Second supplementary budget for 2024

Key points of the debate

Parliament held a heated debate on the second supplementary budget for 2024, through which value added tax (VAT) would be raised mid-year and appropriations allocated to transport projects and security, among other areas. The government parties considered the measures necessary to curb the public deficit and spur investment. The opposition, for its part, sharply criticised the timing of the VAT increase in the middle of a recession, as well as cuts and transport choices they considered regionally unequal.

• –Was raising value added tax (VAT) mid-year justified, or does it weaken purchasing power and recovery?
• –Were different regions treated fairly in the funding of transport and infrastructure projects?
• –Will the Government's economic policy lead to curbing debt accumulation or to an increase in unemployment?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The group considered the measures in the supplementary budget responsible and necessary to stabilise public finances, and viewed the opposition's criticism as lacking realistic alternatives.

  ”Ei tämä mitään paniikkia ole, tämä on ainoastaan pelikirjan mukaista hallitusohjelmakirjausten toteuttamista, ja tulokset rupeavat pikkuhiljaa kyllä puhumaan puolestaan.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The group supported the supplementary budget because it reduces the central government's need for additional borrowing, prevents entering the EU's excessive deficit procedure, and invests in border surveillance and key transport routes.

  ”Uskottava ja johdonmukainen talouspolitiikkamme varmistaa sen, että Suomen maine hyvän taloudenpidon maana palautetaan.”

• Swedish People's PartyIn favour

  The group supported the supplementary budget and highlighted the importance of support arrangements for maritime transport, which is critical to security of supply, for Finland and Åland.

  ”Traficoms stöd var helt avgörande för transporterna till och från Finland och Åland samt mellan Åland och Sverige.”

• Christian DemocratsIn favour

  The group welcomed the fact that the supplementary budget reduces appropriation needs and borrowing, while safeguarding security of supply and EU revenue for rural development funding.

  ”Elikkä todellakin tämä lisätalousarvio on nimenomaan turvallisuuden ja, sanoisin, myös huoltovarmuuden sekä alueellisen kehittämisen tasapainoinen esitys.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The group opposed the supplementary budget, viewing it as evidence of a failed economic policy where a panic increase in value added tax (VAT) and cuts to services hit low- and middle-income earners hardest.

  ”Nimittäin tässähän on tilanne se, että tämäkin lisätalousarvio on selkeä näyttö hallituksen talouspolitiikan epäonnistumisesta.”

• Centre PartyAgainst

  The group criticised the accelerating debt accumulation, the harm caused to businesses by the VAT hike, and the unequal distribution of infrastructure projects and sidelining of important regional targets.

  ”Tämä paniikkiratkaisu ei tule auttamaan, ei tule olemaan siis lääke siihen vaivaan, jota sillä pyritään nyt parantamaan.”

• GreensAgainst

  The group opposed raising value added tax (VAT) in the middle of an economic downturn as weakening the position of small businesses and low-income earners, and criticised the neglect of climate action and affordable housing construction.

  ”Tämä puolentoista prosentin nosto vyöryttää kyllä veronkorotuksen suoraan hintoihin, ja yrittäjät pelkäävät nyt jo valmiiksi vaikeassa tilanteessa olevan myynnin laskua.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The group considered increasing value added tax (VAT) during a recession a mistake that weakens purchasing power and employment, calling instead for stimulus measures and support for the construction sector.

  ”Tätä taustaa vasten lisäbudjettiin sisältyvä hallituksen päätös korottaa arvonlisäveroa 1.9., eli taantuman keskellä kesken vuoden, on järjetön.”

This digest was generated by AI from 79 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record. The longest speeches were shortened in the digest's source material.