Did he let his interns write his speech, or why is it so full of these incoherencies? Is he really unable to grasp the absurdity of his position? If yes, then my long-time suspricion that adherence to socialist ideology comes at the expense of mental sanity might after have been right. Speaker: This is the second time I have to issue a warning to the Finance Minister regarding her language. She must withdraw her comment and abide to the parliamentary code of conduct. Nordahl: I apologize, Mr Speaker. Maybe the Opposition Leader's warped way of thinking is a result of plain ignorance rather than mental issues. He says that we have no plan for modernization, and brushes off our privatization measures as some sort of conspiracy to line the pocket of our supposed "corporate masters". Quite the contrary is true, we want to eliminate the self-serving culture of bloatedness and bureaucracy the Labour party has allowed to infect these vital services by handing total control over them to their parasitical unionized overlords. Only through privatization can we make them accountable to the people again, because they will actually have to provide value for their money again and will no longer enjoy the privileges of state-guaranteed quasi-monopoly. It is obvious that the hon. gentleman would oppose that, because he doesn't care about the quality of services, he cares about their subordination to the whims of greedy, lazy and self-serving union bosses. This government will put an end to the unions' economic dictatorship, and I do frankly not care if we make them squeal in the process - this degree of cruelty I will admit to. Let me also address the hon. gentleman's concerns over our proposed changes to the minimum income, which are, as usual, completely unfounded. Saying that a permanent basic income is necessary to protect the unemployed is wrong because it creates false incentives which might lead to permanent unemployment. When we say that financial assistance should not exceed "a certain period of time", then we simply mean that it should cover the duration of job-seeking but expire when someone is unwilling to continue with looking for work. This is the lifestyle choice Labour wants to enable - opting for a life without work while living off the fruits of other peoples' work. Which, of course, resembles the biography of many Labour party deputies who have "worked" in the public sector or their tax-funded party apparatus their whole lives, which might explain their lack of understanding for the private sector or indeed any given aspect of economics. I have also made quite clear that our GST plan will be offset by measures that are designed to drive prices down, such as cutting the corporate tax and the top rate of income tax, which will set free a great deal of capital, which will in turn boost production and investment. The GST, of course, will be paid by everyone, including the rich, because everyone consumes essential goods. I find it quite ironic that Labour will endlessly defend rich peoples' right to claim benefits but doesn't have a problem with confiscating 65% of what they have rightfully earned through their own hard work and effort. What we are doing is championing a new form of work ethic, were private earnings are not decried but ambition is rewarded. Foreign aid is another example of Labour's fiscal irresponsibility. Everyone who reads the news will notice that throwing money at banana republics with failed political systems and disastrous economic policies doesn't work and doesn't bring about change for the better, but rather subsidizes failed structures. If we want to get real about ending the plight of the people living in these countries, then we better make sure that they are involved in global trade and business. The "war and disease and poverty" the hon. gentleman laments is a result of the false policies pursued by their corrupt leaders, and rather frequently these policies resemble his own. Perhaps sending money to communist dictators is just a part of his curious interpretation of the term "solidarity", which lets his mindset appear even more outlandish. I also wish to defend my esteemed colleague Erwin Schausberger against the Opposition Leader's smears - I have known the Foreign Minister for a long term and he is certainly not a mysognist, but a charming man whose wit and courtesy should serve as a shining example to men of lesser stature such as the hon. gentleman opposite. Speaker: This is the final warning I will issue to the Finance Minister. She must stop her personal attacks on the Leader of the Opposition. Nordahl: I apologize, but someone who calls others cruel, heartless and overall wretched on a regular basis should not be surprised if he gets slapped back from time to time. Let me come towards an end and address the hon. gentleman's accusations over our infrastructure reforms: when we say "additional incentives", what we mean is defining a flexible economic framework based on low taxes, pro-business policies and an encouragement of entrepreneurial spirit, which is exactly what we are trying to accomplish, and which is what he and will fight until the bitter end when the voters will demonstrate to him that they do not approve of the resurrection of "Old Labour", which they rightly gave the boot some time ago. Mr Speaker, the Labour party is a complete intellectual wreck, and its leader is a dead man walking who draws his inspiration from the mistakes of the past. Let us make sure that these socialist zombies never gain control of the treasury again until they finally manage to comprehend the message the voters sent to them. Leya Nordahl (FV) Minister of Finance |
