Is exit tax about “making amends”, Aftenposten?

That we should owe the state something gives me chills.

This is a debate post. Any opinions expressed in the text are the responsibility of the writer. If you want to participate in the debate, you can read how here.

Aftenposten believes in its leadership position on 4 May that the Conservative Party is unqualified and unprincipled in its rejection of the exit tax.

Before Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre (Ap) came to power, emigrants paid Norwegian tax on realized gains up to five years after emigration.

Now the rules are that the expatriate must pay Norwegian tax regardless of how long the person waits to realize. If it has not been realized within 12 years, tax must be paid on paper gains at the time of moving out. Aftenposten believes this is “making amends”.

While Aftenposten seems to think that they are principled here, I think they are easy.

This is about what are “gains”. In terms of taxation, it has always been about realized gains. There are good reasons for that. Realized gains are measurable and indisputable, while paper gains have measurement challenges and can disappear.

It is also about who owes what to whom. Aftenposten’s approach is obviously that those who have created value, jobs and paid a lot of tax must “make up for themselves”. It is populist.

That we should owe the state something gives me chills. It was precisely the idea that the people owed the state something and not the other way around, which was the ideological justification for why it was forbidden to leave, for example, the GDR in its time. It is possible that it is principled, but in that case also authoritarian.

On the contrary, I believe that the values ​​are created by people’s efforts and expertise, not by the Norwegian welfare state. Norway is neither the most productive, innovative nor business-friendly society. Those who travel do not owe anything.

The Conservative Party will now tax gains regardless of when they come after relocation, but not paper gains. Here the Conservative Party disappoints. To tax something that was only paper gains upon relocation is to disregard the fact that paper gains are preserved and brought to port after relocation. Therefore, the five-year rule was correct.

The government shows little understanding of the dynamic effects. In a global world, success will often mean that the company and the entrepreneur have to go out. You then risk being taxed on paper gains after relocation. Then it’s better to move now. The result is a brain drain and large lost values ​​- for Norway.