Equitable budget for whom?

The Swedish opposition led by party leader Mona Sahlin and finance expert Pär Nudar announced this week an alternative budget cutting down wealth and property tax benefits introduced by the conservative Alliance government, and restoring low union fees and longer unemployment payment period. In addition, the retirees are promised a pension raise. The Socialists claim that the conservative Alliance' budget has made the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. That it has created a more inequitable distribution of wealth.

Let us dissect both budgets and see where inequities lie. Tax reduction under the conservative Alliance became visible within its first year in power and many wage earners - from high income to low income, saw the difference in their pay checks. That was swift fulfillment of an election promise. The downside was, union fees rose dramatically , in particular membership fees to the unemployment insurance. Those two alone ate up most of the 1000 Swedish crown tax relief. For those in the service sectors, the increased union and unemployment insurance membership fees became a heavy burden for already tight household budgets.

Then the Alliance - seeking to reform an over-exploited welfare state system- forced unemployed and long-term sick leave beneficiaries to go back to work, by cutting down on unemployment insurance benefits. Tax reduction incentives (jobbavdrag) means tax reduction applies only to those with jobs. That's about 30 out of 38 billion crowns for the first step tax reduction, according to an SvD report.(SvD, 6 Oct. 2007)

The Socialist opposition criticised the work tax incentive as "creating inequities in the society and affects those who stand outside the labour market". And now, the opposition parties are saying no more to a next-step 11 billion crown job tax reduction benefit. Where is the injustice here? It creates a strong motivation to work. There is always work to be found for those who will not live forever as social welfare parasites, nibbling at the taxes paid by the hard-working productive members of society. Look at the Vietnamese refugees who came to Sweden in early 1980s- who simply started their small businesses and sent their children to higher education. The same goes for other Asians like the Thais who set up restaurants and specialty shops. They did not get any government subsidies to get started.

We have to admit in all honesty that the thieves and parasites of the welfare state system have increased their tribes, in proportion to the generosity of the Socialists distribution of taxpayers' money. Although the sudden fee increases introduced by the conservative Alliance made instance chock, in the longer run, curing the Swedish society of a malignant welfare dependency sickness is more acceptable and just. The only thing that they have truly missed out, and for which the Socialist opposition has seized upon, was the proposal to raise pension. Here lies true injustice, when the larger population of retirees in Sweden - who have already paid taxes while actively working, should be taxed as high as 30 percent. But the Socialists' proposed 2000 crowns raise over a one-year period is pittance and pure cosmetic.

The other items in the Socialists' alternative budget are just refrains from an old song grown weary from repetition. If Sahlin and company want to spread egalitarianism, by all means do so via increased productivity and not through dole-outs. And definitely not at the cost of other people's sweat.#