| Date | 11:34:48, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Herr President, I congratulate Ms Nordahl on what is the most complex and truly impressive piece of mental and moral gymnastics I believe this house has ever seen. While attacking the leader of the opposition for the inconsistencies in his argument, may I point out the far greater inconsistencies in play here. Ms Nordahl has put forward a budget in which our citizens - and yes, I accept, regardless of income - shall pay 8% on top of current price for essentials. Now, for Ms Nordahl's sake - who may have forgotten what precisely these entail to the common Kazulian - allow me to lay it out. Bread, Herr President. Children's clothes, Herr President. Books, Herr President. The everyday Kazulian is expected to pay 8% extra for the food they need to live, Herr President. May I allow that to sink in to the benches around me? In order to actually live, to actually survive, Herr President, we are to be expected to pay 8% extra. We are to be expected to pay 8% extra to send our children to school clothed? Or does Ms Nordahl see it as merely prudent on the part of the working classes to control the expectations of their children now with hand me downs and ripped clothing? Perhaps that is prudent, Herr President, as they can expect no more from a future under this Government. Now, Herr President, the Finance Minister does indeed have the answer to our concerns. You see, we are not to worry, for the costs of this tax will be offset by a reduction in corporation tax and the upper band in tax. Yes, the average earner need not worry, for corporations this land over and the upper classes will have more money in their pocket. The mental gymnastics I mentioned, Herr President, truly applaudable. Those tax changes, unlike the GST, will have no effect upon our average citizen. Our average citizen will certainly not benefit from the rich becoming richer. And, when the Government is simultaneously overseeing an attempt to reduce the minimum wage, allowing businesses to concentrate wealth even more in their upper levels of management, they will most certainly not benefit from a reduction in corporation tax. Therein lie the priorities of this Government, Herr President, for all the world to see. We shall make life cost more, but offset it for the richest. I truly do congratulate Ms Nordahl, Herr President, for she has finally managed to put into legislation the true polar opposite of Socialism. I am sure her party founder will be most proud. I note that the only good thing about this entire proposal is the minuscule increase in Environmental spending. It is now quite clear to Kazulmark precisely how much the integrity and principles of an entire political party are worth. (sniggers from the opposition benches) I do certainly hope the ministerial cars and offices were worth a small increase in environmental spending and a dramatic decrease in the living standards of the average Kazulian. Herr President, what we see is a budget for the rich by the rich. A budget so lacking in humanity and compassion that the blood, sweat and tears of the technocrats behind it is still fresh. I certainly hope Ms Nordahl takes a moment to enjoy this feeling of success and victory, if that is indeed how she views this budget. There are a lot of people out there whose lives are about to become a good bit more difficult, Herr President. And they know precisely where to blame. Sosialistisk Folkepartiet shall proudly oppose the budget. Siri Hægeland SF Finance Spokesperson |
| Date | 11:59:50, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Herr President, As colleagues may have noticed, like many colleagues I have carefully prepared my remarks. However, before I start on the remarks I have prepared, circumstances force me to diverge from them a bit to address those who, directly or indirectly, will be following this debate across the nation. I am sorry for the display put on by the Finance Minister and the Leader of the Opposition just now. I fully understand that such displays may be enough to turn off your TV set in frustration. Politicians who seem (or are) more interested in personally attacking eachother than in attacking the very real problems our country faces, hurt the public dignity of this House and the confidence of every-day decent Kazulians in how politics in our country works. I regret that. As a member of this House, I feel responsible. And because of that, I apologise. Herr President, on to the matter on the