Dagens nyheter's Debate Them. Horribly expensive, inefficient, and fördelningspolitiskt the unequal method.

< Almega claims to the government, the cost of skattesubventionera RUT-services have, in principle, pay for it yourself. The material presented by the Swedish research institute of trade (HUI), however, a degree of self-government with significant and obvious weaknesses. On the contrary, the cost of the rutsubventionen a significant and the desired effect has been, in essence, is not fulfilled.

< Almega prisoners, however, the goal of the reform, the two major sources of income (1) persons excluded from the labour market into employment; and (2) the increase in the labour supply of high income earners, which will allow them to buy off domestic duties. There are scraping it together for four out of the five billion in the value of the tax exemption at a price.

the Branches, however, can shrink and grow by the hundreds and hundreds of reasons, and, as a minimum, this type of study is that you have nothing to compare it with, which is similar to the subsidy, in order to be able to assess the impact. Such a methodologically superior study, from the authority of office at growth analysis, (which, oddly enough, was referenced in the article) came to the conclusion that the total number of rutjobb subsidy will be created around 8.500.

< Almega's sub-standard method does, however, provide a single total of 24.300 jobs, with almost three times as high. This inflated figure is then 13,400 of the part of the unemployed (4500 people) and, in part, to persons outside of the labour market (8900 persons), which, according to Almega, leads to a revenue of 2.5 billion for the government.

and that, more and more of the ”exclusion” comes in the work other than the fact it created jobs, a decent method is used, which is, in itself, of course, is one of the best. The revenue is also based on the assumption that, without the rutsubventionen would 13,400 of the persons who were employed or unemployed/outside the labour market, have not been given any other job. This, in turn, is an absurdity.

for the Researcher, and Johanna Rickne, for example, in a study conducted by the SNS to the (non-subsidised) workers, who, therefore, are not available to the household, a significantly higher proportion of individuals in these two groups. They could have gotten a similar job? Yes, the same, the SNS report showed that the home employs, for example, more and more people who are coming from unemployment/outside the labour market, and, pursuant to the authority of office at growth analysis, the cost of each rutjobb about three jobs in the home. They now have a rutjobb would not only be able to be employed, but three times as many for the same cost, that is to say, given that the amount went to local governments in lieu of skattesubvention to the already well-off.

which , according to Almega not be able to get a job, but then, it consists among other things of the people who were previously students, national service, parental leave, and sick leave. It is, of course, not impossible that the reason that these are starting to work, rather due to the fact that they stopped the study, the military service is completed, the maternity leave period, and that it was well, in short, things that have nothing to do with the alienation. (p.(k). strukturarbetslöshet) to do that.

this is The second large amount of revenue, € 1.5 billion will come from the to be paid is expected to increase its labour supply (working more when they are able to buy off the domestic duties. The reference to a ”calculation” made by the Konjunkturinstitut and out, certainly, that Report was questioned, and the debate was high.”.

They forget to mention is that the figure is not at all ”calculated”, but rather just accepted (that is to say, made up) of what the author calls the ”different calculation”. Utvärderingsmyndigheten IFAU writing, however, in the light of the empirical results of this study that ”The evidence suggests that the employment effects of increasing the supply of labour is very low.”. Of the 1.5 billion dollars in revenue, therefore, is what in modern parlance would be referred to as a killgissning, that no minister should be taken seriously. There are, in fact, at the time, no need to remove the Almega, and the SYSTEM's siffertrollande seriously. Rutsubventioner, is, and will remain, a very expensive, inefficient, and fördelningspolitisk inequality approach to achieving employment policy goals.

the Link to the graphic