Home economics

Here is the difference between Ap and Right

If you own a home, read this. There is a clear line between blue and red in housing policy.

Here is the difference between Ap and Right

Now it’s only a little week left for the parliamentary elections. Perhaps you have already decided, but if you are still doubting, this guide may be helpful. For example, have you annoyed the document fee, it is the Left and Progress Party you should vote. On the other hand, the inheritance fee gives you a bad night’s sleep, so put your ballot paper in a blue mailbox. But if social housing policy is your focus, you should pick with a ballot paper from the reddish green.

And if you are one of the 750 00 who, according to NRK, has not yet decided and is particularly concerned with, among other things, inheritance tax and wealth tax, we provide you with a guide to the parties’ housing.

There is a clear distinction between party programs regarding taxation in housing policy. In particular, the wealth tax and inheritance tax are different. The current government parties will all keep these two posts the way they are. The reasoning is based, among other things, on a distribution argument.

– The main point is that the inheritance tax is part of the redistributive tax system we have today. The statistics show that to eliminate the inheritance tax, they will benefit the highest income, explains fiscal spokesman in SV, Geir-Ketil Hansen, to clicks. no.

With the exception of the Christian People’s Party, they want civic clear changes. KrF will retain the wealth tax as it is today.

Our priorities are to provide business facilitation, because this helps create jobs and keep businesses running, political adviser in the Christian People’s Party, Erlend Kjærnsrød, emphasizes clicks. no.

– And then we have chosen not to go in to remove property tax and inheritance tax on for example housing.

Policy Guide

In the table below we have made a summary of the parties’ positions regarding important areas of housing policy.

Capital Tax

Property Tax



Equal Value


Interest deduction


Will retain the wealth tax as it is.

Will let it continue to be a free, local tax.

No change.

No change.

No change.

No change.

No change.


Will keep wealth tax and make it more progressive. Will remove the tax benefit in the wealth calculation for housing number two.

Will increase the municipalities’ freedom to set property taxes and make it progressive.

No change.

No change.

Increase property value on property no. two.

No change.

Want to keep the scheme, but wants a review aimed at dampening price pressure and contributing to a more fair housing market.


Will increase the deduction for wealth tax from today’s 870. 000 kroner to 2.5 million.

Will continue the possibility of printing property tax as a local, municipal tax form regardless of the municipal income system.

Increase freebies.

Strengthen the BSU scheme, saving you at least 50,000 kroner a year and 500,000 kroner in total.

No change.

Not prioritized.

Will decrease interest rate deduction.


In the period 2013 to 2017, the Supreme Court will step down the wealth tax by raising the tax deduction to between 20 million. NOK 25 million. and reduce the rate from 1.1 percent to 0.5 percent.

“Today, municipalities who have not introduced property taxes punished by the state because they can not be allocated discretionary funds. This override will remove Right. “

Want to remove it within two years.

The maximum amount will be doubled to 300,000 kroner and annual savings will be raised to 25,000 kroner. In addition, the tax benefit is raised from 20 per cent in the state budget to 28.

No changes from today’s level of 50%.

Not prioritized.

No change.


Abolish today’s wealth tax.

Will remove municipalities’ right to claim property taxes.

Remove it.

Want to raise the limits for both the annual amount and the total amount.

Do not want increases in equation value, but will increase in deduction so that no-one gets wealth tax.

Remove it.

No change.


Reduce and eventually remove the wealth tax.

No change.

Remove it.

Increase the amount limits to 30. 000 annually and a total of 300. 000 kroner, and increase the tax deduction from 20 to 28 per cent.

No changes from today’s level of 50%.

Reduce it.

No change.


No changes.

Increase municipalities’ ability to introduce and customize property taxes and other local taxes, among other things in order to safeguard social considerations.

No change.

Increase the BSU limit of $ 300,000, set maximum savings per year to $ 30,000, set tax deductions to 30 percent of annual savings, and change the maximum age from 33 to 35 years.

No change.

Cancel new scheme with a view to removing the document fee when purchasing housing

No change.


Will make wealth tax more progressive, with a 3% margin rate for the largest assets and a minimum deduction of 30G per person (kr. 2. 463. 660 in 2012).

See it in connection with the wealth tax, f. for example by cutting out the municipal property tax in favor of an extended consolidated wealth tax where a certain proportion goes to the municipality in the same way as for today’s income tax.

Remove it.

Will raise the ceiling for the BSU scheme to 4G (kr. 328. 488 in 2012).

100% equalization rate for all tax items except housing No. one, which should be similar to today’s model.

Not prioritized.

Limit the right to interest deductions, so that each taxpayer only receives a deduction for loans up to 20G (kr. 1. 642. 440 in 2012).


New tax step, which entails a doubling of the tax for wealth over 10 million.

Desires a municipal property tax with a social profile, p. a. by means of large deductions.

No change.

Reverting to the scheme, from being a relocation of retrieved funds for beneficiaries, to being a contribution to a social housing development.

Seeks gradual escalation to 100 percent of market value for housing no. 2.

Not prioritized.

Change the interest rates so that deductions are given up to NOK. 100,000, – in annual interest expenses, or up to 3 million in investments. The increased income for the state is used for social housing construction.

Housing Policy is Important for Youth

The CEO of the Huseiers Landsforening, Peter Batta, says to click. No, it must naturally be up to the individual how much weight he or she imposes on housing policy in his party elections.

– But the home is the largest investment most of us make and we pay a lot of taxes and fees for the home, from establishing us until the inheritance fee takes over, he expands over clicks. no.