agenda. Even though Folkepartiet is far from happy with the way in which the Minister of Finance has chosen to defend her budget, we congratulate her on presenting her budget to the Storting. And let me say this: in general, she strikes the right course. The truth is that it’s not just colleague Gamst Pedersen whose commitment to fiscally responsible government is strong; it’s very much part of Folkepartiet’s DNA. However, we do so for an altogether different reason than FV. Given the interest in my age recently, I think colleagues will allow me that I bring it up again. Quite frankly, my generation, my (in fact our) children, will pay the bill if we allow the deficit that we racked up in the Nilsen and Saeterbo era to continue unabated. In effect, and this is most visible for my generation, we are paying double: high taxes now to fund spending commitments that have been raised irresponsibly year after year by Labour; high taxes or alternatively the figurative death by a thousand cuts later because our national debt has spiraled out of control. This is the very real future perspective that we must confront and it is why the government must re-examine its spending commitments. So we agree on the destination. Not so much the way to that destination; that is where our paths diverge. I have already raised the callous way in which the government has cut foreign aid, a measure ruinous to our nation’s worldwide reputation for compassion in defence of human rights and dignity; one that is far disproportionate to the stated aim at that. Likewise, we have made a stand for family values against their parenthood tax, which is quite simply what their changes to child benefit amount to. I will not re-hash our positions in those debates – it suffices to say that we believe that in most cases, the government is searching for economies in the wrong places altogether. Sometimes, they are leaving the wrong places alone: we support the way in which the government is handling the Environment and standing up for funds in our schools, despite our disagreement, which the Finance Minister shares, with Høyre’s refusal to stop spending that money in a one-size-fits-all way. It’s always been our position that the way to a more fiscally responsible government need not necessarily be doing less; sometimes, it suffices to do things differently. The bureaucratic inefficiency that is very much a part of the Nilsen legacy that the new Labour leader is trumpeting is the first thing we should tackle. I am convinced there can be savings in every department if we re-examine a tight review of spending and internal government procedures, savings that most ordinary Kazulians won’t feel as heavily as the changes the government is proposing. But that’s merely salami slice tactics and it may not be enough. We have always believed that doing things locally can potentially lead to greater efficiency, and we are happy that this approach is finding increasing support with colleagues across the House. Sometimes, the national government is doing things that make you wonder: how on earth can they know what different communities need? One of the sectors in which that is most readily apparent today is the culture sector. I am proud of Kazulia’s culture. What you take out of the great cultural diversity that offers is different, but personally I am particularly proud of our world-famous classical music scene. It begs the question though: is our cultural sector not strong enough to flourish on its own by raising more private money? By supporting all art through the tax system, aren’t we inhibiting the growth of civil society initiatives to support our brilliant cultural scene? I think our cultural sector is strong enough to sustain itself if the government constrains its contribution to training and support for great cultural institutions like the Kazulian Radio Symphony Orchestra, with additional case-by-case cultural subsidies. More importantly, however, why are we still insisting that bureaucrats in Skalm oversee and run all the libraries and museums from Agatha to Kelvon? Just like our culture is diverse from one end of Kazulia to the next, the needs of our communities differ. The very real benefit would be a more diverse and locally-oriented culture which can react with greater dynamism to social developments on the ground. As important in the light of the current debate would be that such localism would undoubtedly lead to greater value for money and therefore much-needed savings. Being only 12 representatives with support staff, we do not have the full amount of civil service support the government has, but I think these proposals go a long way towards a better way to save the taxpayer’s money. Speaking of the taxpayer, may I congratulate the Minister on the long-needed introduction of a General Sales Tax? It has been something we have pushed for since the very first TV appearance of Hans-Peder Juel. We believe the current Sales Tax system is patently unfair to middle class families and unsustainable in the long run. Oddly, that is where we agree with Labour. Not