Minister Boštjančič: »Vlaganja v znanje, zdravje in varnost so naložbe v prihodnost«

V novi epizodi vladnega GOVSI podkasta je finančni minister Klemen Boštjančič spregovoril o sprejetih proračunih za leti 2026 in 2027, ključnih prioritetah vlade ter izvedenih reformah, ki po njegovih besedah krepijo finančno stabilnost in razvoj države.

Minister je izpostavil, da med osrednje prioritete vlade sodijo vlaganja v zdravstvo, izobraževanje, raziskave in stanovanjsko politiko, saj gre za področja, ki so bila v preteklosti povsem zapostavljena. Poudaril je, da vlada vodi vzdržno fiskalno politiko, ki omogoča investicije v dolgoročni razvoj – od gradnje novih fakultet do največjega podatkovnega centra v državi.

Ponosen je, da je vladi uspelo vsako leto doseči dogovor z občinami o povprečnini, letos v višini 835 evrov, ter izvesti nekatere ključne reforme: od reforme plačnega sistema v javnem sektorju do pokojninske reforme in vzpostavitve sistema dolgotrajne oskrbe.

Ob tem je izpostavil, da so tudi zato vse večje bonitetne agencije v zadnjem letu zvišale oceno Slovenije.

Dotaknil se je tudi naraščajočih izdatkov za varnost, ki jih vidi kot nujo v spremenjenih globalnih razmerah, ter razkril, da so mu kitajski vlagatelji ob obisku predlagali izdajo tako imenovane »Luka Dončić obveznice«.

Vabljeni k ogledu in poslušanju epizode podkasta!

[ENGLISH VERSION]

Minister Boštjančič: »Investments in knowledge, health and security are investments in the future«

In the latest episode of the government GOVSI podcast, Minister of Finance Klemen Boštjančič presented the adopted state budgets for 2026 and 2027, the government’s key development priorities and the implemented reforms that contribute to strengthening Slovenia’s financial stability and long-term development.

The Minister underlined that the government’s main priorities include investments in healthcare, education, research and housing policy, as these are areas that had been significantly neglected in the past. He emphasized that the government is pursuing a responsible fiscal policy that enables investments in sustainable development – from the construction of new university faculties to the establishment of the country’s largest data centre.

Minister Boštjančič expressed satisfaction that the government has reached agreements with municipalities on the level of per capita funding (povprečnina) each year of its mandate, amounting to EUR 835 for the next period, and that it has implemented several key reforms, including the public sector pay reform, the pension reform and the introduction of the long-term care system.

He noted that these efforts have also been recognised internationally, as all major credit rating agencies upgraded Slovenia’s rating over the past year, confirming the country’s fiscal stability and credibility.

The Minister also referred to increased security-related expenditures, which he described as a necessity in light of changing global circumstances. During his recent visit to China, he said, investors even suggested issuing a »Luka Dončić bond«, illustrating Slovenia’s growing visibility and positive reputation abroad.

Tune in on your favourite platform to listen or watch the episode of podcast and enjoy the experience!

Transcript

Verjamem, da si nihče znotraj te vlade, tudi jaz kot finančni minister si seveda ne želim, da se povečujejo obrambni izdatki, ampak to je pač postala nuja.

Predvsem veliko v ostalih državah plačujejo iz lastnega žepa. O tem se v Sloveniji zelo, zelo malo govori.

Mislim, da smo celo prva vlada, ki je vsa štiri leta sklenila kompromis z občinskimi združenji. 

Vladni podkast GOVSI

Voditeljica Petra Bezjak Cirman: Spoštovane gledalke in gledalci poslušalke in poslušalci dobrodošli v 31. epizodi GOVSI podkasta, ki ga pripravljamo na Uradu Republike Slovenije za komuniciranje. Moje ime je Petra Bezjak Cirman, moj današnji gost pa je finančni minister Klemen Boštjančič. Pozdravljeni. 

Gost minister Klemen Boštjančič:  Lepo pozdravljeni.

Voditeljica: V mesecu novembru v Državnem zboru sprejemajo državni proračun za 2 leti, in sicer za leti 2026, gre za spremembo državnega proračuna, in predlog državnega proračuna za leto 2027. Vlada je oba proračuna že potrdila konec septembra, zato ste bili logična izbira za današnjega sogovornika. Pogajanja o tem, kako naj se delijo sredstva v proračunu, so verjetno zelo naporna. Pogosto je sprejemanje proračunov točka preloma v koalicijskih vladah, vlade pa lahko tudi razpadejo. Kako je bilo tokrat?

Gost:  Ne dosti drugače kot vsako leto, tako kot ste povedali: naporno. Ampak proces je na ministrstvu za finance, ki je pripravljalec proračuna, že utečen. Začne se pravzaprav spomladi, torej, s pripravami na ministrstvu za finance, potem je prva proračunska seja vlade - letos je bila celo junija, običajno je v začetku julija.

Letos smo jo naredili malo prej. Zato smo imeli nekaj več časa tudi za ta pogajanja, ki trajajo pravzaprav celo poletje in se zaključijo konec septembra, ko vlada pošlje proračuna v Državni zbor. Potem pa se začne drugi del sprejemanja proračuna, ta parlamentarni del.

Voditeljica: Malce statistike: v Sloveniji imamo 184 neposrednih uporabnikov proračuna, potem pa so tukaj še posredni proračunski uporabniki, kot so javni zavodi, šole, bolnišnice, kulturne ustanove, raziskovalni inštituti, agencije in skladi, ki jih je ustanovila država in dobijo finančna sredstva prek teh neposrednih. 2900 jih je, kar nanese slabih 3000 proračunskih uporabnikov v Sloveniji. Torej, velika številka subjektov, s katerimi se morate uskladiti.

Gost:  Drži. Je pa dejstvo, da kar se vlade tiče oziroma ministrstva za finance usklajujemo proračun, na eni strani s posameznimi resorji, potem seveda tudi z vsemi ostalimi, ki ne sodijo pod posamezne resorje. Medtem pa – omenili ste bolnišnice, omenili ste različne zavode, šole - to ni delo ministrstva za finance, ampak pristojnega resorja. Posamezni resorje seveda potem tudi znotraj svojega proračuna ta sredstva razporejajo naprej v skladu z zakoni, pa skladu s politikami, ki jih pač vodijo.

Voditeljica: Marsikdo je pričakoval, da se ta vlada ne bo uspela dogovoriti, ker gre za koalicijsko. In sicer, da bo klecnila na obrambnih izdatkih; imamo pač stranko v koaliciji, ki je skeptična do povečanja obrambnih izdatkov. Uspelo se vam je uskladiti.  Koliko ljudi je bilo vključenih ta proces, kako vam je sploh to uspelo?

Gost: V proračunsko načrtovanje in poslovanje je zelo veliko ljudi vključenih. Seveda tisto, kar se vidi, so po navadi ministri, pa seveda predstojniki različnih organov, ampak tudi znotraj posameznih organov je veliko ljudi, ki so v to vključenih. Tega vsega se ne vidi. Kar se tiče vprašanja obrambnih izdatkov. Verjamem, da si nihče znotraj te vlade, tudi jaz kot finančni minister si seveda ne želim, da se povečujejo obrambni izdatki, ampak to je pač postala nuja. Živimo v svetu, kjer je varnost spet postala zelo pomembna tema in tukaj pač ne moremo in ne moremo si privoščiti, da ostanemo otok sredi morja, ker bomo mi rekli, to nas ne zanima. Vsak seveda mora primarno poskrbeti za svojo varnost in v tem kontekstu seveda tudi mi povečujemo te izdatke, vezane na varnost. Namenoma uporabljam besedo varnost in ne obramba – lahko kasneje malo več o tem razložim. Ampak dejstvo je, da Slovenija znotraj Nata še vedno ostaja ena od držav, ki najmanj namenja za ta namen. Zato smo seveda tudi kritizirani s strani Nata, ampak na drugi strani, kar se mi zdi zelo pomembno in predvsem so to ocene kolegov iz ministrstva za obrambo, da Slovenija izpolnjuje vse zaveze, ki jih je dala Natu, torej ne v samem procentu. Tudi to, seveda, v skladu z zadnjimi dogovori, ampak predvsem to, kar moramo kot članica Nata zagotavljati, kar pomeni, da smo očitno na obrambnem področju učinkoviti.

Voditeljica: In to je potrdil tudi Mark Rutte, ko je prišel sem in pohvalil Slovenijo, da sledi ciljem. Kje se še lomijo kopja pri pripravi proračunov? Recimo, kaj so tiste prioritete, kjer se najbolj lomijo kopja - naložbe, socialni transferji, plače?

Gost: Politika te vlade je že od vsega začetka enaka in jasna. Prioritete so: prva, zdravstvo - izjemno se poučujejo sredstva za zdravstvo. Potem je prioriteta je znanje. To pomeni vlaganje v šolstvo, začenši z osnovnimi šolami in potem srednjimi in visoko šolstvo. Tukaj so precej velika sredstva, tako na ena strani za investicije, na drugi strani pa tudi seveda za plače šolnikov. Tretja prioriteta so raziskave, razvoj, znanost. Vlada je v tem mandatu podvojila sredstva za raziskave in razvoj. Naslednje področje je stanovanjska politika, tudi to je področje, kjer so seveda sredstva bistveno bistveno višja, kot so bila v preteklosti. Lahko rečem, da so bila v preteklosti zanemarljiva. Gre za vlaganje na področja, kar je na nek način tek na dolge proge. Namreč vlaganje v infrastrukturo šolstva, v infrastrukturo visokega šolstva … Na primer, trenutno se je začela graditi nova medicinska fakulteta, nova veterinarska fakulteta. V znanost, kot sem omenil: v Mariboru se gradi največji podatkovni center v Sloveniji, v katerem bo seveda domovanje dobil ta super računalnik oziroma tovarna umetne inteligence.