For youth and new entrepreneurs, housing policy may be more important than for well-established homeowners, due to high housing prices, BSU, equity requirements and housing support.

To Bidstikka. No, Selvaag boss Bård Schumann advises the young voters to vote on the parties that will simplify the building regulations. The background is what they think is expensive construction regulations that particularly affect the young people.

– Every single requirement is certainly fine, but overall this becomes too massive and cost-effective, and there is only one group that goes beyond last, and it’s home buyers, he pronounces on the site.

Inheritance tax

In this year’s election campaign, both the inheritance tax and wealth tax have received great attention, and the Taxpayer Association has, among other things, marked the.

– The inheritance fee dominates among the questions we receive from our members, says the head of the union, Gry Nilsen.

Those who wish to keep the fee argue, among other things, for having a positive redistribution effect.

“One who receives inheritance is added values ​​and will thus gain more wealth. They are those with the highest income and highest wealth that receive the most inheritance and gifts and who pay the most inheritance tax. The inheritance tax therefore contributes to a more even wealth distribution in society, “the Labor Party writes on its pages.

Right has the opposite view of who is affected when argues for the removal of the fee.

“The inheritance fee hits unfairly and strongly affects those who have low and usual payroll income. For several, it is felt to be deeply unfair when they inherit what has been the childhood home or family cabin for generations, having to pay a fee for it. At worst, the inheritance fee can be the property that can be sold, “they write on their web pages.

Professor Jarle Møen at the Norwegian School of Economics and Business (NHH) believes that the question of how little or a lot of inheritance tax imposes a private economy can be solved by changing the rules.

– For example, it may be possible to let the inheritance tax be latent on a property until it is traded, exposing it to clicks. no.

Here is the difference between Ap and Right

MANY REQUIREMENTS: During these electoral periods, many call the Taxpayer Association and Head of Department Gry Nilsen with questions about the inheritance tax. Photo: Bo Mathisen

Here is the difference between Ap and Right

– Students push up rent prices

The question of the size of inheritance tax is therefore primarily a question of the balance between the protection of private property rights, redistribution and efficiency considerations.

The mother further believes that if you wish to use inheritance tax as a redistribution tool, it will most likely be accurate and have minor negative effects on the economy.

– Looking specifically at housing is due to much of the difference in what people inherit that price developments have been very different in different areas. It can therefore be argued that it is fair that some of these gains are reallocated, and such a redistribution will hardly reduce people’s willingness to save significantly. This makes the inheritance fee an attractive tool for parties wishing to redistribute.

According to Statistics Norway (SSB), in 2012, just over 1.6 billion were paid in inheritance tax. The total tax intake is around 850 billion.

– Our starting point is that the inheritance tax should be removed, but we are worried about what will eventually replace it later, “says Gry Nilsen.

– Because it is unclear what will happen instead. Among other things, we fear that inheritance transfers in industry can trigger a tax burden that is greater than what the inheritance tax would be because you could get a profit tax.

Wealth tax

Also in the wealth tax, the dividing lines follow a blurred strip, and as for the inheritance tax there are arguments around the righteous that create the divisions. Among other things, SV is afraid that a removal of wealth tax will withdraw important billions from the welfare system.

“If we remove wealth tax, differences in Norway will increase sharply, and we want more than $ 15 billion less for welfare”, they write on their pages.

Here is the difference between Ap and Right

At worst, you will not be rid of the tenant

On the civil side, it is the concern for business and value creation that dominates the argumentation. Venster’s starting point is to give taxpayers to those who have the least.

“Therefore, the Left will reduce wealth tax by gradually increasing the tax deductions”, they write on their pages, and further say that in the long term the wealth tax should be removed.

The wealth tax, according to Statistics Norway, contributes about 15 billion to state tax, which corresponds to almost two percent of the total tax revenue.


The difficult situation for first-time entrepreneurs is also something that occupies housing policy. The party Red wants, among other things, a brand new housing sector that is not regulated by market forces. They call it for housing sector III.

“In addition to the need for a stronger non-commercial rental sector, we believe there is room for a third sector: an ownership sector outside the market,” they write in their program.

One of the moments that several of the other parties claim in this context as a housing policy instrument, is the BSU scheme. And here there are no sharp dividing lines between the blocks.

Here is the difference between Ap and Right

– It should be a day before the first bid

The Center Party, for example, argues for a significant increase in limits, while their government partner, Labor Party, does not want any change. Their argument is that an increase in savings will not have the necessary effect.

“Just over every fourth in the 17-33 age group saves in the BSU scheme. Of these, only 9 percent manage to fill up the BSU account. Because so few BSU users reach the max limit, no increase will help those who need it most, only those who already have high income and a lot of money to put off, “they argue in their program.

The Christian People’s Party, in its view, believes that the BSU will be a good housing policy instrument and advocates an increase in the savings limits, the tax deduction and the maximum for when the savings must be terminated. In their party program, they write that “KrF wants more young, single and disadvantaged to have the opportunity to enter the housing market”, and in that context they mention the BSU as a tool.

– Our view is that the BSU scheme needs to be strengthened because we think it’s better for the young people to save their first home than their parents go into the housing market, “says Gry Nilsen, and believes that the BSU savings must be seen in relation to the 15 per cent equity ratio that the banks operate with.

Also read:

Norwegians brush up wrong

Mortgage is your social entry ticket

The hidden tricks to win the bidding round

Looking for good interior ideas? You can find them in the Inspiration Guide

Here is the difference between Ap and Right

How many thousands do you pay tax-free


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker