Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Norway’s Trainwreck – How Taxing Unrealized Gains Has Caused an Entrepreneurial Exodus

Published

15 minute read

From hagaet the substack of Fredrik Haga, co-founder of Dune

Norway Shrugged 

Recently, my story as a Norwegian entrepreneur facing an unrealized gains wealth tax bill many ties higher than my net income went viral, amassing over 100 million views on X. A few years ago I publicly called out that this tax is both impossible-to-pay and nonsensical, but no politician would listen. So I made the difficult decision to leave my home country. I still don’t know how I was supposed to pay the tax, but I recently found myself plastered on the “Wall of Shame” at the Socialist Left Party’s offices.

In this post, I’ll delve into why there’s an entrepreneurial exodus from Norway, how we got here, and what the future might hold.

Socialist Left leader and me on the “Wall of Shame” (Dagbladet)

Norway: A real life Atlas Shrugged 

Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged paints a vivid picture of a dystopian society where government overreach and socialist policies kill innovation and demonize entrepreneurs. In Rand’s world, working hard and taking risks is not celebrated, but looked at with suspicion. As the government tightens its grip, mandating how businesses should operate, the nation’s entrepreneurs begin to vanish and are nowhere to be found. People get poorer while the state keeps growing. Step by step the functioning of society starts to crumble. The trains first go off schedule, then start crashing and eventually stop going all together.

Present-day Norway mirrors this dystopia in unsettling ways. Taking risk with your own money, working hard and then making a profit is frowned upon. While politicians spending the people’s money on non-viable green projects, and delivering dysfunctional public services at high costs has the moral high ground. The government is spending 35 Billion NOK on offshore wind that industry experts think is financially unviable. This is about the same amount as the total wealth tax revenues. Norway spends 45% more than Sweden on health care per capita with approximately the same health outcomes. Norway has 2,5 times bigger share of the working population on sick leave than Denmark. Norway spends ~50% more than Finland on primary and secondary school with worse results.

With unshakeable ideological conviction, socialist politicians are rapidly undermining Norway’s wealth creation. They’re imposing taxes that explicitly disadvantage Norwegian business owners, and are often straight up impossible to pay. When confronted with the reality that you can’t pay taxes with money you don’t have—or that loss-making businesses can’t afford massive dividends just to cover owners’ wealth taxes—the response is vague moralism like “Those with the broadest shoulders must bear the heaviest burdens.” Any argument against any part of the system is by default invalid because there’s free health care…

Norway’s entrepreneurs are now indeed disappearing from society. In the past two years alone, a staggering 100 of Norway’s top 400 taxpayers, representing about 50% of that group’s wealth, have fled the country to protect their businesses.

Norwegian trains have for a long time been notoriously unreliable – even less reliable then in war time Ukraine! In chilling similarity to Atlas Shrugged there’ve been two train crashes, including one fatal, in the last month alone.

Tram crashing into a retail store in Oslo 29th of October 2024 (NRK)

The Unrealized Gains Wealth Tax: A Self-Inflicted Wound

Norway imposes a wealth tax that taxes unrealized gains at approximately 1% annually. Calculated on the full market value for publicly traded assets and the book value of private companies. On New Year’s Eve, whatever your net worth – including illiquid assets – is subject to this tax. It doesn’t matter if you’re running a loss-making startup with no cash flow, if your investments have tanked after the valuation date, or even if your company has gone bankrupt—you still owe the tax.

This creates a perverse scenario where business owners must extract dividends or sell shares every year just to cover their tax bill. With dividend and capital gains taxes at around 38%, you need to withdraw approximately 1.6 million NOK to pay a 1 million NOK wealth tax bill. You’re essentially paying taxes to pay taxes, draining capital from your business without any personal financial gain.

