It's unclear what Helle Stensbak intends with her posts in Aftenposten

The author expresses frustration with Helle Stensbak's recent commentary in Aftenposten, arguing that her contributions on the wealth tax and inequality lack the necessary precision and factual basis. Stensbak initially claimed the debate on wealth tax was "full of errors" but failed to identify any specific mistakes, according to the critique.

“

It is not good to say what Helle Stensbak wants with her posts in Aftenposten.

When presented with facts and arguments deemed relevant to the Norwegian wealth tax debate, Stensbak reportedly dismissed them as "details" she could not engage with. The author contends that Stensbak fails to articulate what she considers the "most important" aspects of the wealth tax, despite claiming others overlook them. Her references to Donald Trump and "super-rich" individuals in the U.S. are seen as irrelevant to the Norwegian context.

The article suggests that while Stensbak touches upon potential negative impacts of inequality, such as democratic erosion and increased stress, her arguments lack empirical rigor. The author insists that meaningful discussions about inequality must delve into specifics: the type, scale, and trends of inequality, and the effectiveness of proposed solutions.

“

Stensbak believes that we 'overlook the most important thing about the wealth tax,' but cannot explain what it is herself.

To illustrate the need for precision, the piece references a recent study by four Swedish economists. This study reportedly found that while private wealth and the number of "super-rich" have increased significantly in Sweden over the past 25 years, overall inequality has slightly decreased due to broad-based wealth growth. The author concludes that Stensbak has not introduced anything new to the debate, despite her call for a "knowledge-based" discussion, and urges her to engage with the "details" and "deeper economic analysis" she advocates for.

“

But if one wants to discuss the effects of inequality, the level of precision must be much higher. Stensbak simply must be interested in the 'details': What kind of inequality are we talking about? How big is it? How is the development? And, if one wants to do something about it: Which remedies work best?