because we believe the General Sales Tax is somehow unfair, but because we believe the government can do better and fairer than to cut the rate of those earning twice the average wage. Let’s not fool ourselves here: this is not capital we’re taxing, it’s the income of very high-earning Kazulians. It is indeed unacceptable to let everyone pay merely to let a wealthy banker or indeed a high-ranking civil servant keep more of his money. Here’s where Folkepartiet makes a different choice, one that though Labour will no doubt contend it doesn’t will benefit all of us. Instead of cutting the top rates of income tax, we would use the money from the General Sales Tax to cut the Luxury Sales Tax. And let’s not fool ourselves here: this is not something that helps the exceedingly wealthy. It means, quite simply, that for the less than basic needs of a modern hard-working Kazulian family, down to the working class, every kroner you pay adds half a kroner in tax. Let’s take an example close to home: my husband and I eventually wish to raise children and to do that, we need things like a pram. That will cost us 1.5 the times it actually costs. When they grow up, they’ll go to school and need books. They would normally cost, say, 100 kroner, but thanks to the tax, they actually cost us 150. And then I’m not even talking about the more expensive things that allow a family to be mobile both in the physical and in the digital sense. Far from making life easier for the least fortunate, this tax is depriving hard-working Kazulian families their chances of owning the environmentally-friendly cars we rightly require or of owning a decent computer to access the vast opportunities of the internet. Let’s not pretend any longer that this system is anything but exclusionary and unfair. By cutting the tax, we can end this situation and increase spending power across the board, not just for the happy few. Herr President, I urge the government to take into account our suggestions, despite being pessimistic that they will do so given the recent tone of debate in this House. That tone hurts confidence in politics and in this House, but more importantly to us, it obscures the fact that it doesn’t always have to be about heartless bourgeois parties versus brainless socialist parties, profits versus people, responsibility versus humanity. It obscures the fact that there is an alternative to all this, that we can end the divisiveness of budget debates like the one we have seen if we all pitch in. Folkepartiet cannot support the budget as it stands, but we will not do so without offering that alternative, and we hope for a constructive engagement to eventually replace the acrimonious competition we have seen. Nelline Opland (FP – Dreton) Leader of Folkepartiet |
| Date | 12:09:37, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Dei Grøne | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Dei Grøne will vote in favour of this bill. |
| Date | 12:19:23, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Mr Speaker, in the next budget I might be considering an increase in education spending to fund compulsory economics classes for socialists, because they obviously do not listen to what I have to say. There will be no 8% increase in prices because prices are related to the quantity of goods available and the cost of the factors affiliated to their production. If we cut corporation taxes by 10%, then we can expect that the remaining money is reinvested as corporations commonly do with the bulk of what they earn after considering running costs. Investment builds capital, and capital is the basis for production alongside the contribution of labor. If we make capital more affordable, and if we reduce the cost of employment, then we can expect the quantity of goods to increase, which will easily outweigh the impact of the GST. Businesses have no incentive to "concentrate wealth" in a truly free economy, because they are in a constant state of competition. Business owners are rivals, not fellow conspiracists. What they have to do to generate profit is generating goods that the public wants to buy. If we cut corporation tax and one business decides not to produce more but instead keep prices high to increase their profit margin then they will be undercut by a different company who pursues a low-price strategy for the same reason. Such is the logic of the marketplace - the hon. lady may sneer at these very simple truths as "mental gymnastics", but in doing so only demonstrates that she refuses to understand them for ideological reasons. What the hon. lady once again fails to mention when she complains that this is "budget for the rich" is the fact that we are cutting benefits for the rich in a scale never seen before. These benefits, which are completely unnecessary and create countless layers of superfluous red tape, have been implemented by the socialists and are defended by the socialists tooth and nail. This government is cutting them because we believe that we can demand self-responsibility and self-sufficiency from the nation's richest - tax them less, but