“I am now going to analyze your program here. How would your austerity package — written by you — affect the people of Budapest? It would burden Hungarians with 1,300 billion forints every year. You would practically punish everyone; you are planning radical, unprecedented tax increases, and you would literally abolish the social security system, replacing it with mandatory private contributions imposed on every Hungarian.
And among your plans is the elimination of GYED (the childcare allowance) and the dismantling of free healthcare for children. This might have even been written by you personally, Madam Floor Leader — the same person who a few years ago said it was time to reconsider the general expectation that women stay home with their children for three years.
What’s more, an average Budapest employee would see their net salary reduced by 100,000 forints because of the replacement of social security contributions. Then you would penalize two-thirds of Hungarians with a dog and cat tax. In Budapest this would affect 37% of households — since 37% keep some kind of pet. Many of our elderly compatriots are protected from loneliness precisely by having a four-legged companion.
You would tax properties, cars, shares and dividends by up to 40%, and you would bring back the so-called ‘death tax’ — the inheritance tax that, incidentally, was abolished by the Fidesz government.”
The statement quoted from Alexandra Szentkirályi is a classic political narrative built on fear-mongering about “austerity,” using several well-known communication techniques at the same time. A short, structured analysis:
1️⃣ The appearance of “program analysis” — without evidence
Claim: “HUF 1,300 billion austerity package”
Missing: source document, citation, page numbers, methodology
👉 Effect: imitates policy analysis while relying on unverifiable numbers.
2️⃣ Framing as a total threat affecting everyone
“Practically everyone would be punished”
“radical, unprecedented tax increases”
👉 Technique: sweeping generalization → collective fear-induction that suppresses individual judgment.
3️⃣ Claiming the abolition of social security
“Abolishing public social insurance, mandatory private contributions”
👉 Core trick: caricaturing a complex system
No mention of models, transitions, exceptions.
4️⃣ Emotional apex: protecting children and families
Eliminating GYED
Ending free services for children
👉 Strongest emotional anchor because it implies harm to:
• parents
• grandparents
• vulnerable groups
5️⃣ Personal discrediting (ad hominem)
Bringing up a past quote about women and childcare
👉 Goal: create the appearance of moral inconsistency
👉 Not evidence — character attack.
6️⃣ “100,000 forints less net salary”
A concrete amount → vivid mental image
But: no wage brackets, no formula
👉 A classic propaganda number: round, frightening, uncheckable.
7️⃣ Dog and cat tax as an emotional symbol
“Two-thirds of Hungarians”
“elderly people kept from loneliness by pets”
👉 Narrative: tax policy = inhumanity
👉 Function: occupy the moral high ground.
8️⃣ Demonizing wealth and inheritance taxes
“up to 40%”
“the infamous ‘death tax’”
👉 Revives historical stigma, avoids current details.
Overall picture — what is happening?
This is not a policy debate but:
❌ accusations without supporting documents
❌ emotional shock-messaging
❌ framing: “if they come to power, everything gets worse”
👉 Objective: prevent the audience from asking questions — only to fear.