Moreover, the tax incentivizes Norwegians to take on excessive debt to reduce their taxable wealth, inflating housing prices and making the economy more fragile. While real estate and oil companies can mitigate this through debt financing, tech startups—often equity-financed and loss-making for years—are disproportionately harmed.

The Berlin Wall Exit Tax: Another Tax on Unrealized Gains

After witnessing a mass exodus of top taxpayers, the Norwegian government had a golden opportunity to reassess its policies. The wealth tax contributes less than 2% to the state budget; eliminating it and marginally increasing capital gains, corporate, or dividend taxes could have halted the entrepreneurial bleeding without affecting government budgets.

Instead, the government doubled down on what’s not working, introducing an exit tax on unrealized gains. Now, if you choose to move from Norway, you’re immediately liable to pay 38% of the total market value of your assets upon departure. It doesn’t matter if you have no liquidity, if your assets are high-risk and could plummet in value, or even if your company does fail after you leave—you still owe the tax. Previously, entrepreneurs could at least relocate if the wealth tax became too burdensome. Now, they’re incentivized to leave before they even start their businesses.

The government could have listened to the tornado of negative feedback and adjusted course, but instead, they doubled down on what’s not working. When the Berlin wall was created it was clear which side of the city had the better system… the one that didn’t have to build a wall to retain its citizens. Instead of trying to attract and retrain capital and talent by making Norway a better place for business the Norwegian government chose to build its very own Berlin Tax Wall with yet another tax on unrealized gains. Trapping not only entrepreneurs, but anyone with more than $270k of wealth wanting to move their life abroad for whatever reason…

The first 50 years: Well Managed Oil Wealth 

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world. The government does not need to send their entrepreneurs abroad with non-sensical taxes. So you may ask yourself, “Well, how did we get here?”.

In fact, the oil wealth has been amazingly well managed by the politicians for almost half a century. In 1969, Norway struck oil—a discovery that could have led to the same resource curse that plagued other nations. Instead, Norwegian politicians made two genius decisions that benefited the entire population.

  1. Genius Move 1: Taxing Oil Profits at 80%Recognizing the need for foreign expertise but unwilling to let international corporations reap all the benefits, Norway taxed oil company profits at a staggering 80%. This bold move ensured that the wealth generated from the oil benefited the Norwegian people.
  2. Genius Move 2: Establishing the Sovereign Wealth FundIn the 1990s, Norwegian politicians understood that oil is a finite volatile resource and that it would be irresponsible to spend all the oil revenue on a running basis. In an act of rare political austerity and long term thinking they created the Oil Fund, to diversify and invest surplus revenues internationally. Furthermore the “Budgetary Rule” limited annual government spending from the fund to 3%, ensuring the fund in theory goes on forever.

For two decades, politicians across the spectrum adhered to this prudent financial management, displaying an impressive level of restraint and foresight rarely seen in politics.

How Oil Wealth Led to Socialist Ideology over Wealth Creation

But success bred complacency. In theory, everybody agrees that Norway needs new post-oil industries for the long term. In practice, the abundance of oil wealth has led to a detachment from the realities of how wealth and economic growth is created. While the Norwegian politicians impressively managed to restrain themselves for about half a century the current generation are now acting as if tax money grows on trees.

Ultimately that is the paradox that has caused the current situation: because the state has so much money, it is no longer at the mercy of businesses actually being created and staying in Norway. At least as long as the oil wealth lasts.

The 2025 Election: No Fundamental Solution in Sight

It seems likely there will be a new government after the 2025 elections, as the current government is seeing record-low support in the polls. Unfortunately, even seemingly business friendly opposition parties like the Conservative Party (Høyre) and the Liberals (Venstre) are not committed to abolishing the wealth tax entirely. They propose valuing companies zero for wealth tax purposes—a good step in the right direction, but not a fundamental solution to Norway’s ongoing crisis. Unfortunately The Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) is the only party that wants to remove the tax completely.