V Zagorju se dela na centru za brezogljične tehnologije. Torej, vse te naložbe imajo učinek na dolgi rok. To niso naložbe, ki imajo rok jutri, ampak imajo seveda pravi učinek šele čez nekaj let. Tako da na nek način sem kot minister za finance in tudi kot nekdo, ki je prišel v javni sektor od zunaj iz privatnega sektorja, sem na nek način na to ponosen. Nikoli nisem želel biti všečen politik, kjer dajemo neka sredstva, ki bodo imela takojšen učinek, če hočete razmetavanje nekega tako imenovanega helikopterskega denarja, ampak se mi zdi pomembno, da se vlaga v tiste stvari, ki bodo na dolgi rok v resnici zagotovile, da bo življenje v Sloveniji lepše in boljše.

Voditeljica: Predsednik vlade Robert Golob pravi, da je skupni imenovalec vsega tega javno, se pravi javna stanovanja, javno zdravstvo, javno šolstvo?

Gost: To je dejstvo. Zdravstvo je sploh recimo tukaj specifično, tudi šolstvo. Veliko držav, tudi znotraj EU, je v veliki meri privatiziralo zdravstvo, ne samo zdravstvo, tudi druge podsisteme. Kar v osnovi pripelje do tega, da ljudje plačujejo še več, predvsem veliko v ostalih državah plačujejo iz lastnega žepa. O tem se v Sloveniji zelo, zelo malo govori. Ampak ja, to smo se seveda jasno odločili, da ključni podsistemi, kot so šolstvo, kot so zdravstvo, ostanejo v domeni javnega in to želimo graditi in tukaj želimo vlagati.

Voditeljica: Če še malo ostaneva pri tem usklajevanju z vsemi temi proračunskimi posrednimi in neposrednimi uporabniki. Za tiste, ki ne vedo: več krogov, ste tekli pogajanja s posameznimi ministrstvi. Niso vsi iz iste stranke, to je treba povedati. Koalicijske vlade so vedno bolj naporne. Zdi se mi res izjemen uspeh, da ste vsa ta leta, kar ste minister, uspeli uskladiti proračune in vlada ni razpadla ali nihče ni zagrozil z izstopom. Ker gre vendarle za najpomembnejši dokument vsake vlade. To je proračun.

Gost: Ja, na nek način drži. Ta pogajanja so naporna. Eno so pogajala na nivoju ministrov, torej, ko se jaz pogajam z mojimi kolegi, ampak seveda tudi potem naprej, recimo državna sekretarka - pri meni je to predvsem Saša Jazbec, ki je odgovorna za proračun - se seveda pravzaprav ves čas pogaja z ostalimi državnimi sekretarji iz vseh ostalih resorjev. In potem naprej direktorica direktorata za proračun in sodelavci na direktoratu za proračun. Pravzaprav se recimo pol leta ukvarjajo skoraj izključno samo z novim proračunom in usklajevanjem le-tega. Tako da v ozadju je ogromno dela, ki se ga seveda ne vidi. Morda lahko rečem, da je nekoliko lažje usklajevanje z ministri lastne stranke: če se uskladimo na nivoju stranke in predvsem s predsednikom vlade, potem stvari so nekoliko lažje kot s koalicijskimi partnerji. Ampak tudi glede tega moram reči, da vsa štiri leta gledam na to pozitivno. So pa ljudje tako kot vedno različni: nekateri so zelo zelo naporni pogajalci, nekateri seveda na različne načine skušajo doseči višja sredstva za svoj resor. Poskušajo pri predsedniku vlade, poskušajo pri članih državnega zbora ali parlamentarcih … Tako da to je en tak precej kompleksen, zanimiv proces, ki na koncu, tako kot ste rekli, rezultira v tem, da smo na vladi še vsako leto proračun potrdili - in mislim celo, da smo ga tudi na vsako leto soglasno potrdili.

Voditeljica: Radi rečete - to je sicer moja prispodoba - da proračun ni vreča brez dna. In ravno pri teh pogajanjih se to potem pogosto pokaže, ker so različne želje, a ne?

Gost: Ja, dejstvo je, da proračun je specifičen. Poudarjam ravno to, da to ni vreča brez dna, ampak da je ta sredstva treba smiselno razdeliti. Eno so v skladu s prioritetami, ki jih ima vsaka posamezna vlada ima drugačne prioritete. Za našo sem prej povedal, kakšne so. Ampak kljub temu - vsak minister se zelo močno bori za svoj resor in poskuša seveda prepričati na eni strani mene, na drugi strani predsednika vlade, na tretji strani tudi koalicijske poslance, da si pač zasluži več. Je pa dejstvo, da eno so seveda prioritete vlade, drugo je pa tudi realno stanje. Recimo, prej sem že omenil šolstvo, izrazito izrazito podcenjeno. Zadnjih 20 let ni bilo v šolstvu praktično nobenih investicij. Govorimo o osnovnem in o srednjem šolstvu, ki morda ni tako zanimivo za javnost. Lažje je govoriti seveda o nekih fakultetah, pa potem podjetjih, ki odpirajo nove prostore, nove investicije, kjer vlada pomaga. Ampak nad temi podatki, kako malo se je v Sloveniji vlagalo zadnjih 20 let v osnovno šolstvo, v zdravstvo, zdravstvene domove, bolnišnice - to je tako, kar zaskrbljujoče. Tako da to so te stvari, za katere je pač treba začeti skrbeti. Kot sem omenil, precej visoka sredstva gredo za področja, ki so bila v preteklosti izrazito zanemarjena. 

Voditeljica: V ospredju so tudi ukrepi za spodbujanje naložb in pospešitev prehoda v gospodarstvo z visoko produktivnostjo. Dejali ste, da je ohranjanje investicijskega zagona strateška odločitev te vlade. Ti izdatki v letu 2026 znašajo 2,3 milijarde evrov, kar pomeni povečanje za 821 milijonov evrov glede na realizacijo v letu 2024.

Gost: Celoten mandat ta vlada izrazito veliko sredstev vlaga v investicije. Največ je investicij na področju infrastrukture - govorimo o cestah in železnicah. Predvsem železnice so tiste, kjer so se v mandatu te vlade izrazito povečale investicije. In spet: gre spet za tek na dolge proge. Ta cikel niti ne bo zaključen v mandatu te vlade, ampak se bo nadaljeval, verjamem, še kar nekaj naslednjih mandatov. Dva razloga sta za to, da imamo tako visoke investicije. Mislim, da smo vsa štiri leta med 5 - 6 državami znotraj Evropske unije, kjer v odstotku od BDP kot vlada največ vlagamo v investicije. Največji delež proračuna gre v investicije, preprosto, ker je to pogoj, da ustvariš ustrezno poslovno okolje za to, da seveda potem podjetja, ki ustvarjajo dodano vrednost, imajo ustrezne pogoje. Drugo pa je, da na ta način pravzaprav kot vlada odgovarjamo na upočasnjeno gospodarsko rast. Dejstvo je, da je svet, posebej pa Evropa, v krizi. Več razlogov je zato in odgovor vlade je - predvsem na začetku mandata smo se to odločili - da bomo kot vlada čim več vlagali v investicije, ker seveda investicije kot take pospešujejo gospodarsko rast. 

Voditeljica: Bova ostala pri teh zunanjih dejavnikih, ki ste jih že sami malce nakazali. V Ameriki imamo predsednika Donalda Trumpa z ideologijo MAGA 'Make America Great Again' torej, naredimo Ameriko spet veliko, prvo, najboljšo. Tri leta je že vojna v Ukrajini, torej, praktično na robu Evropske unije, a ne. Kako vse te okoliščine vplivajo na oba proračuna? In pa še, če lahko poveste, katere gospodarske kazalnike ste uporabljali pri sestavi proračuna, ker kritiki pravijo, da nismo pravih uporabili?

Gost: Dejstvo je, da v mandatu te vlade se je zgodilo nekaj velikih kriz. Torej, eno je kot posledica ruske agresije na Ukrajino izjemna rast cen ali pa skok cen energentov. Se spomnimo, to je bilo v letu 2022 in 2023, kjer je bila Evropa z naskokom najbolj prizadeta. In spet: ostali svet, predvsem ZDA, so to izkoristile, tako da so celo Evropi prodale drag ameriški plin. Torej, na ena strani se je morala vlada soočati za visokimi cenami energije in seveda jih poskušat znižat, kolikor je pač v moči vlade, in na drugi strani pomagat tako gospodinjstvom kot gospodarstvu, da se je ublažilo te rasti. Sledila je inflacija: v evroobmočju smo bili priča največji inflaciji v 50 letih. Ta inflacija, mimogrede, nima popolnoma nobene veze, je čisto drugačen tip inflacije kot tisti, ki se je še spomnimo iz jugoslovanskih časov. Popolnoma druga vrsta inflacije, tako da tudi izkušnje koga iz osemdesetih let so bolj malo koristile. Torej, borba z inflacijo, kjer smo bili pravzaprav vsi v Evropi v istem čolnu, pa vsak je seveda hkrati tudi deloma izvajal ukrepe, ki so v pristojnosti posameznih držav. V letu 2023 je zgodila največja naravna nesreča v zgodovini Slovenije, katere posledice v finančnem smislu, pa tudi kar se tiče tehnične prenove, se še danes čutijo in se bodo še nekaj naslednjih let. Zdaj smo pa v letu 2025 priča trgovinskim vojnam. Jaz mislim, da pravzaprav takih razmer zadnjih 100 let ni bilo na svetu. Stvari, ki so se zgodile s spremembo ameriške politike, so za seboj potegnile cel svet. Znotraj tega se pa predvsem v letošnjem letu izjemno, izjemno veliko ukvarjamo, in del tega so tudi intenzivirane zunanjepolitične aktivnosti, torej tudi s preostalim delom sveta, ne samo znotraj Evropske unije. Da odgovorim še na vprašanje, glede katere kazalnike smo uporabljali pri proračunskem načrtovanju. Ključni so vedno pri pripravi proračuna uradni podatki Urada za makroekonomske analize in razvoj. In vedno v septembru pride Jesenska napoved. Najbolj pomembno je, ker se iz te napovedi računajo prihodki, kakšni bodo prihodki v proračunu v naslednjih dveh letih. Mi seveda to baziramo na spomladanskih podatkih, potem pa v začetku septembra pride jesenska napoved, enako je bilo letos, in potem modificiramo podatke in lahko tudi deloma proračun. Tako da to so ključni podatki, to so pač najbolj relevantni podatki, ki jih imamo v tej državi na voljo in vsako leto je enako, tako da nobenih drugih podatkov ne uporabljamo kot te.

