Would you vote for tax cuts AND higher public spending?

[HoreTore]

It's election time here in Norway again.

And the party climbing up the polls and dreaming of being in government for the first time, is the Progress Party. It belongs on the right, but as the party is completely dependent on the whims of the people, it's hard to get it's exact position. It was originally called "Anders Lange's(the name of the founder) Party Against Taxes and Government Control", and it has retained that legacy. Except that, in addition to cutting taxes dramatically, they also want to increase public spending. Dramatically. The only areas they want to cut anything, is when it comes to things they hate, like cultural stuff, anything related to immigrants and drug addicts. Everything else, they want more of. They want dramatic increases for the police, the military, healthcare spending, schools, roads, pensions, etc etc. They claim to be a liberal(in US terms, conservative) party, but unlike the others, they want everything to be paid by the state.

How is this possible, you ask? it's the oil, of course. Some years ago, our government decided that instead of spending all the oil money, we should save some of it. Those savings are now one of the worlds biggest funds, I think it's around 5 national budgets(325 billion USD). The other parties have agreed to only spend the profits from that fund, and leave the rest of it alone, so that we'll have it when the oil is gone. The benefit of having it became clear during the financial crisis, as we haven't loaned a single dollar to pay for our crisis plans. The Progress Party, however, wants to spend all of it, as quickly as possible. Why be responsible when you can be irresponsible? We'll be dead when the oil dries up anyway. The way they're behaving will simply give our children and grandchildren a huge bill to pay. The oil will dry up, the money will run out. When that happens, they will have to increase taxes and drastically cut all public spending. Sounds jolly...

I can accept a party who wants to cut taxes as well as cut public spending, even though I don't want it. At least they're responsible. If you want higher public spending, you'll get higher taxes. If you want lower taxes, you'll get lower public spending. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That is, unless your name is the Progress Party, and your goal is to lead our economy to ruin.

On a related note, does anyone want a 22-year old political refugee?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well you're right about the irresponsibility of their plan. So no, I wouldn't vote for them.

CR

[Vladimir]

Wow. Same story, different continent. If that's their plan, I hope it fails (much like Obama's :shifty: ). Keep your rainy day fund. That's one aspect of Scandinavian policy I can agree with. :2thumbsup:

Maybe passing a law to protect the fund will keep it safe for a few more election cycles.

[HoreTore]

Maybe passing a law to protect the fund will keep it safe for a few more election cycles.

We do. Well, actually it's a "rule", and it says that we should never use more than 4% of it each year, because 4% is the expected yearly profits. In reality, that rule gets bent slightly, of course. The only government who has played strictly to that rule is the current socialist government, but the others haven't gone too far, they've just used slightly more than those 4%. The Progress Party, however, is the only party who loudly proclaims that they do not respect that rule, and will not even try to follow it at all.

btw, I do seem to remember a guy who started two big wars while cutting taxes ~;)

[Beskar]

You can have higher public spending while cutting taxes, but it depends on how much is cut, but also, where is that money going?

For instance, you could cut Defence budget and put that money into Health. Depending on how much is cut, you could lower taxes or change where you gather taxes.

Personally, I would keep taxes around the same, however, I would cut spending on surplus things in order to try to repay government debt and try to put things in a rainy day fund once that debt is paid. There might be arguments of over-taxing if there was a rainy day fund created, but it depends on how the financial system works and other things.

[Ice]

Sounds like a horrible idea, Horetore. I do hope they don't win for your sake.

[Viking]

There's no doubt that the Progress Party is nuts; the only reasons why people vote for them are less taxes, less immigrants, cheaper alcohol and petrol. The fact that they just recently become the first party to work for euthanasia made it a bit funny too. :beam: (that one really came out of the blue)

[HoreTore]

You can have higher public spending while cutting taxes, but it depends on how much is cut, but also, where is that money going?

For instance, you could cut Defence budget and put that money into Health. Depending on how much is cut, you could lower taxes or change where you gather taxes.

Personally, I would keep taxes around the same, however, I would cut spending on surplus things in order to try to repay government debt and try to put things in a rainy day fund once that debt is paid. There might be arguments of over-taxing if there was a rainy day fund created, but it depends on how the financial system works and other things.

