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

Business
Budget 2025: Ottawa Fakes a Pivot and Still Spends Like Trudeau
It finally happened. Canada received a federal budget earlier this month, after more than a year without one. It’s far from a budget that’s great. It’s far from what many expected and distant from what the country needs. But it still passed.
With the budget vote drama now behind us, there may be space for some general observations beyond the details of the concerning deficits and debt. What kind of budget did Canada get?
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Try it out.
For a government that built its political identity on social-program expansion and moralized spending, Budget 2025 arrives wearing borrowed clothing. It speaks in the language of productivity, infrastructure, and capital formation, the diction of grown-up economics, yet keeps the full spending reflex of the Trudeau era. The result feels like a cabinet trying to change its fiscal costume without changing the character inside it. Time will tell, to be fair, but it feels like more rhetoric, and we have seen this same rhetoric before lead to nothing. So, I remain skeptical of what they say and how they say it.
The government insists it has found a new path, one where public investment leads private growth. That sounds bold. However, it is more a rebranding than a reform. It is a shift in vocabulary, not in discipline.
A comparison with past eras makes this clear.
Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did not flirt with restraint; they executed it. Their budgets were cut deeply, restored credibility, and revived Canada’s fiscal health when it was most needed. The Chrétien years were unsentimental. Political capital was spent so financial capital could return. Ottawa shrank so the country could grow. Budget 2025 tries to invoke their spirit but not their actions. Nothing in this plan resembles the structural surgery of the mid 1990s.
Stephen Harper, by contrast, treated balanced budgets as policy and principle. Even during the global financial crisis, his government used stimulus as a bridge, not a way of life. It cut taxes widely and consistently, limited public service growth, and placed the long-term burden on restraint rather than rhetoric. Budget 2025 nods toward Harper’s focus on productivity and capital assets, yet it rejects the tax relief and spending controls that made his budgets coherent.
Then there is Justin Trudeau, the high tide of redistribution, vacuous identity politics, and deficit-as-virtue posturing. Ottawa expanded into an ideological planner for everything, including housing, climate, childcare, inclusion portfolios, and every new identity category. Much of that ideological scaffolding consisted of mere words, weakening the principle of equality under the law and encouraging the government to referee culture rather than administer policy.
Budget 2025 is the first hint of retreat from that style. The identity program fireworks are dimmer, though they have not disappeared. The social policy boosterism is quieter. Perhaps fiscal gravity has begun to whisper in the prime minister’s ear.
However, one cannot confuse tone for transformation.
Spending is still vast. Deficits grew. The new fiscal anchor, balancing only the operating budget, is weaker than the one it replaced. The budget relies on the hopeful assumption that Ottawa’s capital spending will attract private investment on a scale that economists politely describe as ambitious.
The housing file illustrates the contradiction. The budget announces new funding for the construction of purpose-built rentals and a larger federal role in modular and subsidized housing builds. These are presented as productivity measures, yet they continue the Trudeau-era instinct to centralize housing policy rather than fix the levers that matter. Permitting delays, zoning rigidity, municipal approvals, and labour shortages continue to slow actual construction. Ottawa spends, but the foundations still cure at the same pace.
Defence spending tells the same story. Budget 2025 offers incremental funding and some procurement gestures, but it avoids the core problem: Canada’s procurement system is broken. Delays stretch across decades. Projects become obsolete before contracts are signed. The system cannot buy a ship, an aircraft, or an armoured vehicle without cost overruns and missed timelines. Spending more through this machinery will waste time and money. It adds motion, not capability.
Most importantly, the structural problems remain untouched: no regulatory reform for major projects, no tax competitiveness agenda, no strategy for shrinking a federal bureaucracy that has grown faster than the economy it governs. Ottawa presides over a low-productivity country but insists that a new accounting framework will solve what decades of overregulation and policy clutter have created. More bluster.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From an Alberta vantage, the pivot is welcome but inadequate. The economy that pays for Confederation, energy, mining, agriculture, and transportation receives more rhetorical respect in Budget 2025, yet the same regulatory thicket that blocks pipelines and mines remains intact. The government praises capital formation but still undermines the key sectors that generate it.
Budget 2025 tries to walk like Chrétien and talk like Harper while spending like Trudeau. That is not a transformation; it is a costume change. The country needed a budget that prioritized growth rooted in tangible assets and real productivity. What it got instead is a rhetorical turn without the courage to cut, streamline, or reform.
Canada does not require a new budgeting vocabulary. It requires a government willing to govern in the best interest of the country.
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
Help us bring you more quality research and commentary.
Business
Climate Climbdown: Sacrificing the Canadian Economy for Net-Zero Goals Others Are Abandoning
By Gwyn Morgan
Canada has spent the past decade pursuing climate policies that promised environmental transformation but delivered economic decline. Ottawa’s fixation on net-zero targets – first under Justin Trudeau and now under Prime Minister Mark Carney – has meant staggering public expenditures, resource project cancellations and rising energy costs, all while failing to
reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Now, as key international actors reassess the net-zero doctrine, Canada stands increasingly alone in imposing heavy burdens for negligible gains.