deny them any kind of government welfare that they are not in dire need of. The hon. lady has the right to "proudly oppose the budget", but she will not succeed in creating a sense of shame on the government benches with her melodramatic lamentations about the supposed "cruelty" and "heartlessness" of this administration which resembles the same kind of hysterical babble spouted earlier by Mr Hogstad. Which leads me to the question why I had to listen to basically the same speech twice in a row, full of the very same allegations, fallacies and unfounded criticisms. What is the point of SFP? It is a carbon-copy of Old Labour and a completely pointless party with zero distinctive characteristics. When I say that this budget will mark the tombstone of the socialist idea, then I hope it will bury SFP alongside Labour because they are two only nominally different manifestations of the very same misguided world view. Leya Nordahl (FV) Minister of Finance |
| Date | 12:21:12, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | ooc: the last post was obviously a reply to Hægeland. Btw this thread is an example of great RP in my opinion. This is what a budget debate is supposed to look like. |
| Date | 12:30:30, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | ooc: very good RP, Nordahl certainly knows how to cut and cut deep. (and not just in the budget) |
| Date | 12:39:02, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | OOC: It'd probably be deeply off-putting to most voters though, as FP observes. Like two sarcastic kids throwing tantrums. |
| Date | 12:41:57, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | OOC: I know, but it's more fun this way :P |
| Date | 12:53:06, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | OOC: We should make it an OOC RP law that each government must present at least one budget (which is treated as a vote of confidence) in a parliamentary term (if it runs full term - you can't blame them if there's an early election). |
| Date | 13:11:51, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | OOC: Oh, despite Nelline's obvious dislike of this state of affairs, I do agree that it's fun and it allows me to give a little bit more depth to her character. |
| Date | 13:23:13, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | OOC: agree on the RP law - so if the budget fails the government should resign/call an election? |
| Date | 13:37:30, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | OOC: Yeah, I also agree on the RP law. I suggest we write it into the "Structure of Kazulian politics" bill I proposed. It'd be great to have the same sort of debate in a general policy sense on a sort of Queen's Speech (which as I understand it is given by the PM in Scandinavian politics IRL nowadays). Also Alain, are you going to respond to Nelline or is she being totally ignored? |
| Date | 14:06:57, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | OOC: Re: the budget failing, yep, that's right. |
| Date | 14:14:19, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | OOC: No, she's getting a reply. A less sharp one too. Mr Speaker, regarding the statement issued by the leader of Folkepartiet, I have the following to say: she is mistaken in suggesting that our budget redistributes from the rich to the poor because of the combination of GST - which I am glad she supports in principle - and the income and corporate tax cuts. 70% of the tax cuts are funded through spending reductions alone, which are, in turn, to a considerable degree based on reducing welfare for the rich, which, unfortauntely, the hon. lady opposes in the ara of child benefit because of symbolism, even though for different reasons than the left. And she is also mistaken when she argues that the high taxes on corporations and individual incomes do not affect capital accumulation, because capital is created when people invest their savings in order to produce. I am quite stunned by her implicit admission that FP, as a party which is generally considered right-of-centre, seems quite happy with the confiscatory income tax code written by Labour and does not put forward any ideas of how it could be reduced. The swing voters on the right will take notice of this fact, and will find that if they want to keep more of their income they will have to look towards other parties for help. Nevertheless, I think that cutting the so-called luxury tax is a commendable proposal, but I don't think it is enough as a stand-alone measure to create a fiscal policy that is able to kick-start the economy because more consumption will not suffice to overcome the deeper obstacles our businesses and workers are facing. We also agree that there is so much more waste that can be cut across all departments and are open to taking her suggestions into account in a future budget - however, I wish to emphasize that I do not regard her ideas as an alternative to our current budget proposal, but rather as supplementary measures that could be considered somewhere in the future. I also remain sceptical of whether it will bring down the debt if we just devolve responsibility over various questions to local governments, as we believe that government needs to become smaller in general and must be involved in less areas while she seems to believe that Skalm simply needs to transfer tasks to lower tiers of government. Leya Nordahl (FV) Minister of Finance |
| Date | 14:40:34, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Folkepartiet (People's Party) | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Herr President, I'm afraid the Minister of Finance has misconstrued the reasoning behind our choice in our Shadow Budget to give priority to lowering the Luxury Sales Tax. First of all, we never opposed the cut in Corporation Tax. Of course, we believe work should pay and we, too, think our income tax system needs fundamental reform. However, so long as a total overhaul is not on the table (and I'm saddened to find that it isn't, at least not in this budget), choices have to be made about what to tackle first and there we do make different choices. The Minister chooses to prioritise the most wealthy; we, however, take to the opinion that if there is also a way in which we can improve the spending power of many Kazulians through the sales tax system as opposed to a select few, that's the option we have to prioritise. And I'll be honest: I think the Minister is underestimating what the Luxury Sales Tax is doing to consumption in this country. It depresses consumption to such an extent that whole sectors of our economy are effectively being curtailed by the state in their functioning. That might not have been a problem back in the Nilsen days when the state effectively -was- those sectors, but it sure is now and it is depressing our economic growth. But it is a matter of principled choices, Herr President, where the Minister and I differ. It is her right and her mandate to choose to prioritise the wealthy few, after all. Folkepartiet's choice is for the hard-working middle-class families that keep Kazulmark's economy moving; people who may not grease the wheels with huge amounts of money, but who surely keep them moving. And that brings me to the Minister's criticism of our opposition to the parenthood tax: it is not mere symbolism. The Minister may be right that it eases the burden on the lower incomes somewhat. This budget, however, gives presents all around to the higher incomes and to the lower incomes. The only party that is overlooked are those very middle-class families who work so hard every day to power our economy. They will be too rich to remain unaffected by the parenthood tax and yet too poor to qualify from the income tax cuts. Our policy on the luxury tax is not a standalone policy, it is the fundamental choice that makes Folkepartiet different from the government. I'm passionate about giving those ordinary, decent and hard-working families the fair deal they deserve. That is what our counterproposals were about. Nelline Opland (FP - Dreton) Leader of Folkepartiet |
| Date | 15:24:23, September 24, 2015 CET | From | Borgerlig-Demokratiske Union | To | Debating the Budget (3911) |
| Message | Mr Speaker, it is a fact that the wealthy have the potential to accumulate the capital we need to produce more goods, and it is not only in their personal interest to cut their taxes but in the interest of wider society which benefits from a stronger economy. Apart from these utilitarian considerations, it is simply wrong to confiscate two thirds of what someone has earned to let bureaucrats and union bosses who have never run a business themselves decide how it is spent. We are prioritizing the cause of flattening progression because it is the economically sensible and morally right thing to do. And it is, of course, just a first step towards a fundamental reform of the tax code wherein everyone will see their income tax rate lowered. But due to the constraints of coalition government and our commitment to gradually balancing the budget at the same time, we cannot accomplish this in a single term. Let me also point out that middle class will benefit from the corporation tax cut because it affects many small and medium-size businesses just as it relieves big corporations. It is therefore not true that our budget does not help the middle class. Our regulatory and economic reforms help these people to set up and run a business at lower cost, less bureaucracy and less regulation, which is of great help to them regardless of taxation policy. This impact should not be underestimated either. Unfortunately, FP has not been particularly helpful in bringing about deregulation, so their commitment to relieving the middle class is not as strong as they would like us to believe. Leya Nordahl (FV) Minister of Finance |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 78 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 61 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Discuss flag designs at the Flag Designs thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37 |
| Random quote: "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." - Niccolo Machiavelli |