When I say "increase government spending", I mean increasing the total amount spent. They're not going to cut anything significant in government spending. The prime target for cuts is the culture budget, which is a contender for the smallest post on the budget. There's also some cuts for unemployment benefits, of course. But it doesn't add up with the huge increases they want for military, law enforcement(both of which they've promised to at least double the manpower), health care, roads, pensions, etc, and they also want a huge tax cut on top of that.

They want privatization of healthcare. But not the regular kind of privatization. You see, they want private institutions, but it will remain government funded, there's no talk about people having to pay for stuff themselves.

[HoreTore]

There's no doubt that the Progress Party is nuts; the only reasons why people vote for them are less taxes, less immigrants, cheaper alcohol and petrol. The fact that they just recently become the first party to work for euthanasia made it a bit funny too. :beam: (that one really came out of the blue)

another point for the hate-list:

Mullah Krekar. Which Siv Jensen(the leader of the progress party) said that she "will put in prison" if elected. She will put him in prison. Not the courts. Not the police. But a politician.

Screw the separation of state power, screw laws, constitutions and due process! Let's have a dictator with undefined power instead!

[CountArach]

There's no doubt that the Progress Party is nuts; the only reasons why people vote for them are less taxes, less immigrants, cheaper alcohol and petrol. The fact that they just recently become the first party to work for euthanasia made it a bit funny too. :beam: (that one really came out of the blue)
Wait... where do I sign up?

[Sheogorath]

Wouldn't it be nice if the US had something like this? Gosh.

Oh, I forgot, patriots don't have savings. Real patriots spend all their money. And then some. Debt is good!

[a completely inoffensive name]

Looks like you got a Neo-conservative party there.

[rasoforos]

With 5 national budgets to spend chances are you will be the first country to retire and buy a house in the medditteranean :yes:

Wow...5 national budgets.

History shows that there are a lot of populist parties in various countries that combined tax cuts and large deficit spending. Since Economic Theory is not in the curriculum of most schools, the average citizen does not really understand the consequences and is all too happy with more money to spend...fast forward 5 years and you are knees deep in inflation, fast forward 20 years and their children suffer because a big chunk of the country's budget goes to paying interest rates (not the case for you of course since you have such a surplus)

....mumbles....5 budgets worth of surpluss...and we throw a lil' party everytime our public debt is less that 100% of our budget...hrmph...

[Ironside]

Haw large percentage of the votes are the Progress Party estimated to get and who is allying with them as they seem to end up in the goverment? I assume they got no shot of single party majority? Sounds insane if they would.

[Andres]

How is this possible, you ask? it's the oil, of course. Some years ago, our government decided that instead of spending all the oil money, we should save some of it. Those savings are now one of the worlds biggest funds, I think it's around 5 national budgets(325 billion USD). The other parties have agreed to only spend the profits from that fund, and leave the rest of it alone, so that we'll have it when the oil is gone.

Wait a minute.

Are you saying that since that decision, politicians have not wasted the oil money and behaved... responsible? That would mean that Norwegians have politicians who are not incompetent?

:inquisitive:

If that nonsense party you're talking about gets elected, could we have those other politicians, the ones who decided to save money?

Please?

[Furunculus]

Well you're right about the irresponsibility of their plan. So no, I wouldn't vote for them.

CR
agreed.

norway is about the only western nation that has a chance of happy sailing through the pension/health time-bomb caused by an aging population of post war baby-boomers.

why scupper that? :inquisitive:

[rory_20_uk]

I wouldn't. I'd rather vote for a party that follows Canada's brutal cuts to the public sector which - surprise surprise - had little if any effect on front line staff yet save c. 20% of the budget.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

yes indeed, canada had the right idea.

[drone]

Sounds to me that the Progress Party is just trying to buy votes. As for the national nest egg, I suppose it would make sense to invest it in infrastructure, education, and other projects to keep Norway ahead of the game when the oil does run out.

Longships, axes, and horned helmets. :yes:

[HoreTore]

Haw large percentage of the votes are the Progress Party estimated to get and who is allying with them as they seem to end up in the goverment? I assume they got no shot of single party majority? Sounds insane if they would.

The result in the last election was 18% I think. They'll get more this time around, they've mostly been around 25%(up and down) in the polls.