The Trudeau government launched its agenda in 2015 by signing the Paris Climate Agreement aimed at limiting the forecast increase in global average temperature to 1.5°C by the end of the century. It followed the next year with the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change that imposed more than 50 measures on the economy, key among them a
carbon “pricing” regime – Liberal-speak for taxes on every Canadian citizen and industry. Then came the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, committing Canada to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and to achieve net-zero by 2050. And then the “On-Farm Climate Action Fund,” the “Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program” and the “Green Municipal Fund.”
It’s a staggering list of nation-impoverishing subsidies, taxes and restrictions, made worse by regulatory measures that hammered the energy industry. The Trudeau government cancelled the fully-permitted Northern Gateway pipeline, killing more than $1 billion in private investment and stranding hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of crude oil in the ground. The
Energy East project collapsed after Ottawa declined to challenge Quebec’s political obstruction, cutting off a route that could have supplied Atlantic refineries and European markets. Natural gas developers fared no better: 11 of 12 proposed liquefied natural gas export terminals were abandoned amid federal regulatory delays and policy uncertainty. Only a single LNG project in Kitimat, B.C., survived.
None of this has had the desired effect. Between Trudeau’s election in 2015 and 2023, fossil fuels’ share of Canada’s energy supply actually increased from 75 to 77 percent. As for saving the world, or even making some contribution towards doing so, Canada contributes just 1.5 percent of global GHG emissions. If our emissions went to zero tomorrow, the emissions
growth from China and India would make that up in just a few weeks.
And this green fixation has been massively expensive. Two newly released studies by the Fraser Institute found that Ottawa and the four biggest provinces have either spent or foregone a mind-numbing $158 billion to create just 68,000 “clean” jobs – an eye-watering cost of over $2.3 million per job “created”. At that, the green economy’s share of GDP crept up only 0.3
percentage points.
The rest of the world is waking up to this folly. A decade after the Paris Agreement, over 81 percent of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels. Environmental statistician and author Bjorn Lomborg points out that achieving global net-zero by 2050 would require removing the equivalent of the combined emissions of China and the United States in each of the next five
years. “This puts us in the realm of science fiction,” he wrote recently.
In July, the U.S. Department of Energy released a major assessment assembled by a team of highly credible climate scientists which asserted that “CO 2 -induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed,” and that aggressive mitigation policies might be “more detrimental than beneficial.” The report found no evidence of rising frequency or severity of hurricanes, floods, droughts or tornadoes in U.S. historical data, while noting that U.S. emissions reductions would have “undetectably small impacts” on global temperatures in any case.
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright welcomed the findings, noting that improving living standards depends on reliable, affordable energy. The same day, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding the 2009 “endangerment finding” that had designated CO₂ and other GHGs as “pollutants.” It had led to sweeping restrictions on oil and gas development and fuelled policies that the current administration estimates cost the U.S. economy at least US$1 trillion in lost growth.
Even long-time climate alarmists are backtracking. Ted Nordhaus, a prominent American critic, recently acknowledged that the dire global warming scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rely on implausible combinations of rapid population growth, strong economic expansion and stagnant technology. Economic growth typically reduces population increases and accelerates technological improvement, he pointed out, meaning emissions trends will likely be lower than predicted. Even Bill Gates has tempered his outlook, writing that climate change will not be “cataclysmic,” and that although it will hurt the poor, “it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare.” Poverty and disease pose far greater threats and resources, he wrote, should be focused where they can do the most good now.
Yet Ottawa remains unmoved. Prime Minister Carney’s latest budget raises industrial carbon taxes to as much as $170 per tonne by 2030, increasing the competitive disadvantage of Canadian industries in a time of weak productivity and declining investment. These taxes will not measurably alter global emissions, but they will deepen Canada’s economic malaise and
push production – and emissions – toward jurisdictions with more lax standards. As others retreat from net-zero delusions, Canada moves further offside global energy policy trends – extending our country’s sad decline.
The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.
Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.
-
Alberta19 hours agoNational Crisis Approaching Due To The Carney Government’s Centrally Planned Green Economy
-
Carbon Tax7 hours agoCarney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Business8 hours agoThe UN Pushing Carbon Taxes, Punishing Prosperity, And Promoting Poverty
-
COVID-191 day agoNew report warns Ottawa’s ‘nudge’ unit erodes democracy and public trust
-
Agriculture20 hours agoFederal cabinet calls for Canadian bank used primarily by white farmers to be more diverse
-
Health6 hours agoNEW STUDY: Infant Vaccine “Intensity” Strongly Predicts Autism Rates Worldwide
-
Great Reset18 hours agoCanadian government forcing doctors to promote euthanasia to patients: report
-
Business5 hours agoClimate Climbdown: Sacrificing the Canadian Economy for Net-Zero Goals Others Are Abandoning