Voditeljica: Fiskalni svet vedno opozarja vsako vlado, tudi to, da v tem primeru, da gre za nerealno načrtovanje proračunskih odhodkov. Kakšen je vaš odziv?

Gost: Opozorila fiskalnega sveta jemljemo resno, mislim, še posebej na ministrstvu za finance jih jemljemo resno. Čeprav je res, da je včasih vtis, da so ta opozorila vsako leto enaka, pravzaprav skoraj ni pomembno na koncu, kakšne imamo rezultate. Ampak ne glede na to, kar se tiče proračunskega načrtovanja deloma delim kritiko fiskalnega sveta. Gre predvsem za del proračuna, kjer so investicije. Namreč na ministrstvu za finance zelo intenzivno sledimo gibanju investicij, in recimo po 9 mesecih posameznega leta je realizacija, torej, tam, kjer so računi izstavljeni, pravzaprav nekje na četrtini morda tretjini posameznega leta, čeprav je mimo že tri četrtine posameznega leta. Seveda, se pri investicijah je bolj močan zadnji del leta, sploh pa se računi vedno izstavljajo konec leta, ampak to seveda predstavlja tudi nam ogromne težave pri načrtovanju in tudi pri oceni realizacije v posameznem letu. Tako da tukaj seveda posameznim resorjem ves čas poskušamo dopovedati, da je treba biti tukaj bolj natančen, ker seveda potem se seveda včasih tudi zgodi, da se kakšna investicije ne izvede. Vemo, da sploh v Sloveniji …

Voditeljica: Pritožbeni postopki, recimo …

Gost: Ja, seveda, so pritožbeni postopki lahko zelo dolgi ali pa predolgi. Mimogrede, tega smo se tudi v letošnjem letu lotili … in to seveda vpliva tudi na samo izvedbo investicij … Ampak na drugi strani predvsem kot ministrstvo za finance v tem kontekstu razumemo in tudi na nek način priznavamo kritike fiskalnega sveta. Tudi nam bi bilo precej lažje načrtovati tudi za naprej, če bi bila po mesecih ta realizacija, recimo temu bolj realna.

Voditeljica: Rekordnih 17,7 milijard evrov je predvidena poraba, primanjkljaj bo znašal 2,1 milijarda evra. Osrednje kritike obeh proračunov so, da je primanjkljaj previsok. Kako odgovarjate na te kritike?

Gost: V veljavi so nova fiskalna pravila od lanskega leta. To je pravzaprav na nek način izjemno pomembna, lahko rečemo mala revolucija na področju fiskalnih pravil na nivoju Evropske unije. Kar nekaj let se je to pripravljalo in kot prvo štejem za velik uspeh, da smo uspeli znotraj tega mandata dobiti potrebno ustavno dvotretjinsko večino za spremembo fiskalnih pravil. Poseben zakon je za to, pa še po tem zakon o javnih financah. Tako da v tem kontekstu naj na tem mestu še enkrat izrazim zahvalo tudi opozicijskim strankam, ki so vsaj na tem primeru prepoznale, da je interes države nad kratkoročnimi političnimi interesi posameznih strank. To sem zelo pomembno tudi na dolgi rok. Torej, zdaj ta nova pravila … So podobna, pa po drugi strani drugačna od prejšnjih. Bom poskušal biti čim bolj enostaven. Ključna stvar, ki jo je treba zasledovati, je rast odhodkov. Rast odhodkov je za štiri ali sedem let, kolikor se je posamezna država odločila, predpisana. Kako do tega prideš, je pa precej zapletena formula. In mi zaenkrat popolnoma sledimo tej formuli in temu, kar smo se zavezali do Bruslja. Tudi v vsa leta mandata te vlade smo med državami, kjer je proračunski primanjkljaj - mimogrede proračunskim primanjkljaj se gleda vedno v odstotku od BDP, kar sicer ni mogoče primerjati let med sabo niti držav med sabo. Tako da relevanten kriterij je primanjkljaj v odstotku od BDP. In vsa leta te vlade smo po primanjkljaju pod povprečjem Evropske unije in ves čas smo tudi v skladu s pravili, ki so bila postavljena. Mimogrede, določene izjeme tudi ta pravila omogočajo, kot je recimo naravna nesreča, torej, izdatki, ki so vezani na to naravno nesrečo, se drugače obravnavajo pri upoštevanju teh pravil. Podobno je tudi izjema zdaj pri obrambnih izdatkih. Ampak kritikom odgovarjam zelo preprosto: če že, potem primerjajmo primanjkljaj v odstotku BDP, pa poglejmo ga po posameznih letih, in bomo ugotovili, da v tistih letih tisti, ki so sedaj najbolj glasni, govorim pa o opozicijskih strankah, pa poglejmo, kakšen je bil ta primanjkljaj v letih, ko so bile te stranke na oblasti, pa jih primerjamo z primanjkljajem, ki ga ima ta vlada, pa mislim, da bo odgovor zelo jasen, kdo je v tej državi v zadnjih 20 - 30 letih ustvarjal najvišje primanjkljaje. Tako da absolutno kot finančni minister trdim, da vodimo vzdržno politiko, kjer naslavljamo tiste cilje in tiste prioritete, ki si jih je ta vlada zastavila in sem jih seveda prej tudi že dvakrat omenil.

Voditeljica: Omenili ste, da je možen odstop od fiskalnih pravil zaradi obrambe, varnosti in odpornosti, če dodava še ta dva pojma zraven. Večkrat ste rekli, da zaradi povečanja teh izdatkov ne bomo uvajali novih davkov, pa tudi nobeno drugo področje ne bo trpelo zaradi tega, recimo, zmanjšanje socialnih transferjev in podobno. Kakšna sredstva torej namenjamo za obrambo v proračunu?

Gost:  Sredstva za obrambo se povečujejo. Spet, če grem na odstotek od BDP: od 1,2 % BDP v letu, ko je vlada začela delo, do leta 2026, ko bo to prek 1,7 % BDP. Pri čemer naj jasno povem, da so pri tem vključeni samo t. i. jedrni obrambni izdatki. Torej, tukaj ni tiste t. i. dvojne rabe, na katero je ta vlada je še posebej pozorna, ker se predvsem trudimo ta del povečati. Torej, gre za varnost, torej širši pojem. Recimo en tak tipičen primer je investicija v Bolnišnico Petra Držaja, ki bo dobila status vojne bolnišnice, ampak seveda v mirnem času bo opravljala naloge za civilno rabo. To se mi zdi en tak dober primer. Je pa seveda ta stvar zelo kompleksna in tudi tukaj - kljub temu, da smo bili na nek način v to prisiljeni … Pač, svetovne varnostne razmere so se v zadnjih letih izrazito zaostrile … Poskušamo tudi ta povečana sredstva za varnost čim bolj učinkovito rabiti, predvsem zato, da se jih uporablja v te dvojne namene. In v take namene, ki bodo imeli, ne samo dvojni učinek, ampak bodo imeli dolgotrajen učinek. Veliko je bilo seveda povedanega o aktivnostih, ki jih izvaja Slovenski državni holding s tem podjetjem, ki so ga ustanovili za …

Voditeljica: Dovos …

Gost: Tako je. … Ker je namenjeno ravno temu, da tudi država sodeluje - ali pa če hočete - vlaga sredstva v perspektivne industrije s področja varnosti.

Voditeljica: Morda je treba povedati tudi, da Nato ima strogo metodologijo, kaj so to jedrni izdatki. Oni imajo v bistvu metodologijo, od tega se potem izračuna odstotek od BDP. Slišimo, recimo, tudi sosednja Italija želi graditi ogromen most in upa, da ga bo lahko štela med obrambne izdatke. Verjetno tudi mi pričakujemo, če bomo krepili kakšne železniške tire za težji prevoz, ki ga Nato uporablja v svojem koridorju, da bi to lahko šteli med te izdatke in gre za dvojno rabo?

Gost: Zdaj, dejstvo je, da … Seveda, Nato ni moje področje, ampak kljub temu seveda sem se bil prisiljen, predvsem v zadnjem letu, zelo, zelo veliko s tem ukvarjat. In eno vprašanje na mestu je definicija. Moram reči, da je tudi vprašanje te definicije zanimivo. Ko se pogovarjaš s posamezniki, imajo zelo jasno predstavo, kaj je dvoja raba in kaj ni dvojna raba, ampak potem so te definicije različne. Seveda, Nato ima neko definicijo, ki je jasna, ampak po drugi strani ravno zdaj ta debata o varnosti, je tudi znotraj Nata aktivna, tako da ne bi bil tako prepričan, da bo tudi, recimo, čez kakšno leto, dve ostala enaka definicija. Ker namreč zelo veliko se pogovarjamo o varnosti in ne samo o sami goli obrambi. In ta varnost seveda bistveno presega vprašanje orožja. Gre za prehransko varnost, gre za varnost v smislu oskrbe z zdravili in tako naprej.

Voditeljica: A gre zdaj še malo na občine, tudi to je del proračuna. Uspešno ste uskladili povprečnino, kakšna bo?

Gost: Za naslednji dve leti 835 evrov. Spet gre za en krog relativno napornih pogajanj s tremi občinskimi združenji. Vsako leto je več krogov potrebnih. Letos smo se celo nekaj prej zmenili kot prejšnja leta, tako da sem zelo vesel. Predvsem se mi zdi pa še bolj pomembno kot to, da smo vsa štiri leta prišli do kompromisa - mislim, da smo celo prva vlada, ki je vsa štiri leta sklenila kompromis z občinskimi združenji - se mi zdi pomembno, da smo lani sprejeli novelo zakona o financiranju občin, kjer je na novo definirana ali pa napisana tudi formula, po kateri se izračuna ta povprečnina. Ta formula v bistvu na nek način nam zdaj pomaga, da je na nek način manj pogajanj ali pa: stvari so bolj jasne, ker smo seveda zožali manevrski prostor. Še vedno se vlada in občinska združenja morajo pogajati, tudi ustavno sodišče je v nekih odločbah to povedalo. Ampak na nek način se mi zdi, da je bilo sprejetje tega zakona lansko leto zelo pomemben korak ravno zato, da niso tako odprta vsako leto ta pogajanja, ampak so vendarle okviri bolj jasni.

Voditeljica: Ja, drži, vi ste prvi minister v zgodovini, ki mu je v zadnjih 30 letih z občinami prav vsako leto mandata uspelo skleniti dogovor o povprečninah. Spomnim se leta nazaj je bil finančni minister Mramor in so takrat barantali o teh zneskih in skoraj povzročili vladno krizo. Tako da to je kar uspeh?

Gost: Ja, je res. Čeprav seveda po drugi strani – omenili ste ministra Mramorja, ki ga izjemno cenim kot ministra. Mimogrede, je bil tudi eden redkih ministrov, ki je imel težo tudi v Evropi. Ampak jaz bi rekel tako … Zakaj smo sklenili ta dogovor? Bi rekel, da je glavni razlog, ker smo relativno veliko časa temu posvetili. Nikoli nismo jemali teh pogajanj z občinskimi združenji kot nekaj, kar je pač treba opraviti, pa temu v čim manj časa posvetiti, ampak smo pravzaprav precej dolgo sedel na teh sestankih, si jasno povedali en drugemu, kako vidimo, zakaj bi morala biti povprečnina taka in na koncu verjamem, da ko sedejo skupaj ljudje, ki zasledujejo cilj, da pridejo do dogovora, vendar le slišijo en drugega. No, tako da… Podobno izkušnjo imam tudi iz pogajanj z javnim sektorjem …

Voditeljica: To je bilo moje naslednje vprašanje. Očitno se boste zapisali v zgodovino kot uspešen pogajalec?

Gost: Potem pa dajte, dajte najprej vprašanje, pa vam bo potem odgovoril.

Voditeljica: Že v preteklosti ste še na tem mestu vodili določena pogajanja s sindikati in jih pripeljali uspešno do konca. In tako je bilo tudi recimo, zdaj, sva rekla občine, potem pa velika prenova v javnem sektorju. Plačna reforma - bila je nujna - da gre za reformo, je pritrdila tudi Evropska komisija, zanjo bomo tudi dobili sredstva. Če mi opišete, kaj je tisto, kar boste vzeli s sabo kot največji spomin na ta pogajanja. Kaj je bilo najboljše, kaj najtežje?

Gost: Pravzaprav ni bilo v resnici mišljeno, da bi bil jaz glavni pogajalec. Ampak se je to nekako zgodilo spontano, ker je prišlo v letu 2023 do menjave ministra za javno upravo. Jaz sem – mislim, da slabe 3 mesece - opravljal začasno funkcijo ministra za javno upravo. Ravno takrat se je začenjal nov krog pogajanj z javnim sektorjem in pravzaprav me je potem predsednik prosil, da bi jaz … Seveda sem začel ta pogajanja, da bi jih tudi potem odpeljal do konca. Iskreno si tega nisem želel. Sem vedel, toliko pa sem se zavedal, saj sem v  življenju vendarle že dovolj presedel na pogajanjih tudi s sindikati v zasebnem sektorju, da sem vedel, kaj približno nas čaka: predvsem zelo, zelo dolga pogajanja. Že takrat sem ocenil, da bodo trajala vsaj eno leto. In to pomeni eno leto intenzivnih pogajanj. Vem, da je bilo na različnih nivojih nekaj sto sestankov. In sestanki so si sledili pravzaprav na tedenskem oziroma dvotedenskem nivoju. In spet: vedeli smo, da do dogovora lahko pridemo samo, če se bomo res iskreno in intenzivno pogovarjali. Hodit na pogajanja samo zato, da čas mine, je nesmiselno, ker seveda je tudi druga stran resno pristopila k pogajanjem. Treba je vedeti, da na sindikalni strani je še bistveno, bistveno več ljudi …

Voditeljica: Ja, 44, a ne, se mi zdi, da je neka taka številka …

Gost: Še več kot 44. Mislim, da 47 ali 48. Ampak ne gre samo za to. Znotraj sindikatov … Njihova osnovna naloga, tudi ljudi, ki tam so, je, da se za borijo za pravice delavcev. In to delajo zelo dobro in profesionalno. Treba je vedeti, na drugi strani je pa vladna ekipa, katere večji del so pogajanja s sindikati le ena od nalog, ki jih izvajamo. To ni edina naloga. Zaradi tega je bilo - si upam trditi - na vladni strani vpletenih posredno in neposredno blizu sto ljudi, ki smo jim za tisto leto ali pa dobro leto precej spremenili življenje, ker so se na vseh resorjih intenzivno pogajali. Da smo prišli do konca, je predvsem rezultat intenzivnega dela na obeh straneh. V resnici so v tujini, v mednarodnih organizacijah še bolj zadovoljni z rezultatom teh pogajanj, kot se meni včasih zdi. Ker treba je vedeti, ko se pogajaš več kot eno leto, na koncu sklepaš neke kompromise in nisi najbolj zadovoljen. Vem, da seveda tudi sindikalna stran bi vam verjetno podobno odgovorila. Ampak hočem reči, recimo, te ocene te tega, kar smo spogajali in kar je na mizi, govorim predvsem o oceni Evropske komisije, še bolj pa IMF oziroma Mednarodnega denarnega sklada, ki zelo zelo dobro pozna, kaj smo se dogovorili in je zelo natančno analiziral to reformo, jo ocenjujejo kot eno najboljših reform v zadnjih štirih letih v Evropi. Celo drugače: Slovenija je ena redkih držav, ki sploh resno izvaja reforme. Ne samo plačne, govorimo tudi o pokojninski, govorimo o zdravstveni -  v resnici o največjih reformah, ki se jih - pač verjamem, da - vlade morajo lotevati.

Voditeljica: Greva na pokojninsko reformo. Tudi ta je zaradi načrta za okrevanje in odpornost. Prejšnja vlada jo je določila kot prioriteto, ta vlada pa jo je izvedla. Je bila nujno potrebna?

Gost: Absolutno. Slovenija je bila po kazalcih, predvsem dolgoročnih kazalcih ena najslabših držav v Evropi. Torej, država, kjer so projekcije kazale, da bodo stroški, t. i. stroški staranja – to niso samo stroški pokojnin, ampak tudi stroški zdravstva, stroški dolgotrajne oskrbe – ena od držav, kjer bodo najhitreje naraščali v Evropi in dobivali smo spet vrsto let, pravzaprav že, kot je znano, več kot 10 let, opozorila s strani Evropske komisije, da se naj Slovenija končno loti teh reform. In ta vlada se jih je lotila, kot dobro veste. Ta pogajanja so bila zelo intenzivna. Na koncu smo prišli do kompromisa. Tako kot pri vseh pogajanjih je tudi to kompromis. Marsikaj smo se dogovorili, tako da tudi tukaj … Lahko se zahvalim vsem trem socialnim partnerjem, to se pravi poleg vlade, delojemalcem in delodajalcem, da smo ta kompromis sklenili. Na nek način sem, kot finančni minister bi si želel še malenkost na več, ampak to bo pač počakalo naslednji mandat. Predvsem pa govorim o enem delu, ki se mi zdi zelo, zelo pomemben in verjamem, da ga bo tudi potrebno odpreti. To je vprašanje drugega in tretjega pokojninskega stebra.

Voditeljica: Ja, žal, v Sloveniji ni zaživel. 

Gost: Drže, vendar je samo vprašanje časa, kdaj bo. Ker to ni vprašanje želja, ampak je nuja, tako v Sloveniji kot v vseh zahodnih starajočih družbah. Na dolgi rok seveda s starajočim prebivalstvom in zmanjševanjem aktivnega prebivalstva nobena od zahodnih držav ne more samo iz proračuna zagotavljati teh stroškov staranja, ki pa izrazito rastejo.  In še enkrat opozarjam: ne gre samo za pokojnine, gre tudi za izrazito rastoče stroške zdravja. Povedano drugače: vse več zdravil je, ljudje živimo dlje, vendar so tudi ta zdravila vse dražja. Na drugi strani imamo tudi dolgotrajno oskrbo, ki je seveda en ogromen premik v doživljanju ali pa skrbi za starejše, ampak vse to ogromno stane. In na dolgi rok, ne v Sloveniji ne v zahodni družbi, ni mogoče tega financirati iz ali pa samo iz proračuna. Zato trdim, da je nujna uvedba drugega, verjetno pa tudi tretjega pokojninskega stebra. In to je ena naloga, če bomo nadaljevali v naslednji vladi z mandatom, vsaj kar se mene tiče, je to absolutno nujno, da se lotimo tudi tega in končno vzpostavimo ta sistem tudi v Sloveniji.

Voditeljica: Če greva zdaj še malo na izdatke. Potrjen je bil predlog vladnega zakona o t. i. božičnici. Recimo, v javnem sektorju, jaz sem 20 let del javnega sektorja, še v življenju nismo prejeli božičnice, s tem pa sta hkrati želeli tistim, ki jo gospodarstvu že izplačujejo, priskočiti, če tako rečem na pomoč, ker da imamo mi, o čemer bova še govorila, previsoko obdavčeno delo, in bo do 639 evrov, če me spomin ne vara, neobdavčena ta božičnica.

Gost: Drži. Po podatkih, ki jih imamo, zadnji so za leto 2023, je 43 % subjektov v Sloveniji izplačalo t. i. poslovno uspešnost. To je tisto, kar konec leta, torej po navadi v mesecu decembru, podjetja izplačajo. Če štejemo, da je tukaj noter tudi javni sektor, pomeni, da je v zasebnem sektorju pravzaprav nekako 60 % družb že izplačevalo poslovno uspešnost. Ta božičnica bo za vse te družbe pravzaprav pomenila, da bodo izplačevala enako kot zdaj ali več ugodneje, ker do tega zneska 640 € oziroma polovica minimalne plače je ta del oproščen, ne samo davka, ampak tudi prispevkov. Torej, vsi ti bodo v resnici lahko izplačevali enako ali več, samo ugodneje bo za njih.  To, kar mi predlagamo, je, da je obvezna za vse. Ja, seveda tudi za javni sektor, za vse zavode. Tako da v tem kontekstu to je velika sprememba. In verjamem, da mora biti vsak subjekt sposoben izplačati to. Za prvo leto, ker je časa relativno malo, smo naredili tudi nekaj možnosti, da se prenese v naslednje leto, ampak konec koncev, to je pomemben korak, tudi deloma kot odgovor na kritike, da je delo, da je v Sloveniji preveč obremenjeno.

Voditeljica: Dajva se ustaviti pri teh kritikah.  In sicer, to pogosto slišimo, potem pa, ko pogledamo statistike, ugotovimo, recimo, da ne zajamejo vsega, kar je pri nas neobdavčeno, v tujini pa mogoče obdavčeno. Govorim o, recimo, to vi pogosto rečete o prevozu, na delo, o malici. Če se ne motim, statistika OECD tega ne zajema.

Gost: Drži. Primerjava, ki se običajno uporablja v obremenjenosti dela med državami, je analiza OECD, ki je že vrsto let enaka in ne upošteva specifik posameznih držav. Še posebej je to recimo na nek način do Slovenije nepošteno, ker Slovenija ima vrsto, kot ste omenili, izplačil, ki so specifična. Torej, prevoz na delo - mislim, da smo ena redkih ali morda je še ena država v Evropi, kjer so delodajalci dolžni plačevati prevoz na delo. V vseh ostalih državah to ni del stroška delodajalca. Enako je prehrana. Recimo, samo prehrana, ki se jo plačuje in je seveda neobdavčena, znese približno eno dodatno plačo v celem letu. Potem so tukaj seveda letni regres in enak status bo tudi imel ta zimska regres, božičnica, to, kar se zdaj uvaja. Nič od tega ni upoštevano v statistiki OECD. Analize ministrstva za finance kažejo, da če bi se to upoštevalo v analizi OECD, bi Slovenija takoj padla nekje na sredino OECD držav po obremenitvi dela. Tako da ves čas opozarjam, da je treba biti zelo, zelo previden s temi analizami, Je pa jasno, da seveda v političnem procesu tisti, ki kritizirajo, namenoma pozabljajo na ta dejstva, ker seveda je politično to bolj oportuno.

Voditeljica: Imamo statistiko Eurostata: v letu 2024 je povprečno razmerje med davki in BDP v Evropski uniji znašalo 40,4 %, Slovenija pa je z 38,8 % dosegla sicer eno največjih povečanj, ostaja pa na 12. mestu med državami Evropske unije. Na vrhu lestvice so Danska, Francija in Belgija, torej, države z visoko obdavčitvijo, a tudi z obsežnimi socialnimi sistemi in javnimi storitvami. In ko pobiramo davke, jih namenimo zato, ker ste govorili, da proračuni te vlade zasledujejo: za javno šolstvo, zdravstvo, za javno dolgotrajno oskrbo. Kot ste dejali se tudi dlje časa živi in je to neka civilizacijska norma, da imamo dostojno starost.

Gost: Drži. Vedno znova tudi na to opozarjam - ta kritika se je pojavljala in verjamem, da se bo glasno pojavljala še dolga leta. Torej, da je t. i. davčni primež v Sloveniji v zadnjih letih – mislim, da smo na tretjem mestu znotraj OECD, kjer se je najbolj povečal. Ampak potem kritiki tukaj običajno utihnejo, ker nihče ne želi iti v podrobnosti, zakaj je tako. Dva razloga sta za to: eden je uvedba dolgotrajne oskrbe oziroma 1 % + 1 % (1 % za delavce, 1 % za delodajalca). To je dodaten prispevek, iz katerega se bo financirala dolgotrajna oskrba. Naj si vsak odgovori zase, ali smo kot država na nivoju, civilizacijskem, predvsem, da želimo, da se ta skrb, predvsem za starostnike prenese iz tega, kar je bilo odkar poznamo Slovenijo, torej, na predvsem na plečih otrok, kjer so ljudje ostajali celo doma, da skrbijo za svoje starše, ker si ne morejo privoščiti domov za ostarele. Verjamem, da je ogromno družinskih zgodb, ki jih vsak posameznik pozna. Torej, naredili smo en ogromen civilizacijski preskok in zaradi tega je bil uveden ta prispevek 1 % + 1 %.  Naj ob tem opozorim, da je tudi prejšnja vlada govorila o tem, da je treba uvesti nek dodaten davek, samo nikoli se niso izjasnili. Tako da jaz bi vedno, ko je ta kritika, bi tiste pozval, naj povejo, ali nasprotujejo dolgotrajni oskrbi. Torej, ali nasprotujejo, da se dolgotrajna oskrba v Sloveniji uvede. Druga razlog, zakaj se ta t. i. davčni primež povečal, je pa dopolnilno zdravstveno zavarovanje. Tudi to je zelo dobro znano. Tudi to je eden od odgovorov vlade med zasebnim in javnim zdravstvom. Če se spomnite, leta 2023 je bil ta prispevek, ki ga je plačevalo 95 % Slovencev, približno 32 €. In takrat so zasebne zdravstvene zavarovalnice napovedale, da bo v letu 2024 narasel na 45 in leta 2025, letos, na 55 evrov. Vlada oziroma Državni zbor je potem potrdil nov zakon, kjer se je to preoblikovalo, in še danes plačujemo znesek, ki je 35 €. Torej, še enkrat spomnim: 55 evrov so zavarovalnice napovedovale za leto 2025.

In zaradi tega poslušamo kritike, da se je davčni primež povečal. Tega, da pa ljudje plačujejo 20 € manj. kot bi sicer - pa mimogrede, za malico so rekli najmanj 55 bo leta 2025, to pa spet načrtno kritiki pozabljajo.

Voditeljica: Greva proti koncu. Če morda v Sloveniji tega ne vidijo, kaj vse pomenijo te dajatve, pa to vidijo bonitetne hiše. In sicer zadnja, agencija Fitch, je med zadnjimi zvišala bonitetno oceno Sloveniji in med drugim tudi navaja vse te reforme, tudi dolgotrajno oskrbo kot razlog za zvišanje. Kaj pomenijo te zvišanje bonitetne ocene? Verjetno ne gre tako slabo Sloveniji, kot želijo kritiki prikazati?

Gost: V zadnjih 12 mesecih so vse, poudarjam, vse pomembnejše svetovne bonitetne agencije Sloveniji izboljšale oceno ali obete. Torej, v zadnjih 12. mesecih, ne pred 3 leti. To seveda kaže na politiko, ki jih izvaja ta vlada, in to je na nek način lahko tudi odgovor vsem kritikom, da ne vodimo vzdržne fiskalne politike, da zadolžujemo prekomerno državo. A ne, zanimivo, da mednarodne bonitetne agencije, ki niso pod vplivom nobenih politik, ampak gre za renomirane finančne ustanove, ki analizirajo podatke posamezne države in seveda tudi vpliv reform, ki jih posamezna država izvaja, nas vidijo popolnoma drugače kot kritiki doma. Priznam, sem zelo ponosen na to, ker na nek način skozi to se kaže realno delo tudi na fiskalni politiki vlade. Kaj pa konkretno to pomeni? Seveda, ugled Slovenije. Meni je veliko kolegov ministrov, ne samo v EU, ampak recimo, tudi zdaj, ko sem v zadnjem času bil izven EU, zelo dobro poznajo te ocene in na sestanku sem običajno pohvaljen, da je zelo lepo videt, da ena mala evropska državica tako napreduje tudi kar se tiče ocen bonitetnih agencij. Konkreten rezultat tega pa je, da se zaradi tega seveda zadolžujemo ceneje. Ali pa če hočete: plačujemo nižje pribitke na obresti kot druge države. Mimogrede, znotraj vzhodnocentralne Evrope je naša boniteta najboljša in zaradi tega seveda je strošek dolga obresti najnižji v primerjavi za drugimi državami.

Voditeljica: Že prej ste med pogovorom omenili, da se ne ozirate samo po Evropi in ZDA, ampak ste bili tudi na Kitajskem,  kjer so vam vlagatelji predlagali, da bi dobili novo slovensko obveznico, ki bi jo poimenovali Luka Dončić obveznica. Lahko kaj več poveste o tem? 

Gost: Obisk na Kitajskem je imel več razlogov. Eden je bil predvidena izdaja t. i.  panda obveznice na Kitajskem naslednje leto in v tem kontekstu, seveda, ko smo se sogovorniki pogovarjali, z ministrstvom, pa za kitajskimi bankami, so omenili, da bi jo lahko poimenovali v Luka obveznica, kar seveda kaže na to, kakšna super zvezda je Luka Dončić in da ga tudi na Kitajskem dobro poznajo. Sicer pa je bil obisk Kitajske izjemno učinkovit. Ne samo zaradi pozitivnega odziva glede teh panda obveznic. Mimogrede, verjamem, da bo izdaja teh panda obveznic tudi izboljšala boniteto pri kitajskih rejtinških agencijah, ampak to je druga zgodba. Ampak tudi ostalo, kar smo se s kitajskimi sogovorniki pogovarjali, tako o investicijah v Sloveniji … Naj povem, da zelo zelo pomembna tema z moje strani, ki sem jo seveda povedal vsem, je bila Hisensova investicija v Sloveniji, to je nakup Gorenja, za katerega verjamem, da je velja za pozitivno investicijo.  Marsikdo se boji kitajskih investicij v Sloveniji, ampak primer prevzema Gorenja s strani Hisense  je pozitiven primer - vprašanje, kje bi Gorenje danes bilo. Tako da sem seveda na ta način zelo, zelo jasno tudi povedal, kako nam je to pomembno kot državi in da si želimo, da ta investicija ostane in se še krepi, kljub temu da mi vemo, da so na Kitajskem stroški nižji, ampak na nek način sem se zelo potrudil, da sem kitajskim sogovornikom pojasnil, da se tudi po tej investiciji kaže obraz Kitajske v Sloveniji. Pogovarjali smo se seveda tudi o drugih investicijah, kje bi lahko sodelovali, in možnosti je ogromno. Bili smo tudi precej konkretni pri teh pogovorih, ampak več kot to v tem trenutku še ne morem izdati.

Voditeljica: Minister, torej, še ostaja nekaj za prihodnje mesece do izteka tega mandata. Hvala, da ste bili naš gost.

Gost: Hvala vam za povabilo. 

Voditeljica: .. in uspešno v nadaljevanju. S tem zaključujem naš današnji podkast, ki ga lahko spremljate vsepovsod, kjer gledate ali poslušate podkaste. Nasvidenje.

[ENGLISH VERSION]

I believe no one within this government—myself as finance minister included—wants to see defence spending increase, but it has simply become a necessity.

In many other countries people pay a lot out of their own pocket. In Slovenia, this is something we almost don’t talk about.

We are even the first government that, in all four years, reached a compromise with the associations of municipalities.

Government Podcast GOVSI

Host: Petra Bezjak Cirman: Dear viewers and listeners, welcome to the 31st episode of the GOVSI podcast, produced by the Government Communication Office of the Republic of Slovenia. My name is Petra Bezjak Cirman, and my guest today is the Minister of Finance, Klemen Boštjančič. Welcome.

Guest: Minister Klemen Boštjančič: A good day to you.

Host: In November, the National Assembly is adopting the state budget for two years—specifically, an amendment to the state budget for 2026, and the draft state budget for 2027. The government already approved both budgets at the end of September, so you were the logical choice for today’s conversation. The negotiations over how to distribute funds in the budget are very demanding. Often, passing the budget is a breaking point for coalition governments; governments can even fall. How was it this time?

Guest: Not much different than every year—as you said, demanding. But the process at the Ministry of Finance, which prepares the budget, is already well established. It starts in the spring with preparations at the ministry, then comes the first government budget session—this year it was even in June; usually it is at the beginning of July. This year we did it a little earlier. So, we had a bit more time for these negotiations, which in fact last the whole summer and conclude at the end of September, when the government submits the budgets to the National Assembly. Then the second part of the budget adoption begins—the parliamentary part.

Host: A bit of statistics: in Slovenia we have 184 direct budget users, and then there are the indirect budget users—public institutions, schools, hospitals, cultural institutions, research institutes, agencies and funds established by the state, which receive funds through those direct users. There are 2,900 of them, which comes to just under 3,000 budget users in Slovenia. So, a large number of entities you must align with.

Guest: That is right. It is a fact that, as far as the government and the Ministry of Finance are concerned, we align the budget on the one hand with individual departments, and then of course also with all those who do not fall under a specific department. Meanwhile—you mentioned hospitals and various institutions, schools—that is not the work of the Ministry of Finance, but of the competent department. Individual departments then distribute funds within their own budgets in accordance with the law and with the policies they pursue.

Host: Many expected that this government would fail to reach an agreement because it is a coalition. Specifically, that it would stumble over defence spending; we do have a party in the coalition that is sceptical of increasing defence outlays. Yet you managed to align. How many people engaged in the process, and how did you do it?

Guest: A great many people engage in budget planning and operations. What you usually see are ministers and the heads of various bodies, but within individual bodies there are many people included as well. You do not see all that. As for the question of defence spending: I believe no one within this government—myself as finance minister included—wants to see defence spending increase, but it has simply become a necessity. We live in a world where security has again become an important topic, and here we simply cannot afford to be an island in the middle of the sea, saying this doesn’t concern us. Everyone must primarily take care of their own security, and in that context, we too are increasing spending related to security. I am deliberately using the word “security” and not “defence”—I can explain that a bit more later. But the fact is that within NATO Slovenia remains one of the countries that allocates the least for this purpose. Because of that we are criticised by NATO; but on the other hand, what I find very important—according above all to assessments from colleagues at the Ministry of Defence—is that Slovenia fulfils all the commitments it has made to NATO, not only as a percentage. That too, of course, in line with the latest agreements—but above all what we must ensure as a NATO member. Which means we are obviously effective in the defence field.

Host: And that was confirmed by Mark Rutte when he was here; he praised Slovenia for following the goals. Where else are the biggest battles fought when preparing budgets? What priorities cause the most clashes—investments, social transfers, wages?

Guest: This government’s policy has been the same and clear from the very beginning. The priorities are: first, healthcare—the funds for healthcare are increasing significantly. Next is knowledge. That means investing in education, starting with primary schools, then secondary and higher education. Considerable funds are allocated here—on the one hand for investments, and on the other for teachers’ pay. The third priority is research, development, science. In this term the government has doubled funds for research and development. The next area is housing policy, where the funds are also significantly, significantly higher than in the past; I can say they were negligible before. These are investments that are, in a way, a long-distance run. Investing in education infrastructure, in higher-education infrastructure… For example, construction has begun on a new medical faculty and a new veterinary faculty. In science, as I mentioned: the largest data centre in Slovenia is being built in Maribor, which will be home to the supercomputer or “artificial intelligence factory.” In Zagorje, work is underway on a centre for carbon-free technologies. All these investments have long-term effects. These are not investments that pay off tomorrow; their real impact comes only after a few years. So in a way, as finance minister and also as someone who came to the public sector from the private sector, I’m proud of that. I’ve never wanted to be a likeable politician who doles out funds that have immediate effect—if you will, the so-called helicopter money—but I think it’s important to invest in things that will truly ensure, in the long run, that life in Slovenia is better.

Host: Prime Minister Robert Golob says the common denominator of all this is “public”—public housing, public healthcare, public education?

Guest: That’s a fact. Healthcare is particularly specific here, and education too. Many countries, including within the EU, have largely privatised healthcare—and not only healthcare, but other subsystems as well. Which essentially leads to people paying even more; in many other countries people pay a lot out of their own pocket. In Slovenia, this is something we talk about very, very little. But yes, we have clearly decided that key subsystems—education and healthcare—should remain in the public domain, and that is where we want to build and invest.

Host: Let’s stay for a moment with this coordination with all these direct and indirect budget users. For those who don’t know: there were several rounds of negotiations with individual ministries. Not everyone is from the same party—that should be said. Coalition governments are always more demanding. It seems to me a truly exceptional success that in all the years you’ve been minister you’ve managed to align the budgets and the government hasn’t fallen, nor has anyone threatened to withdraw. Because the most important document of any government is the budget.

Guest: In a way that’s true. The negotiations are demanding. One part is the negotiations at ministerial level—when I negotiate with my colleagues—but of course it also continues: for example, the state secretary—at my ministry that is mainly Saša Jazbec, who is in charge of the budget—is essentially negotiating all the time with other state secretaries from the other departments. And then further, the director of the Budget Directorate and colleagues at the directorate. They spend, say, half a year dealing almost exclusively with the new budget and its coordination. So there is enormous work in the background that isn’t visible. I might say it’s a bit easier to coordinate with ministers from one’s own party: if we align at party level and especially with the prime minister, then things are a bit easier than with coalition partners. But even there, I have to say, over all four years I view it positively. People are, as always, different: some are very demanding negotiators; some try, in various ways, to obtain more funds for their department. They try with the prime minister, with members of the National Assembly… So it’s quite a complex, interesting process which, as you said, results in the government approving the budget every year—and I think even unanimously each year.

Host: You like to say—this is my metaphor—that the budget is not a bottomless bag. And that often becomes clear in these negotiations because there are different wishes, right?

Guest: Yes, the budget is specific. I emphasise precisely that it’s not a bottomless bag, but that funds must be allocated sensibly: partly in line with the government’s priorities—each government has different ones; I already outlined ours. But still—every minister fights hard for their portfolio and tries to convince me on one side, the prime minister on the other, and coalition MPs on the third, that they deserve more. But there are the government’s priorities, and then there’s the real situation. For instance, I mentioned education—seriously underfunded. For the last 20 years there were practically no investments in education. I’m talking about primary and secondary education, which perhaps isn’t as interesting to the public. It’s easier to talk about universities, or companies opening new facilities and investments where the government helps. But the data on how little Slovenia has invested in primary education, in healthcare, health centres, hospitals in the last 20 years—that is worrying. These are things we simply have to start taking care of. As I mentioned, significantly higher funds are going to areas that were seriously neglected in the past.

Host: Measures to encourage investment and accelerate the transition to a high-productivity economy are also in the foreground. You said maintaining investment momentum is a strategic decision of this government. Expenditures in 2026 amount to €2.3 billion, an increase of €821 million compared to 2024 realised.

Guest: Throughout this term the government has invested exceptionally heavily. The most investment is in infrastructure—we’re talking roads and railways. Above all, rail is where investments have increased markedly during this government’s term. And again: this is a long-distance run. This cycle won’t be completed in this government’s term; it will continue, I believe, for several terms to come. There are two reasons why investment is so high. I think for all four years we’ve been among the five or six EU countries where, as a share of GDP, the government invests the most. The largest share of the budget goes to investment simply because that’s the condition for creating the right business environment so companies that generate added value have the right conditions. The second reason is that in this way the government is responding to slowed economic growth. The world, and especially Europe, is in crisis for various reasons. The government’s response—especially at the start of the term—was to invest as much as possible, because investment as such accelerates economic growth.

Host: Let’s stay with those external factors you hinted at. In America we have President Donald Trump with the MAGA ideology—“Make America Great Again.” The war in Ukraine has been going on for three years—practically on the EU’s doorstep. How do all these circumstances affect the two budgets? And could you also say which economic indicators you used when drawing up the budget, since critics say we didn’t use the right ones?

Guest: It’s a fact that several major crises have occurred during this government’s term. One is the extreme rise or spike in energy prices as a consequence of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine—we remember, that was in 2022 and 2023—where Europe was by far the hardest hit. And again, the rest of the world, particularly the USA, took advantage of this, even selling Europe expensive American gas. So on the one hand the government had to deal with high energy prices and try to lower them as much as possible, and on the other help households and the economy to cushion those rises. This was followed by inflation: in the euro area we witnessed the highest inflation in 50 years. This inflation, by the way, has nothing to do with, and is completely different from, the type of inflation some remember from Yugoslav times. A completely different type, so experiences from the 1980s were of little use. Then came the fight against inflation, where we were all in Europe in the same boat, but each also implemented measures within national competences. In 2023 the largest natural disaster in Slovenia’s history occurred; its financial consequences and the technical reconstruction are still being felt today and will be for several years. Now, in 2025, we are witnessing trade wars. I think such conditions haven’t existed for the last 100 years. Changes in US policy have dragged the whole world along. Within this, especially this year, we are dealing with foreign policy extremely intensively—including with the rest of the world, not just within the EU. To answer your question about which indicators we used for budget planning: the key ones are always the official data of the Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development (UMAR). Every September the Autumn Forecast is released. Most important is that budget revenues for the next two years are calculated from that forecast. We base our work on the spring data, and at the beginning of September the Autumn Forecast comes—this year as well—and then we adjust the data and can also partially modify the budget. Those are the key data—the most relevant we have in the country—and it’s the same every year. We don’t use any other data than these.

Host: The Fiscal Council always warns every government, including this one, that the planning of budget expenditure is unrealistic. How do you respond?

Guest: We take the Fiscal Council’s warnings seriously—especially at the Ministry of Finance. Although it’s true that sometimes the impression is the warnings are the same every year, almost regardless of the results. Still, as regards budget planning, I partly share the Council’s criticism. It mainly concerns the investment part of the budget. At the Ministry of Finance we closely track investment dynamics, and, say, after nine months of a given year, the execution—meaning where invoices are issued—stands at about a quarter or perhaps a third of the year, even though three quarters of the year have passed. Of course, investments are stronger towards the end of the year, and invoices are always issued at year-end, but this creates enormous challenges for us in planning and in assessing annual execution. So we keep trying to tell individual departments that they need to be more precise here, because sometimes investments don’t happen. We know that in Slovenia…

Host: Appeal procedures, for example…

Guest: Yes, appeal procedures can be very long—or too long. By the way, we also tackled this this year… and of course it affects the execution of investments… On the other hand, especially as the Ministry of Finance, we understand and in a way acknowledge the Fiscal Council’s criticism. It would be much easier for us to plan ahead if monthly execution were, let’s say, more realistic.

Host: Record spending of €17.7 billion is planned, with a deficit of €2.1 billion. The main criticism of both budgets is that the deficit is too high. How do you respond?

Guest: New fiscal rules have been in force since last year. This is, in a way, extremely important—a small revolution, you could say—in EU-level fiscal rules. It took several years to prepare, and I consider it a major success that we achieved the required two-thirds constitutional majority to change the fiscal rules within this term. There is a special law for this, and then the Public Finance Act as well. So in this context let me once again thank the opposition parties, which in this case recognised that the country’s interests are above short-term party interests. That’s very important in the long run. The new rules are similar but in other ways different from the previous ones. I’ll try to be as simple as possible. The key thing to track is expenditure growth. Expenditure growth is prescribed for four or seven years, depending on what each country chose. How you arrive at that is a fairly complex formula. For now we are fully following the formula and what we committed to in Brussels. Throughout this government’s term we have been among the countries where the budget deficit—as a rule, the deficit is always viewed as a share of GDP, which makes inter-year or cross-country comparisons more meaningful—is below the EU average, and we have consistently complied with the rules set. By the way, certain exceptions are permitted, such as a natural disaster—expenditures related to that are treated differently. Similarly, there is now an exception for defence expenditure. To critics I respond very simply: if anything, let’s compare the deficit as a percentage of GDP by year, and we’ll find that in those years the loudest critics—by which I mean opposition parties—should look at the deficits when they were in power and compare them to this government’s deficits. I think the answer will be very clear as to who, over the last 20–30 years, created the highest deficits in this country. So I absolutely maintain, as finance minister, that we are pursuing a sustainable policy, addressing the goals and priorities this government has set—and which I’ve already mentioned twice.

Host: You mentioned that deviations from the fiscal rules are possible for defence, security and resilience, if we add those two terms. You have often said that due to the increase in these expenditures we will not be introducing new taxes, nor will any other area suffer because of it—for example, social transfers will not be reduced. What funds are we allocating for defence in the budget?

Guest: Defence funds are increasing. Again, as a share of GDP: from 1.2% of GDP in the year the government started, to over 1.7% of GDP in 2026. Let me be clear that this includes only the so-called core defence expenditure. It does not include the so-called dual-use part, to which this government pays particular attention, because we are trying above all to increase that part. It’s about security—a broader concept. A typical example is the investment in the Peter Držaj Hospital, which will receive the status of a war hospital but will of course perform tasks for civilian use in peacetime. I think that’s a good example. This is a very complex matter and even though, in a way, we have been forced into it—global security conditions have markedly deteriorated in recent years—we are trying to use the increased security funds as efficiently as possible, above all for dual-use purposes. And for purposes that will have not only a dual effect but also a lasting one. Much has been said about the activities carried out by the Slovenian Sovereign Holding with the company it established for…

Host: Dovos…

Guest: Exactly… whose purpose is for the state to participate—or, if you will—invest funds in promising industries in the field of security.

Host: It’s perhaps worth noting that NATO has a strict methodology for what constitutes core expenditure. They have a methodology from which the GDP share is then calculated. We hear, for example, that neighbouring Italy wants to build a huge bridge and hopes it can count it as defence spending. Presumably we also expect that if we strengthen certain rail lines for heavy transport used by NATO on its corridor, that this could be counted as such expenditure and would be dual-use?

Guest: The fact is—of course NATO isn’t my field, but I’ve been forced, especially in the past year, to deal with it a great deal—that definition is the key question. I have to say the question of the definition is interesting. When you talk to individuals, they have a very clear idea of what is and isn’t dual-use, but then those definitions differ. NATO has a clear definition, but at the same time the debate about security is active within NATO, so I wouldn’t be so sure that in a year or two the definition will be the same. We are talking a lot about security, not just bare defence. And security goes far beyond weapons. It includes food security, security in terms of the supply of medicines, and so on.

Host: Shall we turn to municipalities for a moment—that’s part of the budget as well. You successfully agreed the municipal lump sum; what will it be?

Guest: For the next two years, €835. Again, it involved a fairly demanding round of negotiations with the three associations of municipalities. Several rounds are needed every year. This year we even reached an agreement a bit earlier than in previous years, which I’m very pleased about. What seems even more important to me than that we reached a compromise in all four years—I think we are even the first government that, in all four years, reached a compromise with the associations of municipalities—is that last year we adopted an amendment to the Financing of Municipalities Act, which newly defines—or rewrites—the formula used to calculate this municipal lump sum. That formula now, in a way, helps us: there is less room for bargaining and things are clearer, because we have narrowed the room for manoeuvre. The government and the municipal associations still have to negotiate—this has also been stated by the Constitutional Court in certain decisions—but I think adopting that law last year was a very important step precisely so that these negotiations aren’t so open-ended every year and the parameters are clearer.

Host: Yes, that’s right—you’re the first minister in the past 30 years who has managed, in every year of the term, to conclude an agreement with municipalities on the municipal lump sum. I remember years ago when Minister Mramor was finance minister and they haggled over these amounts and almost caused a government crisis. So that’s quite a success?

Guest: It is. Although, on the other hand—you mentioned Minister Mramor, whom I value highly as a minister; by the way, he was one of the few ministers who carried weight in Europe—I’d put it this way… Why did we reach this agreement? I’d say the main reason is that we devoted quite a lot of time to it. We never treated the negotiations with the municipal associations as something to just get over with and spend as little time as possible on; rather, we sat for quite long sessions, spoke clearly to each other about how we see things and why the municipal lump sum should be what it is, and in the end I believe that when people sit together with the goal of reaching an agreement, they do hear one another. Well, that’s that… I’ve had a similar experience in negotiations with the public sector…

Host: That was my next question. It seems you’ll go down in history as a successful negotiator?

Guest: Then please ask the question first, and I’ll answer.

Host: In the past, in this position, you led certain negotiations with the unions and brought them to a successful conclusion. And that was also the case now—we mentioned municipalities, and then the major overhaul in the public sector. The pay reform—it was necessary—the European Commission also confirmed it’s a reform, and we will receive funds for it. Tell me what you’ll take with you as the biggest memory of those negotiations. What was the best, what the hardest?

Guest: It wasn’t really intended for me to be the chief negotiator. But it happened spontaneously because in 2023 there was a change of minister for public administration. For just under three months I was acting minister for public administration. That’s when a new round of negotiations with the public sector began, and the prime minister asked me to… I started those negotiations, and he asked me to see them through. Honestly, I didn’t want to. I knew—I’m aware enough, having spent enough of my life at the negotiating table with unions in the private sector—what awaited us: above all, very long negotiations. I estimated then that they would last at least a year; that means a year of intensive talks. I know there were, at different levels, a few hundred meetings. And meetings followed weekly or biweekly. We knew we could only reach agreement if we talked genuinely and intensively. Going to talks just to pass the time makes no sense; the other side took the negotiations seriously as well. It’s important to know that on the union side there are far more people…

Host: Yes—44, I think—that’s the number…

Guest: Even more than 44. I think 47 or 48. But it’s not just that. Within the unions—their basic task and the task of the people there is to fight for workers’ rights. And they do it very well and professionally. On the government side, for most of us, negotiations with the unions are just one of the tasks we perform. It’s not the only one. Because of that, I dare say nearly a hundred people on the government side were involved directly and indirectly. For that year, or a bit more, we changed their lives quite a bit, because they were negotiating intensively across all departments. Getting to the end is above all the result of intensive work on both sides. Abroad—in international organisations—people are even more satisfied with the outcome than I sometimes feel. Because when you negotiate for more than a year, in the end you make compromises and you’re not entirely satisfied. I know the union side would probably say something similar. But the assessments of what we negotiated and what’s on the table—above all from the European Commission, and even more from the IMF, which knows very well what we agreed and analysed the reform closely—rate it as one of the best reforms in Europe in the last four years. Put differently: Slovenia is one of the few countries actually implementing reforms—pay reform, and also pension and healthcare reforms—the biggest reforms which, I believe, governments must address.

Host: Let’s move to the pension reform. This was also due to the Recovery and Resilience Plan. The previous government set it as a priority; this government implemented it. Was it necessary?

Guest: Absolutely. By indicators—especially long-term ones—Slovenia was among the worst in Europe. A country where projections showed that the costs of ageing—not only pensions, but also healthcare and long-term care costs—would rise fastest in Europe. For many years—more than 10, as is known—we received warnings from the European Commission that Slovenia should finally tackle these reforms. And this government did so, as you know. The negotiations were very intensive. In the end we reached a compromise—as in all negotiations. We agreed on many things, so here too… I can thank all three social partners—in addition to the government, the workers and the employers—that we reached that compromise. As finance minister I would have liked a bit more, but that will have to wait for the next term. Above all, I’m talking about a part I find very important and believe will need to be opened: the question of the second and third pension pillars.

Host: Yes, unfortunately, they haven’t taken off in Slovenia.

Guest: True, but it’s only a matter of time. Because this isn’t about wishes; it’s a necessity—in Slovenia and in all ageing Western societies. In the long term, with an ageing population and a shrinking active population, none of the Western countries can finance these rising ageing costs solely from the budget. And again: it’s not only about pensions, it’s also about sharply rising health costs. Put simply: there are more and more medicines; people live longer; but those medicines are also increasingly expensive. On the other hand we have long-term care, which represents a huge shift in how we view and care for the elderly, but all of this is very costly. In the long term, in Slovenia or the West, this can’t be financed from—or only from—the budget. That’s why I claim the introduction of the second, and probably the third, pension pillar is necessary. If we continue in the next government term, as far as I’m concerned, it’s absolutely essential that we address this and finally establish this system in Slovenia.

Host: Let’s turn to expenditures. The government’s proposal for a so-called Christmas bonus has been approved. In the public sector—I’ve been in the public sector for 20 years—we’ve never received a Christmas bonus, and with this you also wanted to help those who already pay it out in the private sector, so to speak, because, as we’ll discuss, labour is over-taxed here. The Christmas bonus will be tax-free up to €639, if I remember correctly.

Guest: Correct. According to our latest data for 2023, 43% of entities in Slovenia paid so-called performance-related pay. That’s what companies usually pay at year-end, typically in December. If we include the public sector in that figure, it means that in the private sector roughly 60% of companies already paid performance-related bonuses. For all those companies the Christmas bonus will mean they can pay the same as now—or more—on more favourable terms, because up to €640—half the minimum wage—this amount is exempt not only from income tax, but also from social contributions. So they can pay the same or more, but under better conditions. What we propose is that it be mandatory for everyone—yes, including the public sector, for all public institutions. In that sense this is a big change. I believe every entity should be able to pay it. For the first year, because time is short, we have also allowed some possibility to carry it over into next year, but ultimately it’s an important step—also partly in response to criticism that labour is too heavily burdened in Slovenia.

Host: Let’s dwell on that criticism. We often hear it, but when we look at the statistics, we find they don’t capture everything that’s tax-free here but may be taxed abroad. I’m referring to what you often mention: travel to work, meals. If I’m not mistaken, OECD statistics don’t capture that.

Guest: Correct. The comparison usually used for labour taxation between countries is the OECD analysis, which has been the same for years and doesn’t account for specific national features. This is, in a way, unfair to Slovenia, because Slovenia has a number of specific payments. Travel to work—we are one of the few countries, or perhaps there’s just one more in Europe, where employers are obliged to pay commuting costs. In other countries this isn’t an employer cost. The same with meals. Just the meal allowance, which is untaxed, is roughly equal to an extra month’s salary over a year. Then there’s the holiday allowance, and the same status will also apply to this winter allowance—the Christmas bonus we’re introducing. None of that is included in the OECD statistics. Our Ministry of Finance analyses show that if these were included in the OECD analysis, Slovenia would immediately drop to around the middle among OECD countries in terms of labour taxation. So I keep warning that one must be very, very cautious with these analyses. It’s clear that in the political process those who criticise deliberately forget these facts because it’s more politically expedient.

Host: We have Eurostat statistics: in 2024 the average tax-to-GDP ratio in the EU was 40.4%, while Slovenia, at 38.8%, recorded one of the largest increases, but remains 12th among EU countries. At the top are Denmark, France and Belgium—countries with high taxation but extensive social systems and public services. And when we collect taxes, we allocate them to what you said these budgets pursue: public education, healthcare, long-term care. As you said, people live longer, and it’s a civilisational norm to have a dignified old age.

Guest: Correct. I repeatedly point this out—the criticism has appeared and I believe it will be voiced loudly for years—that Slovenia’s so-called tax wedge has increased the most in recent years—we’re in third place within the OECD. But critics then usually fall silent because no one wants to go into the details of why. There are two reasons: one is the introduction of long-term care—1% + 1% (1% from employees, 1% from employers). That’s an additional contribution to finance long-term care. Everyone should answer for themselves whether we, as a country at a civilisational level, want the burden of care for the elderly—traditionally borne by children in Slovenia, with people even staying at home to care for parents because they couldn’t afford care homes—to be transferred to society. I believe there are many family stories everyone knows. We made a huge civilisational leap, and for that this 1% + 1% contribution was introduced. Let me point out that the previous government also spoke about the need to introduce an additional tax; they just never said which one. So whenever that criticism comes, I’d ask critics whether they oppose long-term care. Do they oppose introducing long-term care in Slovenia? The second reason the so-called tax wedge increased is supplementary health insurance. That, too, is well known. It’s another answer by the government in the balance between private and public healthcare. If you recall, in 2023 this premium, paid by 95% of Slovenians, was about €32. Private health insurers announced it would rise to €45 in 2024 and to €55 in 2025. The government and National Assembly then approved a new law that transformed it, and even today we pay €35. So let me remind you: insurers had announced €55 for 2025.
And because of this we hear criticism that the tax wedge has increased. But the fact that people pay €20 less than they otherwise would—and by the way, they said at least €55 for 2025—is something critics again conveniently forget.

Host: Moving toward the end. If perhaps people in Slovenia don’t see what all these charges mean, the rating agencies do. The latest—Fitch—recently upgraded Slovenia’s rating and mentions all these reforms, including long-term care, as reasons for the upgrade. What do these upgrades mean? Things probably aren’t as bad for Slovenia as critics would have it?

Guest: In the last 12 months all—emphasis on all—major global rating agencies have either improved Slovenia’s rating or outlook. In the last 12 months, not three years ago. This reflects the policies this government is implementing, and it can be an answer to all the critics who say we don’t pursue a sustainable fiscal policy and we over-borrow the country. Interestingly, international rating agencies, which aren’t under the influence of any politics but are reputable financial institutions that analyse each country’s data and the impact of reforms, see us completely differently than domestic critics do. I admit I’m very proud of this, because it shows the real work on the government’s fiscal policy. What does it mean concretely? Slovenia’s reputation. Many of my fellow ministers—not only in the EU but also, say, outside the EU where I’ve recently been—know these ratings very well, and at meetings I’m usually congratulated; it’s good to see a small European country making such progress in its ratings. The concrete result is that we borrow more cheaply—or, if you like, we pay lower interest spreads than other countries. By the way, within Central and Eastern Europe our rating is the best, and therefore our cost of debt interest is the lowest compared to others.

Host: Earlier you mentioned you’re not looking only to Europe and the USA but that you were also in China, where investors suggested issuing a new Slovenian bond named after Luka Dončić—the “Luka Dončić bond.” Can you tell us more?

Guest: The visit to China had several reasons. One was the planned issuance next year of so-called panda bonds in China, and in that context, when we talked with our counterparts and Chinese banks, they suggested it could be named the “Luka bond,” which shows what a superstar Luka Dončić is and how well known he is in China. The visit to China was extremely effective, not only because of the positive reaction regarding panda bonds. Incidentally, I believe issuing these panda bonds will also improve our rating with Chinese agencies, but that’s another story. We also discussed other matters with our Chinese counterparts, including investment in Slovenia… Let me say a very important topic for me, which I conveyed clearly to everyone, was Hisense’s investment in Slovenia—its acquisition of Gorenje—which I consider a positive investment. Many fear Chinese investment in Slovenia, but the example of Gorenje’s takeover by Hisense is positive—who knows where Gorenje would be today. I made it very clear how important this is to us as a country and that we want this investment to remain and strengthen, even though we know costs are lower in China. I tried hard to explain to Chinese counterparts that China’s face in Slovenia is also reflected through this investment. We also talked about other investments, where we could cooperate—there are many opportunities. We were quite concrete in these talks, but I can’t reveal more at the moment.

Host: Minister, so there’s still something left for the coming months until the end of this term. Thank you for being our guest.

Guest: Thank you for the invitation.

Host: …and all the best going forward. With that we conclude today’s podcast, which you can follow wherever you watch or listen to podcasts. Goodbye.