However.... Norwegian politics aren't that simple. First of all, a government don't need a majority here, in fact the current government is the first majority government we've had in decades. The largest party or coalition forms the government, no matter how large that one really is. The last government(Bondevik II) was coalition between the conservatives, christian peoples party and the liberals, with somewhere around 35% of the votes.

For the Progress Party to gain power, a couple of things must happen; firstly, our current government must lose it's majority. Secondly, they must be larger than the Bondevik II coalition. Thirdly, the centre/centre-right parties must prefer them over a minority labour government, or they must ally with the conservatives(or another party). However, currently nobody wants to ally with them at all, mostly because of their economic insanity. Their best bet is a coalition with the conservatives, but they've also said that they're ready to rule alone as a minority government(which won't last long).

[Mangudai]

Some years ago, our government decided that instead of spending all the oil money, we should save some of it. Those savings are now one of the worlds biggest funds, I think it's around 5 national budgets(325 billion USD).

A strong case can be made that investing in Norway is safer than investing in global finance. Just look at Iceland. A railway tunnel, port, or school is not going to disappear, a portfolio could.

[HoreTore]

A strong case can be made that investing in Norway is safer than investing in global finance. Just look at Iceland. A railway tunnel, port, or school is not going to disappear, a portfolio could.

Iceland was heavily involved in loans and the financial market. Our fund is involved in companies who are actually making money... And they weren't putting profits in a fund, it was their very economy that was based on it, our economy isn't based on a fund, it's based on oil. So.... quite different to Iceland.

Also, investing too much here means inflation.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Iceland was heavily involved in loans and the financial market. Our fund is involved in companies who are actually making money... Gah! Pesky oil states, buying up the West and turning us into their cash cow. Saudi Norwaybia is the Trust-fund silver spoon kid amongst nations. Profits earned in countries that have to work for their money pay for the lavish lifestyle of Norway's inactives.


Ooow! If only the EU referendum wasn't lost (on two percent!) we could get our snouts into this fund!

I move that we send a fleet to the North Sea and declare it open for Europe! Øink! Øink! http://matousmileys.free.fr/groin2.gif

[Tristuskhan]

Would you vote for tax cuts AND higher public spending?

I won't, but 54% of the french voters did in 2007 when they elected Sarkozy.

Smart move....

[CountArach]

Would you vote for tax cuts AND higher public spending?

I won't, but 54% of the french voters did in 2007 when they elected Sarkozy.

Smart move....
Actually now that I think about it our current Government AND Opposition support these in practice, if not in theory.

[Fragony]

With less rules, and in consequence less government, it's perfectly possible to lower taxes and increase public spending. They have the right idea, less leftist hobby's and more money spend on infrastructure, healthcare an education. If you care so much about junkies and immigrants I am sure you have a stretcher lying around somewhere for poor little baba from boeloeboeloe, if you have a garden, you could even make it a camping. You could also buy the drugs for junkies, and a lot with all that extra money a tax break brings. But you don't really give a crap about all that do you, fun to watch from a distance.

[Beskar]

Though what Rory says doesn't prove that tax cuts are good, it only showed they made cuts in the right places (if it is true),

Now if they did that and got let's say, 20% out of it, you could always put that 20% to repaying national debt or being used else where to make something from it.

I am always for efficiency cuts, however, with the money left-over, it would be best re-invested.

[HoreTore]

With less rules, and in consequence less government, it's perfectly possible to lower taxes and increase public spending. They have the right idea, less leftist hobby's and more money spend on infrastructure, healthcare an education. If you care so much about junkies and immigrants I am sure you have a stretcher lying around somewhere for poor little baba from boeloeboeloe, if you have a garden, you could even make it a camping. You could also buy the drugs for junkies, and a lot with all that extra money a tax break brings. But you don't really give a crap about all that do you, fun to watch from a distance.

The thing is, frags, they're not going to cut in some places to spend that money on something else.

When you add everything up, they'll drastically increase the total public spending. In other words, they're going to run at a deficit. And as any economist will tell you, spending more than you make ain't smart.

And stop with the "leftist rant", every other party is rabidly opposed to their economics, from the socialist left party to the conservative party. And they themselves refuse to put themselves at the right of the political spectrum, if I remember right, they believe they're more of a centrist party.