The wealth tax’s mere existence continues to create absurd incentives for excessive debt and over-investment in housing, detracting from more productive investments like stocks and startups. Moreover, the possibility of future governments reinstating the wealth tax for companies keeps the harmful uncertainty for businesses very much alive.

Many European countries have recognized the harm caused by taxing unrealized gains and abandoned it. Norway’s neighbor Sweden abolished its wealth tax in 2007. Since then they’ve seen its tech sector flourish. Spotify recently surpassed Norway’s state-owned oil company, Equinor, in market capitalization. In the last 15 years Norway has gone from having 7 to now only 2 of the Nordics top 30 most valuable companies.

Norway has produced four “unicorns”. Since then we the founders of Dune and Cognite have left due to the unreasonable taxes. Oda operates domestically in Norway. All founders have left the company and are wiped out. The last one Gelato is run by a swede that would likely move if they need to raise more money.

The Extra Long Journey to Post-Oil Wealth and Welfare

In Atlas Shrugged, the entrepreneurs refuse to return to society until the oppressive system collapses entirely. I sincerely hope Norway doesn’t have to endure such a downfall before entrepreneurs can return.

Fortunately Norway has a highly educated population and a lot of capital. With oil a high tech industry has been built in Norway before. What’s lacking is the political will to encourage entrepreneurship and big ambitions, not punish it.

Trust is built in millimeters and torn down in meters. In just a few years, the trust in Norway as a viable place to build and invest has been shattered. A whole generation of entrepreneurs has been lost.

The people of Norway currently enjoy and benefit from a host of generous welfare benefits. High income with short work days, free healthcare, free daycare, free education and beyond. For this to continue in the future Norway needs massive new post-oil industries. Due to the politicians’ series of unforced errors, the journey to get there will be extra long and painful. A definitive abolishment of all taxes on unrealized capital gains is the obvious first step.

 

highlight
Subscribe to hagaetc and never miss a post.

Business

103 Conflicts and Counting Unprecedented Ethics Web of Prime Minister Mark Carney

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight  Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Brookfield. The PMO. Eurasia Group. One Green Agenda, Billions in Conflicts.

Well, it finally happened. After months of dodging questions and hiding behind vague platitudes about “climate leadership,” Prime Minister Mark Carney’s official conflict-of-interest screen has been released by the Ethics Commissioner—and what it reveals is nothing short of staggering. Not five entities. Not a dozen. One hundred and three. That’s how many corporate and financial interests Carney has quietly acknowledged are too conflicted for him to touch.

At the center of this web? Brookfield Asset Management, the $1 trillion global investment firm where Carney was Vice-Chair before walking straight into Canada’s top political office. The very same Brookfield that owns energy projects, pipelines, nuclear companies, real estate empires, carbon offset schemes you name it, they’ve got a piece of it. And now, they’ve got a former executive running the country.

We’re told it’s all perfectly legal. We’re told Carney has “recused himself.” But what this disclosure actually shows is something much bigger: a government captured by finance, a prime minister with deep, ongoing entanglements in the very sectors his policies now enrich, and a climate agenda that’s beginning to look a whole lot like a money-printing operation for the global elite.

The deeper one digs into Prime Minister Mark Carney’s ethics disclosure, the clearer the picture becomes: what’s been framed as a climate leadership story is, in reality, a tightly wound web of commercial interest wrapped in green rhetoric. The 103-entity conflict-of-interest screen, ostensibly a shield against impropriety, instead serves as a road map of how thoroughly Canada’s top political office is entangled in the global green finance complex centered around Brookfield Asset Management.

As of Q1 2025, Brookfield reports $125 billion in assets under management (AUM) in its Renewable Power & Transition segment, a figure representing 12.5% of its overall $1 trillion portfolio. This segment alone encompasses most of the entities on Carney’s ethics screen: nearly 60 out of 103, even after accounting for duplicates. These aren’t passive holdings they’re the very projects, technologies, and subsidy-eligible vehicles Carney once oversaw directly as vice-chair of Brookfield and as co-lead of its $15 billion Global Transition Fund.

