Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Kansas City BTS goggles TikTok Movie Doom

reads.

Listhaug says only stupid things. Solberg and burns money in addition

Hjertesukkene from the Right, the small, surviving group of fiscal conservatives is becoming more. The supporters of low public spending and small public sector get the green light to enjoy during prime minister Erna's regime. Generous oljepengebruk and clinical prioritetsangst is almost become commonplace for this government.

It is a cocktail of the old battle høyrefolk would expect to find in the bar on the socialist left on – not at the Right House.

ulcers for the party's haunted minority came in regjeringserklæringen and the debate that followed. Right anno 2019 want to use oljepenger "below the line": A slippery budsjettriks that makes that country's governing politicians can take from its oil wealth without reducing the financial leeway they would otherwise have to relate to.

So they can find space for the new regjeringskvartal (15 billion) and the new frigate (4 billion) without unselecting other major railway investments.

Politics is full of fakes, but rarely as obvious self-deception. And worse was when the prime minister suggested that those who have not supported the proposal to fund the new regjeringskvartal in this way would let the terrorist Anders Behring Breivik to win.

america's lack of inhibitions in both the spending and the rhetoric provokes many in the responsible part of the Right. As a frustrated, conservative soul put it on the tip for me the other day: "Erna Solberg is worse a Listhaug. Sylvi says only stupid things. Erna burns money in addition."

Whether the prime minister is listening to the critics is uncertain. There are few voters who are crying out for cuts in welfare. It also understands the internal opposition in the Right. On the hoax call several of the critics themselves often "ten-percent-Right" – level of support the party had received if they got throat again money bag. Kuttpolitikk is no valgvinner. Tomorrow the problem consists.

the Government's lack on self-control opens however the door ajar for a larger debate about the real priorities in politics. More and more understand that we can't get the best of both worlds. This government has cut taxes by about 25 billion. Corporate tax, income tax, employee's social security contribution, and the net wealth tax are all reduced.

But all the time the government not to cut welfare at the same time, the difference is financed in any other way. In the future we may not use as much oljepenger on the way. Of the future, politicians can no longer deliver election promises on krita.

A understood this, is Tomorrow the ungdomsparti. In an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen last week was the Young Right-leader Sandra Bruflot clear that we need to consider to increase taxes to welfare growth to keep ahead

Such insights may pave the way for a overmoden debate about which taxes are best suited to finance velferdsnivået we decide. Although there is considerable agreement across the political parties that the people shall contribute according to their ability, there is considerable disagreement about what it means. Everyone will have a progressive tax system where rich pays more than poor, but they are not in agreement about how it should be resolved.

the Result is a skattedebatt which are often reduced to an uninspired exchange of slogans. Rather than look at the totality of the system, go fiscal policy spokespersons from skyttergrav to skyttergrav in the attack or defense of enkeltskatter.

Now the politicians the opportunity to go more in principle to the work. For example, to be crystal clear on how they rank the various taxes according to how fair it is to impose on the citizens to pay them. There is broad consensus that we need many different taxes and fees, but we should go for a new round which should be increased, replaced or lowered.

All taxes have disadvantages. But there are good arguments for increased taxes on property, wealth, companies and inheritance is more fair than increasing vat and tax on income, if we are first forced to choose one of them.

ultimately trades no matter the politics about who the greatest burden to be added on. If the welfare of to a greater extent than previously to be funded by the tax, must the conflict of interest between those who will pay more to be lifted up in the day.

If hard put up against hard, it is not inconceivable that people want a different weighting than in the day, or being more willing to cut in the offer. Today, there are unfortunately few politicians who dare to take the call.

group of Friends where no one stick up for each other Comment
Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.