Also, "less rules"? You think the rightists are about "less rules"? A couple of days ago, this party proposed that every street singer has to be judged by a panel of bureaucrats before they are allowed to play in the streets... Yes, that's the way to reduce bureaucracy.:dizzy2:

[Vladimir]

...as any economist will tell you, spending more than you make ain't smart.


Pleased to meet you. Hope you guessed my name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Pleased to meet you. Hope you guessed my name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes).

Yes indeed. And unfortunately he seems to have sway with the whole Federal government.

You think they would've learned from Japan's debacle. But noooooooooo, we have some people talking about a second stimulus plan. :wall:

CR

[HoreTore]

Pleased to meet you. Hope you guessed my name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes).

Right. His theories are about something quite different.

[Vladimir]

He was an economist who believed in defect spending; and is relevant to the current economic dialogue between nations. We can't all have sound financial economic policies AND lutefisk. Some of us are not that lucky.

[HoreTore]

He was an economist who believed in defect spending; and is relevant to the current economic dialogue between nations. We can't all have sound financial economic policies AND lutefisk. Some of us are not that lucky.

You consider lutefisk lucky :inquisitive:

Ever tasted that garbage?

As for keynes, as far as I know, he believed in deficit spending when the economy is going down. Not as a standard mode, and not when the economy is going up, both of which the progress party was and is more than eager to do...

[Fragony]

Also, "less rules"? You think the rightists are about "less rules"? A couple of days ago, this party proposed that every street singer has to be judged by a panel of bureaucrats before they are allowed to play in the streets... Yes, that's the way to reduce bureaucracy.:dizzy2:

Don't know anything about Norwegian politics really, maybe it's a parralel universe where everything is exactly the other way around, don't sound like liberals to, not at all. But anyways, opposing immigration is cutting out the greatest burden to our economy's so it's perfectly possible to increase public spending and lower taxes. Can't comment on how they are going to spend it.

[CountArach]

As for keynes, as far as I know, he believed in deficit spending when the economy is going down. Not as a standard mode, and not when the economy is going up, both of which the progress party was and is more than eager to do...
Indeed - Fiscal stimuli were to be used to cushion recessions. In boom times the government should either reduce spending or increase taxes in order to prevent inflation.

[HoreTore]

But anyways, opposing immigration is cutting out the greatest burden to our economy's so it's perfectly possible to increase public spending and lower taxes.

Add up everything the immigrants add to society(taxes, etc), then subtract everything they use(social stuff, etc).

This has already been done for Norway, and the result was profit.

So, throw out all the immigrants, and you'll have less money to spend.

[Fragony]

The average non-western immigrant family costs us about 230.000, and all tax-benefits have been calculated in. Norway doesn't have that many immigrants (yet) but is making all the same mistakes.

70 billion euro guilders ( /2.2) down the drain, it's gone. But kebab does indeed taste good.

^- these numbers are 10 year old, and nothing has improved, quite the contrary. Would be interesting to know how much money we have thrown away as we speak.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/227

"If labour force participation is taken as a measurement for immigration success Ekhaugen’s research contradicts the often heard assertion that Norway’s labour market depends increasingly on immigrants. The study indicates quite the reverse. Moreover the situation has dramatically worsened during the past two decades. If the present evolution continues immigration will increase the pressure on the welfare state rather than relieving it because many immigrants do not join the tax-paying part of the population."

"Interestingly, the welfare dependency ratio grows the longer the immigrants are living in Norway. "

[HoreTore]

The average non-western immigrant family costs us about 230.000, and all tax-benefits have been calculated in. Norway doesn't have that many immigrants (yet) but is making all the same mistakes.

70 billion euro guilders ( /2.2) down the drain, it's gone. But kebab does indeed taste good.

^- these numbers are 10 year old, and nothing has improved, quite the contrary. Would be interesting to know how much money we have thrown away as we speak.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/227

"If labour force participation is taken as a measurement for immigration success Ekhaugen’s research contradicts the often heard assertion that Norway’s labour market depends increasingly on immigrants. The study indicates quite the reverse. Moreover the situation has dramatically worsened during the past two decades. If the present evolution continues immigration will increase the pressure on the welfare state rather than relieving it because many immigrants do not join the tax-paying part of the population."

"Interestingly, the welfare dependency ratio grows the longer the immigrants are living in Norway. "

Horse manure.

Have a looky at a respectable source for once, frags, like, oh I don't know, Aftenposten (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2836877.ece).

Yes, I know that's Norwegian gibberish.... But just find the table with the numbers halfway down on the right side of the text. The first column is where people are from, Turkey, Morocco, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, All immigrants and finally the rest of the population. The second column shows income from wages. The third column shows income from various welfare sources*. The fourth column shows the percentage wages makes up of the total income for the group, while the final column shows the number of persons.

This is just for first generation immigrants with no norwegian background, between 17 and 74 years old. The numbers are million NOK.

So... All the immigrants make 60 billion, while we pay them 11 billion. Now, unless my math is completely off, that means they make 49 billions.... The group worst off is the somalians, but even they make 500 million more than we pay them.

If you want tax money, then those 60 billions will represent about 17 billions in taxes(income taxes only, not including our horrendous amount of special taxes and vat...). And you have to tax social benefits too...

So, all in all, our immigrants contribute more than we give them. End of story.

*pensions and scholarships are not included

[Fragony]

'Respectable sources' are usually good-news shows. I take it Ekhaugen is full of it and that his research has been burned down to the ground and he had to leave the realm of the intellectoloco's tarred and feathered, if it isn't why not. I wouldn't know who, I know Norway only from blond girls with fat necks, but one of you is wrong.

[HoreTore]

'Respectable sources' are usually good-news shows. I take it Ekhaugen is full of it and that his research has been burned down to the ground and he had to leave the realm of the intellectoloco's tarred and feathered, if it isn't why not. I wouldn't know who, I know Norway only from blond girls with fat necks, but one of you is wrong.

First of all, Ekhaugen is a "she" ~;)

Secondly, her research is good. But it isn't related to this discussion. Her research (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1108140.ece) shows that immigrants are more dependent on welfare than ethnic norwegians. All good. My linky also shows that. What she didn't research though, was whether they contributed more than they recieved. Which my linky showed that they do.

So, Ekhaugen is a respectable source. Your blog is not.

Another reason why your blog is a stinkin' pile of manure, is that they "missed" the following statement from Ekhaugen from when she published her study:



- Do you have any thoughts as to why it's like this?

- It looks like there are barriers in the labour market that makes the immigrants suffer. If their resources were to be exploited better, we could well have our cake and eat it too by allowing Norway to recieve more immigrants on humanitarian grounds and still decrease the burden on the working population. Hopefully, the introduction of an introduction benefit will also contribute positively.

[Fragony]

Secondly, her research is good. But it isn't related to this discussion. Her research (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1108140.ece) shows that immigrants are more dependent on welfare than ethnic norwegians. All good. My linky also shows that. What she didn't research though, was whether they contributed more than they recieved. Which my linky showed that they do.


I don't see how it can coexist, with so many immigrants on welfare, and with the majority of the workers doing poorly payed jobs, sounds like statistical wizardry from good-news salesmen to me. Either Norway is unique, or the Aftenposten is a 'respectable' source.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Either Norway is unique, or the Aftenposten is a 'respectable' source.

Or (c) you are no more willing to deviate from your chosen narrative than those you characterise as "leftie" true believers?

[Vladimir]

I don't see how it can coexist, with so many immigrants on welfare, and with the majority of the workers doing poorly payed jobs, sounds like statistical wizardry from good-news salesmen to me. Either Norway is unique, or the Aftenposten is a 'respectable' source.

I believe that having so many immigrants on welfare has much more to do with the state than the immigrants themselves.

[Fragony]

Or (c) you are no more willing to deviate from your chosen narrative than those you characterise as "leftie" true believers?

They exist. proper term is multicultist or guttmensch. They often work at newspapers.

maybe Horetore can shed some light on this, his source after all.

"Journalist Halvor Tjønn from newspaper Aftenposten, one of the few genuinely critical journalists in the country, in June 2006 cited a report from NHO, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise. NHO stated that the current immigration policies were a serious threat to the country's economy. "

I believe that having so many immigrants on welfare has much more to do with the state than the immigrants themselves.


Of course. Taking in more than they can chew, there are only so many jobs for unskilled workers.

[Vladimir]

The point is that your problem isn't with immigrants, but with your government. Don't blame those people for something that's your people's fault.

[Fragony]

Don't blame those people for something that's your people's fault.

