Companies, capital and property

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! This report, SkU13, concerns companies, capital, and real estate and touches upon some of the most central parts of our tax system and thus a very large part of the state's revenues and the financing of the welfare system.

Taxation of companies, capital, and real estate are simultaneously some of the tax areas where there is the most research with the clearest results. It is my opinion that simple and clear rules together with low tax rates are what create the best conditions for growth and thus higher tax revenues. When one reads all the motions, however, one gets the impression that the opposition's motioners have ignored this. Instead, one sees that in their motions, a dangerous mixture of harmful wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, property taxes, gift taxes, and so on is proposed.

Madam Speaker! Swedish companies constitute the backbone of our economy. By having companies grow and develop, new jobs are created and tax revenues increase. In order to be able to maintain and increase our standard of living, growth in the economy is crucial, and an important part is that new companies can emerge.

It is crucial to have a robust, predictable and fair tax system. It is particularly important that Swedish taxes are competitive on the global market as many Swedish companies, but also employees, operate in an international environment.

Instead of increasing the taxation of companies and employers, we need to go in the opposite direction to stimulate investments in our existing Swedish companies and attract new investments to Sweden. This is particularly important in the time we live in right now. With ten years of low growth and five years of virtually non-existent growth, we must be quite pragmatic and implement tax reforms that favor entrepreneurship and investments. This year, we are still in a recession with low employment and too few hours worked.

The government has naturally understood and noted this, and as we establish in the Tidö Agreement, corporate and capital taxes must be made more competitive to promote new and existing companies. This is also clarified in the government's economic plan, the finance plan, which among other things contains measures to combat inflation and support households, tackle the recession through a reinstated work line, and accelerate growth through new structural reforms.

This is what is needed, not punitive taxes on ownership or taxation of already earned money. A number of the opposition's motions contain proposals of such a nature that they are socio-economically inefficient and would harm our economy and welfare. Those who would be hit hardest by the proposed sharply increased taxes are not some wealthy class but all hard-working Swedes who are in need of a secure welfare and a reliable state.

For those of you who are not fully convinced by my and the Moderaternas arguments, you only have to look at how it has gone in, for example, Norway, where they have reintroduced the wealth tax and are also investigating whether the inheritance tax should be introduced again. Have these reforms been of any benefit to Norway? Well, hardly. Instead, entrepreneurs and investors are fleeing to other countries with their capital, which means that Norway is losing tens of billions of Norwegian kroner that could instead have gone towards corporate investments in Norwegian business.

Madam Speaker! Small and medium-sized enterprises are central to ensuring long-term growth and development. It is precisely within small and medium-sized enterprises that the majority of all new jobs are created. Promoting the transition from small to large companies is an important part of a restored work line and enables more people to get their first employment.

Sweden has in a good way succeeded in producing successful and internationally known companies with thousands of employees, partly thanks to skilled entrepreneurs. Klarna and Spotify are two shining examples of this.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to driving development and growth throughout the country, the entrepreneur tax plays an important role. An attractive entrepreneur tax should strengthen entrepreneurship, create more jobs and increase Sweden's competitiveness. Such a taxation also benefits the green transition.

In May last year, the long-awaited investigation report Simplify and Improve! was released, which describes how our existing rules for small and medium-sized enterprises can be simplified and improved – this is to strengthen and promote entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises and enable them to grow and hire more. The investigation aims at how the rules can become simpler through a more standardized way of taxation and at how the rules should become even better, among other things by that a higher amount can initially be exempted from service taxation. I look forward to the government presenting proposals in this important area.

Madam Speaker! In several of the motions in this report, it is clearly seen that the Social Democrats have shifted their position on the tax issue since they themselves were in government. In their committee motion on Tax Policy, they propose that the defense tax, which they themselves abolished as recently as 2020, should be reintroduced, and they open up to reintroducing the property tax, the abolition of which was initiated by an S-led government.

The protection tax is one of the most consistently criticized taxes we have had, a tax that the Social Democrats claim will increase tax revenues by up to 8 billion kronor. In reality, workers are hit by a tax increase of 8 billion while the state hardly earns anything from the tax. Instead of drastically increasing tax revenues, punitive taxes, such as the Social Democrats' new protection tax and readiness tax, result in our much-needed doctors, dentists, and entrepreneurs choosing to work fewer hours. There are many studies in this area, and if one wants to delve deeper, there are several studies from IFAU on the subject.

Madam Speaker! It is through increased growth in Sweden that we achieve increased welfare and greater prosperity and manage the green transition. That is how we build Sweden richer and safer. We do not achieve this through punitive taxes and symbolic politics. Many of the opposition's motioners in this report seem to want to take us back to the tax policy of the 1980s, when work did not pay off and entrepreneurs were few. This caused both Swedish capital and Swedish companies to be driven abroad.

Madam Speaker! I hereby move to approve the committee's proposal regarding the motion reports in SkU13.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by thanking the member for a fiery speech. It was amusing, even if I want to urge the member to put on their glasses. There are no proposals for the reintroduction of a property tax in our report. I urge all listeners to read the report themselves. I believe that Ahlstedt will maintain that it says so, but it is actually not true.

Then Ahlstedt sings a hymn of praise to tax cuts in general. The more tax cuts, the better – so I believe one can interpret the member's contribution.

I would like to recommend that the member read solid research from the leading universities in the USA or, for that matter, LSE in London. They have evaluated Thatcher's and Reagan's tax cuts during the 80s. Does the member know what they led to? Lower revenues for the state. That was the only effect. Tax cuts do not have the effect that the member claims – to significantly increase the labor supply. It is actually not correct, according to modern, international research.

I perceive that the member sounds a bit like an echo from the 80s, when it was fashionable to talk about broad tax cuts that would lead to success. But the truth is that large international organizations such as the OECD, IMF, and the World Bank talk about social cohesion and the effects of unequal societies. Even Swedish research on the deep determinants of growth finds that if the gaps become too large, people will not dare. If the gaps become too large, there will not be resources for what is important and creates growth: innovation, infrastructure, education.

Therefore, I ask: Does Ahlstedt not see that there is a risk that increased inequalities will cause trade barriers to increase and that a small, export-dependent nation like Sweden will then be hit very hard?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Tegnér! When we speak of economic growth as the driving engine in a society where we want welfare to increase, where we want economic development and where we want more people to have it better, there are three important components, just as the member pointed out, even if it may have been passed over a bit quickly.

The first is what competence or education is available. In that regard, the government has made major investments to strengthen Sweden in terms of both continuing education and higher education – hopefully the research bill will also come soon – as well as so that people can undergo transition.

The second is infrastructure. This government has presented a historically large infrastructure package that is intended to build Sweden, or rather, first repair what is not working, but also develop the infrastructure in Sweden.

The third, which is perhaps one of the most important things, is the availability of capital. If there is no capital, the companies will not grow. If there is no capital, the companies will not develop. The availability of capital is crucial. It is about risk-tolerant capital but also about capital so that the companies can continue to grow. This is important to remember in this debate. Education and infrastructure are not enough; there must also be availability of capital.

Capital we get by having successful entrepreneurs who can reinvest the money they have earned in their successful companies to build new companies or develop existing companies and in that way ensure that the workforce grows and that there are more jobs in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the contribution! We can agree so far that we think growth is important. We agree that it is important to have a broad and functioning venture capital market in our country.

However, we disagree on a few things. The first is that it is only in nominal terms, that is, if one does not adjust for what is reasonable, that the infrastructure bill is the largest infrastructure investment in several years. When you have the kind of inflation we have and do not adjust in a reasonable way, it just becomes a game for the galleries.

The second point I want to make is that there is no clear connection, as the member suggests, between broad tax cuts for those who are richest and the creation of a capital market. There is no such connection. Look at Stockholm, for example! It is the world's largest capital market per capita. It was not created by broad tax cuts but by clusters. It was created by successful companies. It was created by risk-tolerant capital. But the path there is not broad tax cuts for those who already have. The tax policy makes Sweden poorer and more dangerous.

We live in uncertain times. We are heading into a recession. Growth is weak and welfare is bleeding. Gang violence is spiraling out of control. In that situation, it is not reasonable for the member to be so satisfied as a government representative.

When you lower taxes in this way, you also miss reasonable measures to level the inequalities in Sweden. You say no to our temporary bank tax, which could finance an increased child allowance, just as has been done in Denmark, Norway, and Finland. This means that the inequalities in Sweden will become larger, and those who have to take the economic hit for the crisis are ordinary people – those who struggle on the ground and those who actually have it worst. It is completely unreasonable, and it creates inequalities in Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! The member of the government is raising the bank tax. It is a very interesting question. For what happened in Sweden when we introduced an approach – that is, just a beginning – to a bank tax? Well, one of Sweden's largest banks moved its headquarters from Sweden. It could not be any clearer how things and circumstances are connected.

With a bank tax, the banks will move away from here. The same thing happened in Norway. There, they raised the wealth tax. Then venture capitalists, business leaders, entrepreneurs, and many who own companies moved from Norway. There is a connection.

I want to once again underline how important this is. Education is important. Infrastructure is important. But capital is important in order to be able to have a development in companies which in turn create jobs.

Then I want you to be attentive to what the member says. I have not proposed any further tax cuts. I am only warning against the tax increases proposed by, among others, the member's party. It is the harmful taxes that risk destroying the fine entrepreneurial and innovation climate that exists in Sweden.

We shall, among other things, with the investigation Simplify and Improve! ensure that we can achieve a slightly better entrepreneurship and innovation climate in Sweden. We shall get a simpler and slightly better tax system to get small and medium-sized companies to grow, so that they can hire more and become larger companies and also become internationally successful.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on Taxation's report number 13 deals with a large number of motions in widely different matters. The heading Companies, Capital and Property bears witness to the breadth of what is to be discussed. It is everything from a bank tax, which we have just heard, to forest accounts and equal deduction rights for sponsorship. There is much to say, but I would like to begin with some of the basic principles of tax policy.

As Social Democrats, the goal of our economic policy has at all times been full employment. That is why we have an economic policy and a tax policy. The Social Democratic industrial policy is a means to reach that, i.e., to create jobs and thereby also strengthen the welfare and simultaneously release people's potential.

Our tax policy is a tool for justice, for responsibility, and for providing companies with good and stable conditions. These policy areas are interconnected. We also need a legitimacy in the tax system. This is based primarily on three things: that the taxes are general, that the tax bases are broad, and that the taxes are generally accepted. Swedish tax policy is generally based on precisely those principles.

Since the tax reform in the 1990s, however, a large number of changes have been made. It has made our tax rules a patchwork. There, we Social Democrats are clear that we want to see several changes to the tax system, but we believe they should preferably be made coherently. We are clear that it is time for a new major tax reform. We regret that the Swedish right in general and the Prime Minister in particular do not see that need. It is bad for the citizens, it is bad for growth, and it is bad for the companies. It is really bad.

The great reform from the 90s has served us well, but society has changed since then. We believe that it is time to broaden the tax bases, increase capital taxation in some respects, and at the same time keep taxes down for those who earn the least. We need a more just tax system, but it also needs to be more neutral in some respects. It is not just for the sake of justice but actually also for growth, just as we noted in the exchange of remarks earlier.

Madam Speaker! I would like to make a small clarification in this context and specifically raise the issue of the tonnage tax. It is a specific corporate taxation for the shipping industry aimed at strengthening Swedish shipping. Over the last two decades, the number of Swedish-flagged vessels has more than halved. In ten years, we have lost a third of the Swedish fleet. During the same period, our Nordic neighbors have built up their fleets.

Shipping plays a major role. It is an important role now when the total defense needs to be built up. We need more ships sailing under the Swedish flag. It is here that the tonnage tax has such an important function.

Just over a year ago, the investigation *Vågade skatter* was published. In it, the investigator proposes that the stamp duty should be abolished and that the tonnage tax system should be revised. We Social Democrats do not understand why the SD government is now sitting on its hands. It is not enough for the government to just wait and wait, like a tired sloth. We Social Democrats are afraid that the SD government will not act until the entire Swedish fleet is gone. We believe that the tonnage tax needs to be adjusted immediately, so that more ships and more operations are included. In this way, a Swedish merchant fleet can be secured for the future. This is a low-hanging fruit that even a sloth should be able to pick. Therefore, we move for approval of reservation 23.

Madam Speaker! This government's tax policy makes Sweden both poorer and more dangerous. As I noted in the exchange of remarks, we live in uncertain times. We have the threat of a recession lurking around the corner. Growth is weak, welfare is bleeding, and we have gang violence on our streets. As I noted, I perceive that we have a government and a government base that are inappropriately self-satisfied. It is as if the reality outside this chamber does not exist.

We Social Democrats have a different picture, and we also propose different priorities. We propose a temporary bank tax in order to be able to finance a temporarily increased child allowance. We want to safeguard healthcare places – we do not want to see them disappear. We want capital to be taxed fairly, not that the very richest get further tax cuts.

The finesse of having a reasonable capital taxation, where one also actively closes the gaps that exist, is that one also creates fairness between companies. When we have a government that does not actively work to close the gaps that exist, we end up in a situation where companies that pay their taxes actually end up at a disadvantage compared to those who do not.

That is why we have proposed that the source tax should be modernized and that the exit tax investigation should be completed. This government chose instead to scrap the exit tax investigation. We know that those types of rules exist throughout the Nordic region, in large parts of the EU, and furthermore in North America. We know that they work, but this government chose the easy way: to turn a blind eye to the loss of billions and turn a blind eye to the needs of the welfare system.

Madam Speaker! It is sometimes said that companies' competitiveness lies in the tax rates. I believe that Member Ahlstedt sometimes tends to put forward that type of reasoning. My absolute view is that it is a misunderstanding. Sweden's competitiveness is built on access to education, functioning infrastructure, a strong welfare state and functioning free trade, combined with a welfare system that ensures one is not forced to leave home if one is active or employed in a company that experiences economic problems. It is a society that provides secure employees, creative environments and new innovations.

As a Social Democrat, I believe that Sweden must continue to be a leading knowledge nation, but what we need then is more than lowered taxes. What is needed is a policy characterized by courage. We need an active industrial policy. We need a government that invests in the jobs of the future, not one that dismantles the possibility of financing them.

Finally, Madam Speaker, capital needs to be taxed more fairly. Today, the difference between the taxation of labor and capital is too great. Furthermore, the situation is that the inequalities in our society – the inequality – are far too large. What happens then is that trust breaks down and legitimacy disappears. It is one of the most important determinants for growth. When we are in a situation like we are now, when trust disappears and there is no legitimacy for our systems, growth will also be affected in the long run.

That is why it is unfortunate that the government time and again defends tax benefits for the very richest. One opposes a bank tax on capital gains, which is tragic. One hesitated to introduce an EU taxation of the energy companies. We can also see that other countries in Europe do this, without it creating the type of relocation that Member Ahlstedt speaks about.

We mean that it is not worthy of a country like Sweden that one conducts a policy that counteracts the society being held together. We do not think it is worthy of a country like Sweden, because we mean that Sweden needs to become safer, fairer and stronger.

Madam Speaker! We naturally stand behind all the requests in our committee motion. But for the sake of time, I request approval only for reservation 23 and reservation 25.

I mean that Sweden can do better. Sweden will become better with a different tax policy. But for that to be possible, political courage is needed. A government is needed that sees ordinary people, manages to put welfare first, and lets the rich contribute a little more. A new policy for the future is required. To get a new tax policy in accordance with our proposals in the report, a new government is needed in 2026.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Tegnér for an interesting speech. I thought this when I heard the speech: We started a tax reform already in 2006. At that time we – some will remember it – had high taxes on low incomes. We then started a journey with what is called the earned income tax credit, which means that one moves the taxation from low incomes and makes it more attractive to work and more attractive to save. That journey began already in 2006, and since then, there has been earned income tax credit after earned income tax credit, which has improved the conditions for saving and entrepreneurship.

At the change of government in 2014, not so many of these tax cuts were rolled back. Rather, there was a lull. Not much happened. Some taxes were raised, especially excise taxes. But the entire shift towards lower taxes on labor for low- and middle-income earners was accepted.

We continued with this when we came to power in 2022. It is an important supporting part of the Tidö Agreement to continue with the earned income tax credit, to stimulate people and increase the possibility of getting work and working. The earned income tax credits have been a huge and supporting part of the tax reform. We have changed other taxes as well. The tax reform is ongoing all the time.

I therefore really do not understand what Member Tegnér means – if he does not mean that one should start raising the income taxes again.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! If Member Ahlstedt opens a simple book on economic history describing Swedish tax policy over the last decades, I believe he will see that what is referred to in research as "the great tax reform" occurred in the 90s. What was the finesse of the great tax reform in the 90s was that in politics, one was very close to what academia and society proposed. One also compromised. Does Member Ahlstedt know what the finesse of that is? Yes, the finesse of it is that one creates predictability for people so that they know what they have to pay in tax.

Before I became a member of Parliament, I worked primarily in the business sector. Does Member Ahlstedt know what the business sector often asks for? Predictability! The finesse of the entire major tax reform is to create predictability, not to, as the Moderaterna did in 2006 and most recently in 2022, unilaterally change the tax policy so that it risks becoming a backlash when another government comes to power.

You are right that we did not reverse all the tax reforms that had been made during the two Reinfeldt governments. We do, in fact, have respect for people's life situations. One must give people the conditions to plan their lives, and that was exactly my criticism of the government: that you do not see ordinary people.

My question to Member Ahlstedt is therefore: You must surely see the difference between a broad political settlement, i.e., a compromise, and a one-sided Moderate tax-cut policy?

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I want to remind that we address each other by name or "the member". We do not say "you".)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Tegnér, we do not think a tax reform is needed. For us, a tax reform is ongoing all the time. We do not want a tax reform that aims at increased taxes. That is the very core of it: You want a tax reform in order to be able to mask increased taxes.

You speak of a tax reform that is supposed to make it better and fairer with broader tax bases. But in reality, it is about increased taxes. Perhaps not increased income taxes – I actually haven't heard anyone say that, so I will not put words in your mouths. But you talk about bank tax, readiness tax, defense tax, property fee or property tax and corporate tax. All of that is supposed to be included in the package.

We do this all the time. The government has pumped out propositions on the tax side. We have hardly done anything else. We have had countless debates here in the chamber because there are so many propositions in the tax area.

We want, and believe, that the right medicine is to lower more taxes, not raise them. We do not want to raise the property tax. We do not want to raise the bank tax. We do not want to raise the corporate tax. We do not want to worsen the 3:12 rules. We do not want to raise income taxes with a readiness tax or defense tax. That is the whole essence, and therefore we do not consider that we need to have a tax reform aimed at raising taxes.

We believe that we should have fair taxes that are effective, and we should have regulations that are simple and that give people the opportunity to work and companies the opportunity to grow.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Madam Speaker! It is exciting that Member Ahlstedt tells how a political negotiation would end!

It is, of course, true that we now, in a special situation, think it is reasonable with a temporary bank tax, for example to finance increased child allowance for those who need it. It is completely true, and it is correct as the member says: There are differences in our policy. That is not the point.

What the major tax reform from the 90s demonstrates, however, is that one can create a better tax system by broadening the tax bases so that not all nominal taxes need to increase, and therefore I would still like to ask Member Ahlstedt to look at what his wise party friends managed to achieve in the 90s.

I am convinced that we can implement tax reforms that would make our economy more efficient and that would also lead to good conditions for both the business sector and ordinary people.

The problem right now is that the Moderaterna and SD government are implementing an extremely one-sided tax policy, where they lower the tax for those who have absolutely the most, while, and this is perhaps most noteworthy, they turn a blind eye when it comes to large tax loopholes in our system, for example by not handling the exit tax, which is actually a violation of how we usually view taxes. The former Moderate finance minister Anders Borg worked on those types of issues precisely so that the tax system would function.

I would therefore like to say that the problem with the Moderates' policy right now is that it is only about lowering taxes for those who have the most and that one refuses to close tax loopholes for those who actually cheat. It is not good policy for Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats' economic policy rests on the insight that it is a strong and competitive business sector that creates opportunities for people to get a job. It is one of the most important tasks of politics to create conditions for economic growth and tax revenues that can be used for our common welfare.

Taxes and fees shall contribute to fair competition, and the regulatory burden affecting entrepreneurs shall be reduced. Several of our agencies have been tasked with actively working on regulatory simplifications in their operations. This government is working for a fair tax system, with general and clear rules.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats are pleased that the report Simplify and improve! from the investigation on the 3:12 rules is now referred to the Council of Legislation. Making it easier for entrepreneurs to understand and use the regulatory framework is not just a matter of efficiency – it is also a matter of justice and respect for the people who, in their capacity as entrepreneurs, take risks, work hard, and create jobs for others and thereby support our society.

We view positively that it is now proposed that the simplification rule and the main rule should be merged. It creates equality and transparency, regardless of whether you are a large or small shareholder. The proposal that everyone can take into account an increased standard deduction also strengthens the smaller companies, often family-owned, which we Christian Democrats particularly want to look out for.

Abolishing the current wage withdrawal requirement and replacing it with a flat-rate deduction is a welcome simplification. At the same time, it is good that the model continues to favor those who actually create employment. The wage base will continue to be usable. We know that companies that hire need to have long-term security and predictability.

The Christian Democrats believe in the power of enterprise but also that rules should be simple and understandable and promote a fair accountability. It is our conviction that the proposed changes are in line with this.

Madam Speaker! January 1, 2025, marked an important step towards strengthening long-term savings in Sweden: the introduction of a tax-free base level in the investment savings account, the so-called ISK. It is a reform that we Christian Democrats have long demanded. We know that security is built from the bottom up through personal responsibility, savings, and the opportunity to create a buffer in life. This applies to young people who want to save for their first home, families who plan for the future, and also retirees who want to save their money and see it grow in a secure way.

But above all, it concerns women. We know that women may need a "stick-and-burn capital." One should be able to be free and be able to leave a bad relationship and not be stuck for economic reasons. Women need to save more. There we see that there is an injustice.

With a tax-free base level of 150,000 kronor, which next year will become 300,000 kronor, people get incentives to save long-term, responsibly, and broadly. It is not about tax benefits for the richest, but about giving ordinary people the opportunity to build economic security without being heavily taxed for every saved krona.

This is also a question of justice between generations. We see how today's young people carry heavier debts and face higher thresholds to enter the housing market. We Christian Democrats want to create a culture of saving rather than indebtedness. It is a wise step and an example of how we can combine economic responsibility with social responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must have a long-term sustainable housing policy. It is a self-evident starting point – but also a requirement that obliges. Without a functioning housing market, the foundation for people's security and quality of life, and in the long run the development of our entire society, will collapse.

For the Christian Democrats, the home is more than just a roof over one's head. It is a home – a place for community, upbringing, recovery, and dreams for the future. Therefore, housing policy must be designed with both heart and reason, with respect for human needs and an understanding of the market's rules of the game.

More housing is needed, but not just any kind. Secure small-house areas are needed, more rental apartments with reasonable rents, and a housing planning that builds local communities. The municipalities must also take responsibility and develop better tools to make it easy to do the right thing. With the new building permit rules, we also see that it is actually easier to build houses.

Capital gains tax creates lock-in effects for the elderly. Due to high taxation, they choose to stay in a large villa when they could instead move to a suitable residence and at the same time increase families' opportunity to realize their dream of their own home. To break this, the chains of relocation need to get moving. We are reviewing the system for condominiums and the introduction of a legally regulated model for rent-to-own of housing. We also want the standard deduction for renting out private homes to be increased to stimulate increased rental of housing and enable an efficient utilization of the housing stock.

The Christian Democrats also want to raise the issue of sponsorship. It is natural today that various elements in society interact between the business sector and civil society. Companies support sports, culture, and children's and youth activities not only for marketing reasons but often also to take social responsibility. We view the engagement very positively. Society thrives when companies do not only look at profit but also contribute to vibrant associations, local engagement, and social contexts.

I had the privilege last week of meeting some family business owners who have a long-term saving in their local community. They have a commitment that extends even to the community around them and not just to the possible profit. They make a contribution to the local community. They can give their employees' children summer jobs even though they might not contribute that much to the business.

It is crucial that the rules for sponsorship and taxation are clear, fair, and general. When a company provides financial support, it must be clearly apparent whether it concerns a deductible counter-performance or a non-deductible gift. In this way, we can help to not undermine the confidence in the entire tax system.

Madam Speaker! It should be simple to do the right thing. Entrepreneurs should not have to worry about the boundaries between gifts and marketing. At the same time, we must protect the tax base from abuse. We therefore look forward to the government's investigation which looks at general and clear rules for sponsorship. Clarity creates security, and security promotes responsibility in society.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against the reservations.

(Applause)

(cont. § 9)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)