Brookfield’s renewables portfolio is vast: over 41.8 GW in installed capacity globally across wind, solar, hydro, and storage, with a 200+ GW development pipeline. A significant portion of this is owned or operated through the same SPVs and subsidiaries now appearing on the conflict list. Notable entries include Scout Clean Energy ($1B), Urban Grid ($650M), and Standard Solar ($540M). These acquisitions were all completed while Carney was at Brookfield, and they continue to generate revenue from U.S. and Canadian subsidy frameworks programs now shaped by the very government he leads.

Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P., the sector flagship, holds approximately $95 billion in total assets and generated $315 million in funds from operations in Q1 2025 alone. The firm is planning to add another 8 GW in capacity this year expansion that is, in part, subsidized through the same green transition policies Carney has promoted both in office and as a climate finance advocate.

The line between public and private interest blurs even further when examining the entities categorized under the “energy transition” banner; nuclear, CCS (carbon capture and storage), and so-called e-fuels. Carney’s screen includes Brookfield’s recent $8 billion acquisition of Westinghouse Electric Company, a nuclear power behemoth now positioned to benefit from Canada’s federal nuclear incentives and SMR (small modular reactor) program. Other flagged investments like Entropy and Carbon TerraVault fall directly into carbon credit and offset schemes—markets heavily influenced by federal regulation and incentive design.

Let’s stop pretending. What we’re witnessing here isn’t just conflict of interest, it’s a complete merger of state power and corporate ambition, all dressed up in the language of moral urgency. The Ethics Commissioner’s so-called “screen” for Mark Carney? It’s a joke. A checklist. A bureaucratic fig leaf meant to reassure you that everything’s above board. But it’s not.

Because here’s the truth: Carney is policing himself. He’s supposed to recuse himself from decisions that benefit the 103 entities he’s tied to many of which he helped create or oversee as Vice-Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. But who decides if he’s in conflict? He does. Or more accurately, the PMO does. The same PMO now drafting Dominion Barton-style focus groups to figure out how best to sell you the green grift. There’s no third-party oversight, no transparency on what’s actually in his so-called blind trust, and no disclosure of the carried interest he may still be entitled to from Brookfield’s billions in funds.

Meanwhile, the policy levers of government are being pulled in exactly the direction Brookfield bet on. Wind, solar, carbon capture, nuclear, every so-called “transition” sector that Brookfield spent years buying into is now flush with green subsidies, ESG guarantees, and taxpayer-backed investment shields. This isn’t the free market at work, it’s a strategic payoff, engineered by someone who’s now running one of the most powerful G7 economies.

And again, none of it is illegal. That’s the most damning part. Because legality isn’t the standard here. The standard is integrity, and that’s nowhere to be found. The scale of this overlap isn’t just large. It’s systemic. It’s built into the very foundation of the Carney government’s climate policy. The same man who structured these funds is now the man signing off on the policies that make them profitable.

Diana Fox Carney’s Quiet Role in the Climate Cash Machine

And just when you thought the web of influence stopped at the Prime Minister himself, along comes Diana Fox Carney, economist, climate consultant, and spouse of the most well-connected man in Canadian politics. While Mark Carney’s direct financial entanglements with Brookfield Asset Management are now public record, his wife’s career trajectory paints an equally troubling picture of how the same elite networks driving Canada’s green spending are profiting in parallel, behind the curtain.

Diana Fox Carney currently holds a senior advisory role at Eurasia Group, the New York-based geopolitical risk consultancy that’s become a quiet powerhouse in shaping global ESG narratives. It’s also the same firm where Gerald Butts—Trudeau’s longtime fixer and architect of the federal climate playbook—now serves as vice chair. Add in former journalist Evan Solomon and even Conservative stalwart John Baird, and you’ve got a bipartisan consultancy stacked with Canadian political operators. Convenient? Maybe. Coordinated? You decide.

