Civil servants put price tags to election promises

Kadri Hansalu
Copy
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Photo: SCANPIX

This is the third time in run-up to Riigikogu elections that officials at finance ministry grab calculators to see how much election promises by political parties would cost the Estonian state.

The ministry got busy in December and talked to all ten parties running for parliament. By yesterday morning, only two had sent their feedback to what the analysis had to say. Meaning: lion’s share of the parties have not signed on dotted line under said sums.

Not The Truth

Last night already, the soc dems (SDE) let it be known via a press release that the ministry had invented them a new promise and had committed 40 mistakes while assessing their programme. For instance, the soc dems will not own the promise to lower value-added tax to 19 percent – the cost thereof reckoned by the ministry at €442m over the four years. Also, says SDE, the ministry put price of pensions rise twice as high as is right.

As readily admitted to a briefing to journalist by finance ministry officials, they did run out of time processing the data. They proceeded to underline that with some promises, they have not evaluated the total cost but rather a nominal cost i.e. the calculations are based on certain presuppositions.

«Rather than scrutinize the precise numerical value of the promises analysed, we say watch the magnitude and whether the promise serves to worsen or improve the budget position,» read the ministry’s press release.

Comparing the costs of the promises is further complicated by the varying amount of information from parties. SDE, for instance, would point out that wherever it is not specified in the programme by which deadline a promise is fulfilled, it is to be assumed the change enters into full force next year. Meanwhile, in the case of Reform Party, the overall rule is for the promises to be gradually enforced over the period of four years.

Thus, the price tags set to promises cannot be regarded as final truth; even so, the ministry’s analysis did definitely unearth the grandeur and effect of the promises tucked into programmes – helping the parties to think twice about how realistic they are.

Income not cost

Thankfully, also, the officials have divided all party promises into general stands and definite activities, while also pointing out such activities as are already being executed in ministries or allotted the finances. This, again, serves to show that in the election programmes definite activities are the minority – more abundant are the non-binding stands or evaluations.

With the bulk of the promises spelling extra spending, some parties have suggested stuff that points to added income. As an example of that, SDE’s progressive income tax would bless state coffers with €1.4bn over the four years while same measure by Centre Party promises €1.2bn.

Reform Party’s promise to thin tax exceptions would boost national budget by €767m, and Free Party’s private income tax rate rise might mean additional €1.2bn. The boldest income-related promise by IRL is stronger taxation of sweet beverages: over four years, that would yield €42m.

Comments
Copy

Terms

Top