Who says no to a bag of money, especially if your former home was built with mud and donkey:daisy:, I have no problem with the immigrants but with the multicultural left. These people just don't belong here, they will never be able to claim their place in society we are century's ahead, it's a cruel masquerade that doesn't benefit anyone but the equality industry.

edit; and don't get me started on the rabid clientism of the multicultural left with their progressive personality disorder to give in to every backward demand the extremely rigid ultra-orthodox makes, often even before beards realise they want it. But that's another discussion.

[Vladimir]

I don't like that you take the easy way out by directing your dissatisfaction against "the others." It's clear that you target them over the policies and practices of your own government.

Upon rereading this it seems I didn't add much to the discussion. Perhaps just adding my opinion.

[HoreTore]

I don't see how it can coexist, with so many immigrants on welfare, and with the majority of the workers doing poorly payed jobs, sounds like statistical wizardry from good-news salesmen to me. Either Norway is unique, or the Aftenposten is a 'respectable' source.

You need some re-education, frags ~;)

First point; pakistani's are the largest group in med schools here. By a large majority. Norwegians are a minority at that education. The medical education is currently the education requiring the highest grade, followed by law, which is also seeing a large increase in the number of immigrant students. And doctors and lawyers and paid badly....

Second point: there are a lot of immigrants with their own business, like a store, restaurant, import business, taxi's, etc. Owning a business generally means quite high income.

Third point: immigrants drive a lot of taxi's. Being a taxi driver means that you make around 350-400k a year. The average wage is 300k here...

Fourth point: A lot of immigrants work in the industry. I worked for Autolink, the main car importer in Norway, a few years back. Whole divisions there consisted of asian women....


"Journalist Halvor Tjønn from newspaper Aftenposten, one of the few genuinely critical journalists in the country, in June 2006 cited a report from NHO, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise. NHO stated that the current immigration policies were a serious threat to the country's economy. "

NHO isn't even close to an unbiased source btw, as they're a completely political organization, situated firmly with the conservative party... Their agenda is to get the conservatives elected, just like the trade union tries to get Labour elected.

As for their report... I put it in the rather large bin reserved for "NHO whining". Their agenda is to reduce public spending and cut taxes, and they whine about everything we use tax money on.

A note to you though, Frags; the NHO isn't in any way opposed to immigration, in fact they usually want more of them(I'm sure it has nothing to do with immigrants not knowing their rights and accepting lower wages....). They're opposed to any kind of social benefits, as they demonstrate every time a proposal to make benefits better(unemployment, sick money, working conditions, etc) by going bananas and preaching the end of the world. Funnily, the end of the world hasn't happened, even though they've mostly been ignored while Labour has been in charge...

[Fragony]

I don't like that you take the easy way out by directing your dissatisfaction against "the others." It's clear that you target them over the policies and practices of your own government.


Nope I do not do that, but some might.

@Horetore, I'll take your word for it, looks like you guys make it work, going to follow you guys more closely.

edit; with source I meant the supposedly respectable source Aftenposten because it was printed there, as you noticed I am kinda lacking in knowledge of Norway. The last thing I remember was that I payed 30 euro for a pizza and a beer on the ferry to Denmark.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You need some re-education, frags ~;)Put that enemy of the proletariat in a re-education camp! Make him cut rock in the freezing Norway's arctic until he sees the error of his ways. :whip:


First point; pakistani's are the largest group in med schools here. By a large majority. Norwegians are a minority at that education. The medical education is currently the education requiring the highest grade, followed by law, which is also seeing a large increase in the number of immigrant students. And people look at me funny when I describe law and medicine as emancipatory studies. :cry:

[HoreTore]

@Horetore, I'll take your word for it, looks like you guys make it work, going to follow you guys more closely.

edit; with source I meant the supposedly respectable source Aftenposten because it was printed there, as you noticed I am kinda lacking in knowledge of Norway. The last thing I remember was that I payed 30 euro for a pizza and a beer on the ferry to Denmark.

Aftenposten is probably the most respectable newspaper here, yes. And FIY, it's a conservative newspaper.... ~;)

The journalist in question cited a report from NHO, and then you will of course have to have in mind what kind of organization NHO is, and what their aim is. Would you have taken it for face value if he cited, for example, a "report from the Socialist Left party, claiming that we should import millions of new immigrants to make our economy boom"? No? Well, citing a report from NHO is exactly the same... They have their agenda, same as every other political party and organization. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does mean that they're not objective in any way.


Put that enemy of the proletariat in a re-education camp! Make him cut rock in the freezing Norway's arctic until he sees the error of his ways. :whip:

Shhhhh Louis, this kind of stuff is supposed to be secret... But you just can't keep your mouth shut, now can you? I know who gets to be the receiver tonight, oh yes... Naughty boy...


And people look at me funny when I describe law and medicine as emancipatory studies. :cry:

As long as the kids stay away from the marketing stuff, and learn to actually add value to society instead of breaking it up, all is good...

[Fragony]

Aftenposten is probably the most respectable newspaper here, yes. And FIY, it's a conservative newspaper.... ~;)

The journalist in question cited a report from NHO, and then you will of course have to have in mind what kind of organization NHO is, and what their aim is. Would you have taken it for face value if he cited, for example, a "report from the Socialist Left party, claiming that we should import millions of new immigrants to make our economy boom"? No? Well, citing a report from NHO is exactly the same... They have their agenda, same as every other political party and organization. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does mean that they're not objective in any way.


Thing is, your welfare benefits ratio is very similar to ours, and just about every country. But, you, the Norwegians, are doing something different, I am highly sceptical, why would you do what nobody has done so far.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I still move we declare the North Sea an international area, open to exploitation by all. Why should a person from Tromsø, 2500 kilometers away from the North Sea oil fields never have to work again, nor his children and grandchildren, while a person from Bruxelles, 1500 kilometers away, or Hamburg, 1000 kilometers away, will never see but a single penny of it?

The resources that are found beneath a country's territory, or its territorial waters, a country can keep. But resources found hundreds, thousands of kilometers away from the shore? Should they be exclusive to the country that just happens to have a few square meter of uninhabitable rock cropping out of the ocean nearest to it?

Should the moon be exclusively exploited by countries nearer its ecliptic plane, simply because they are a wee bit closer to it than Norway?


~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Why does Norway's oil revenue exclusively pay to improve the lives of poor immigrants who just got off a plane in Oslo and barely speak a word Norwegian, while not a single penny goes towards Sweden's poor, half an hour drive from Oslo?

I accuse Norway of national-multiculturalism.

[HoreTore]

I still move we declare the North Sea an international area, open to exploitation by all. Why should a person from Tromsø, 2500 kilometers away from the North Sea oil fields never have to work again, nor his children and grandchildren, while a person from Bruxelles, 1500 kilometers away, or Hamburg, 1000 kilometers away, will never see but a single penny of it?

The resources that are found beneath a country's territory, or its territorial waters, a country can keep. But resources found hundreds, thousands of kilometers away from the shore? Should they be exclusive to the country that just happens to have a few square meter of uninhabitable rock cropping out of the ocean nearest to it?

Should the moon be exclusively exploited by countries nearer its ecliptic plane, simply because they are a wee bit closer to it than Norway?


~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Why does Norway's oil revenue exclusively pay to improve the lives of poor immigrants who just got off a plane in Oslo and barely speak a word Norwegian, while not a single penny goes towards Sweden's poor, half an hour drive from Oslo?

I accuse Norway of national-multiculturalism.

OI!!!

You euro's all live off our wealth! We pay billions every year to the EU, and we'll be paying even more this year! While we Norwegians are busy pumping up oil and generating money, you lazy French are just sitting in your comfy chairs drinking whine while mooching off our hard work!

*switching off crazed nationalist mode....*


Thing is, your welfare benefits ratio is very similar to ours, and just about every country. But, you, the Norwegians, are doing something different, I am highly sceptical, why would you do what nobody has done so far.

Then maybe.... The problem is that you've been wrong all along, the lefties have been right, and immigration is a positive thing...? It's never to late to turn around, mate ~:)

[HopAlongBunny]

Generally the Evil Immigrant story comes in 2 flavours:

1) They leach off the system and do not contribute to the nation;

2) They drive down wages and impoverish us all.

Number 1, is clearly false. The studies around immigration usually show a net benefit to the country receiving them.

Number 2 might be half right. If an immigrant is willing to do work that others will not do, or will not do at the going rate-wages may in fact be driven down. However, the fact they are filling those positions and earning income, means they are spending to meet their needs. The spending results in a demand on resources, which results in increased production to meet those demands; hence a greater need for labour...yada, yada, yada.

On topic:

The party in question sounds like a most right-wing parties. The best way to eliminate the state is to bankrupt it; blowing the "nest egg" through increased services/decreased taxes should accomplish that in short order. Granted you may get a short-term "bump" in the economy; oil and the royalties are finite so saving for the future just seems to make sense.

[Fragony]

Then maybe.... The problem is that you've been wrong all along, the lefties have been right, and immigration is a positive thing...? It's never to late to turn around, mate ~:)

Norway is rather unique if what you say is true, where are most of your immigrants from?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Aftenposten (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2836877.ece).

Yes, I know that's Norwegian gibberish.... But just find the table with the numbers halfway down on the right side of the text. The first column is where people are from, Turkey, Morocco, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, All immigrants and finally the rest of the population. The second column shows income from wages. The third column shows income from various welfare sources*. The fourth column shows the percentage wages makes up of the total income for the group, while the final column shows the number of persons.

This is just for first generation immigrants with no norwegian background, between 17 and 74 years old. The numbers are million NOK.

So... All the immigrants make 60 billion, while we pay them 11 billion. Now, unless my math is completely off, that means they make 49 billions.... The group worst off is the somalians, but even they make 500 million more than we pay them.

If you want tax money, then those 60 billions will represent about 17 billions in taxes(income taxes only, not including our horrendous amount of special taxes and vat...). And you have to tax social benefits too...

So, all in all, our immigrants contribute more than we give them. End of story.

*pensions and scholarships are not includedI wish the Aftenposten article would open on this temporary Mac I'm using. The way you present it, it can't be correct.

If social groups that overwhelmingly belong to the lower tax paying brackets already pay 55% more (or even much more if included special taxes and VAT) in taxes than the government spends on them, then Norway's state fund could've bought the entire world by now.

The numbers are off. Lies, gross lies, and statistics and all that. Fragony has taught me the workings of Euro-multiculturalism: crunch the numbers, omit inconveniences and spin the facts in a bid to prove the manifold blessings of uncontrolled immigration.


Here is schematically where I think Aftenposten get's it wrong:

Two people:
A produces 100. Puts in pool 50. Consumes 25 of pool.
B produces 50. Puts in pool 25. Consumes 20 of pool.

The pool is 75. Consumed is 45. The difference of 30 is spend on communal goods that are not individually consumed.
B is still a contributing member of society. Yet, it is also clear that A would be much better off without B. (Disregarding all other considerations)

Let me try my hand at multicultural spinning: A consumes more government goods than B. Privelidge! The 5 profit from B is the exact 5 that the government spends more on A. So B's earnings provide A with his luxurious and priviledged position! A exploits B for his own gain!!

[HoreTore]

Norway is rather unique if what you say is true, where are most of your immigrants from?

....Or perhaps Norway isn't unique, and immigration is a benefit in most other countries too...?


I wish the Aftenposten article would open on this temporary Mac I'm using. The way you present it, it can't be correct.

If social groups that overwhelmingly belong to the lower tax paying brackets already pay 55% more (or even much more if included special taxes and VAT) in taxes than the government spends on them, then Norway's state fund could've bought the entire world by now.

The numbers are off. Lies, gross lies, and statistics and all that. Fragony has taught me the workings of Euro-multiculturalism: crunch the numbers, omit inconveniences and spin the facts in a bid to prove the manifold blessings of uncontrolled immigration.

They belong to the lower tax brackets, you say? No, those without jobs to that. A lot of the immigrants with jobs make good money. As I've said already, they occupy high-paying jobs such as taxi drivers, doctors and independent businesses.

And no, we can't buy the world even though we get more in taxes than we spend on people. The reason being that we also spend huge amounts on stuff like roads, buildings, failed business adventures, schools, opera houses, military, etc etc.

[Fragony]

....Or perhaps Norway isn't unique, and immigration is a benefit in most other countries too...?

It isn't, I didn't pull those numbers out of my hat it are the official numbers from the Central Bureau of Statistics, which means that they are probably much, much worse. I still don't get how Norway gets a positive balance when welfare dependence is about equal to ours. Minimum wage is close to welfare check as well in Norway, I don't see how it's possible.