And what has this firm staffed with Liberal-era insiders received in return? Millions in untendered government contracts, including a $446,210 deal from Natural Resources Canada in 2024 for vaguely defined “geopolitical research.” That’s nearly half a million dollars in taxpayer money handed out without competition, to a firm employing the sitting Prime Minister’s wife—and his former colleagues. Just coincidence, right?

But Eurasia Group is only the start. Diana’s reach extends far beyond advisory calls. She’s connected to:

  • BeyondNetZero, a climate equity fund backed by U.S. private capital giant General Atlantic.
  • Helios CLEAR, investing in African climate “resilience.”
  • ClientEarth U.S. and the Shell Foundation, both pushing aggressive environmental litigation and policy influence.
  • Canada 2020, a Trudeau-aligned think tank that’s pocketed over $1 million in federal grants.

Throw in indirect ties to Gates Foundation funding, Save the Children, and research networks influencing African agriculture, and you’re looking at a network of transnational climate consultants with deep, ongoing influence over the exact climate policies the federal government is now implementing under her husband’s leadership.

Now, legally, Diana is in the clear. She’s not a public office holder. But that’s the point. The rules weren’t designed for this new class of political operator—the dual-career globalist power couple, where one side signs the climate cheques while the other cashes them. No formal disclosure is required. No recusals. No transparency. Yet the influence is there. The access is there. The money is flowing.

Opposition Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Slams Carney’s Hidden Conflicts, Demands Real Transparency

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre wasted no time responding to the bombshell ethics screen showing Prime Minister Mark Carney is recusing himself from dealings with over 100 companies, many tied to his former employer, Brookfield Asset Management. In a pair of direct and widely shared posts, Poilievre accused Carney of concealing critical financial entanglements from voters during the 2025 election, and warned that the Liberal leader is now either positioned to profit from federal decisions or paralyzed from making them.

“Mark Carney must explain why he kept these conflicts secret from voters until after the election,” Poilievre wrote. “Now he will be in a position to profit from big decisions or will be forced to sit out those decisions altogether. Either way, Canadians will pay the price.”

In a second post earlier that morning, Poilievre challenged the credibility of Carney’s so-called blind trust, urging the Prime Minister to liquidate his holdings entirely and hand the cash to a trustee who can invest it without Carney’s knowledge or influence:

“Otherwise, he will always know how political decisions can affect his personal wealth.”

These statements mark the strongest opposition rebuke yet of the Carney government’s financial entanglements. Poilievre’s message echoes growing public criticism that the ethics screen is little more than window dressing, lacking third-party oversight, and that it fails to address indirect benefit through carried interest, deferred compensation, or spousal affiliations.

While Carney has claimed he is in full compliance with federal ethics laws, the fact that the disclosures were released only after the election is fueling outrage—not just among Conservatives but from broader accountability watchdogs. With over 100 entities flagged, many of them tied to green energy, infrastructure, and climate finance—the same sectors receiving billions in federal spending—the Conservative leader has positioned himself as the voice of those demanding a full forensic audit of the Prime Minister’s interests.

The message from the opposition is clear: if this were a Conservative leader, the media would be calling it a scandal. But because it’s Carney—the global banker, the climate envoy, the Liberal savior—the establishment is looking the other way. Poilievre’s Conservatives aren’t. And they’re turning this into a defining issue of integrity and accountability in Canadian politics.

Let’s Call This What It Is

This isn’t subtle. This isn’t nuanced. This is what a grift looks like—on paper, in public, in black and white. Over one hundred conflicts of interest tied directly to Mark Carney. Entire portfolios of foreign and domestic holdings, billions in green investments, shell companies in Bermuda—and that’s before we even get to his wife’s global consultancy work, advising firms that quietly gobble up federal contracts without a single public tender.

And here’s the thing: we weren’t told any of this during the election. There was no press conference, no headline, no public vetting of the sprawling web of corporate and climate interests now tied to the highest office in the country. Why? Because it would have compromised the Liberal grip on power. Because the last thing this party wanted Canadians to know was that their new leader wasn’t just a banker—but a banker with a boardroom’s worth of financial strings still attached.

Now imagine—just for a moment—if it had been Pierre Poilievre. Or Andrew Scheer. Or any Conservative leader with over a hundred screened entities, global finance ties, offshore SPVs, and a spouse employed by a company collecting millions in government money. The press would be in a frenzy. The CBC would be running specials. They’d be calling him compromised, unfit, a foreign agent.

But because it’s their guy—because it’s the Liberal elite’s banker-in-chief—we’re told it’s fine. It’s all above board. Move along, nothing to see here.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

This is not leadership. This is ideological grifting at the highest level. The Liberal Party, once the party of national unity and democratic accountability, has become a hollowed-out machine for elite interests. They’re not liberals. They’re grifters—grifting for green subsidies, globalist contracts, and personal access to power. They have no principle left. Just consultants, contracts, and a taxpayer-funded narrative to keep the game going.

Enough. Canadians didn’t vote for this. They weren’t told the truth. And now the entire climate agenda, the whole “just transition,” looks more like a get-rich scheme for the political class than any serious public mission.

It’s time for an election. Time to clear house. Time to drain this toxic, green-glossed swamp once and for all.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Opposition with Dan Knight , share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home

Published on

  • 77 per cent say Canada’s tariffs on U.S. products increase the price of consumer goods
  • 72 per cent say that their current tax bill hurts their standard of living

A new MEI-Ipsos poll published this morning reveals a clear disconnect between Ottawa’s high-tax, high-spending approach and Canadians’ level of satisfaction.

“Canadians are not on board with Ottawa’s fiscal path,” says Samantha Dagres, communications manager at the MEI. “From housing to trade policy, Canadians feel they’re being squeezed by a government that is increasingly an impediment to their standard of living.”

More than half of Canadians (54 per cent) say Ottawa is spending too much, while only six per cent think it is spending too little.

A majority (54 per cent) also do not believe federal dollars are being effectively allocated to address Canada’s most important issues, and a similar proportion (55 per cent) are dissatisfied with the transparency and accountability in the government’s spending practices.

As for their own tax bills, Canadians are equally skeptical. Two-thirds (67 per cent) say they pay too much income tax, and about half say they do not receive good value in return.

Provincial governments fared even worse. A majority of Canadians say they receive poor value for the taxes they pay provincially. In Quebec, nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of respondents say they are not getting their money’s worth from the provincial government.

Not coincidentally, Quebecers face the highest marginal tax rates in North America.

On the question of Canada’s response to the U.S. trade dispute, nearly eight in 10 Canadians (77 per cent) agree that Ottawa’s retaliatory tariffs on American products are driving up the cost of everyday goods.

“Canadians understand that tariffs are just another form of taxation, and that they are the ones footing the bill for any political posturing,” adds Ms. Dagres. “Ottawa should favour unilateral tariff reduction and increased trade with other nations, as opposed to retaliatory tariffs that heap more costs onto Canadian consumers and businesses.”

On the issue of housing, 74 per cent of respondents believe that taxes on new construction contribute directly to unaffordability.

All of this dissatisfaction culminates in 72 per cent of Canadians saying their overall tax burden is reducing their standard of living.

“Taxpayers are not just ATMs for government – and if they are going to pay such exorbitant taxes, you’d think the least they could expect is good service in return,” says Ms. Dagres. “Canadians are increasingly distrustful of a government that believes every problem can be solved with higher taxes.”

A sample of 1,020 Canadians 18 years of age and older was polled between June 17 and 23, 2025. The results are accurate to within ± 3.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X