Companies, capital and property

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are debating the Committee on Taxation's report 15, which deals with motions concerning tax proposals within the areas of business, capital, and property.

Let me begin by stating that Sweden has a diversified and vibrant business environment with a commercial sector that spans many different sectors and industries. We are known for a very high proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises which constitute the very engine of our economic development and employment. In fact, 99.9 percent of all companies in Sweden are small and medium-sized with fewer than 250 employees, and a large majority of them have fewer than 50 employees. These companies account for approximately 65 percent of the jobs, while four out of five new jobs have been created in precisely small and medium-sized enterprises.

Alongside this, we also have several large multinational companies with global reach that have their roots in Sweden. Our long tradition of entrepreneurship and innovation ensures that many Swedish companies hold leading positions within their respective fields.

Mr. Speaker! The companies in Sweden constitute the backbone of our common tax base. It is through their activities that jobs are created, innovation is driven forward, and the revenues are generated that finance the welfare society we want to protect and develop. Therefore, it is crucial that the companies' tax conditions are favorable, clear, and fair. Taking the risk of running and developing companies must pay off, while at the same time we protect and strengthen the tax base so that society's common commitments can continue to be fulfilled in a sustainable way.

Mr. Speaker! A decisive factor for a continued strong and vital Swedish business sector is good conditions for research and development. The current Swedish rules for deductions for research and development have long been criticized for being cumbersome, legally uncertain, and difficult to apply, especially for smaller companies.

Against that background, the government decided in June 2023, in accordance with the Tidö Agreement and together with the Sweden Democrats, to appoint a special investigation. The assignment was to review precisely the deduction for research and development as well as the tax relief that applies to foreign experts, researchers, and other key individuals recruited to Sweden – the so-called expert tax rules.

Favorable tax conditions for companies' investments in research and development are completely central for Sweden to maintain and strengthen its competitiveness, drive innovation, and secure long-term growth and prosperity. Without strong incentives, we risk losing both investments and competence to other countries that offer more attractive regulatory frameworks.

The investigation was presented earlier this year, and the proposals are now being prepared further in the Government Offices. It is important that the process continues expeditiously so that we can introduce modern, simple and effective rules that truly stimulate Swedish companies' investments in future innovations.

Mr. Speaker! Another regulatory framework that for a long time has been criticized for being complicated, cumbersome, and difficult to apply, especially for smaller entrepreneurs, is the rules for taxation of dividends and capital gains to shareholders in small companies, the so-called 3:12 rules. Over 60 percent of all companies in Sweden are directly owned small companies. These companies account for 1.5 million jobs and constitute an immensely important part of our economy and employment and of our entrepreneurship. Many motions and proposals regarding simplifications of just this regulatory framework have been dealt with in the chamber over the years. Now we have finally taken an important step forward, and from January 1, 2026, simpler and better tax rules for shareholders in small companies will apply.

According to the government's assessment, the changes mean that over 60,000 small business owners will receive a tax reduction, while the administrative burden will decrease by more than a third. These are concrete effects that will stimulate more jobs, more innovation, and stronger entrepreneurship throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker! Even though many households in recent years have had a tough time with high inflation, interest rate hikes, and rising food prices, fuel prices, and electricity bills, it is more important than ever that we encourage and facilitate for those who have the opportunity to set aside a bit of money for the future. Saving builds security, both for the individual and for society as a whole.

Historically, we have seen how broad share and fund savings among the population strengthens both the individual's private finances and the country's economy as a whole. High domestic ownership of Swedish companies contributes to stability, long-term perspective, and a stronger connection between the companies' success and the citizens' welfare. We have long said that Swedes should be an owning people – not just wage earners but also shareholders in that which creates jobs and growth. It is therefore crucial to expand and simplify the opportunities for investments and savings.

A striking example is the investment savings account, ISK, which was introduced in 2012 with flat-rate taxation. It has become an enormous success among small savers. The flat-rate model removed the old hassle of searching for purchase receipts, calculating average acquisition values, and keeping track of new issues, capital gains, and capital losses – paperwork that many experienced as unbearable during tax periods. This has reduced the administrative burden not only for the individual saver but also for the Swedish Tax Agency, which can now focus on actual errors and fraud.

Another point with saving in an ISK is that the tax is paid to the state every year, regardless of whether the stock market goes up or down and regardless of whether the saver sells anything or not. It provides a stable and predictable tax revenue.

Today, over 4 million Swedes have an ISK account, and most are saving specifically for their pension or a more secure future. To further strengthen the incentives for saving, the government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, introduced a tax-free base level on ISK and capital insurance. For the income year 2025, the tax-free level was 150,000 kronor per person, and from 1 January 2026, we have raised the level to 300,000 kronor.

With these steps, we make saving easier, more attractive and more fair. We give more people the opportunity to build financial freedom while ensuring that Sweden remains a country where ordinary people can own a piece of the future. At the same time, venture capital for listed companies is made more accessible.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: In a globalized world, Sweden's tax system must be competitive. We need to continue to be a country where entrepreneurs dare to realize their ideas, create jobs, and build the tax base that finances our welfare, generation after generation.

Sweden has succeeded in lowering the tax burden somewhat during the 2000s but still ranks high internationally. According to the latest figures from the OECD, we have a tax burden that places us in eighth place among 38 OECD countries, more than 7 percentage points above the OECD average.

It means that Sweden still has a high tax burden, but also that we politicians have a great responsibility. The higher the taxes that citizens and companies pay, the more important it is that we politicians use these funds in a respectful and responsible manner. Every krona should go towards things that truly create value: security, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and opportunities for more people to succeed.

Through the reforms we are now implementing, including simpler rules for companies as well as better incentives for research and development, savings and entrepreneurship, we are taking steps to attract more investments, retain competence and companies in Sweden and at the same time give ourselves the means to safeguard the welfare.

That is how we build a stronger Sweden for everyone. I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The task of politics is to provide answers to questions about how we are to give every human being the opportunity to give life to their longings and their innermost dreams. In a time when old patterns are being broken and new ones created, I believe that this is particularly important.

The general welfare, that is, our common concerns, such as healthcare, school and care, is central to people's opportunities in life. Life chances become smaller if it does not exist.

The general welfare protects us against dangers from the outside, and it creates freedom from distress. It increases security and thus the sense of freedom. It counteracts the danger that new privileges are consolidated, new boundaries are drawn, and new divides are created between people.

Just tax policy is one of the most important tools for economic redistribution and for ensuring the financing of the common social functions, i.e., the general welfare.

We Social Democrats have as a goal for economic policy to achieve full employment, that is, to create jobs and thereby strengthen welfare and at the same time release people's potential. Our tax policy is a tool for justice and responsibility and for providing companies with good and stable conditions. These policy areas are connected.

Mr. Speaker! The major tax reform from the beginning of the 90s has served us well, but society has obviously changed since then. We therefore 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 – not just for the sake of justice but also for growth.

We Social Democrats are clear that we want to see several changes to the tax system and that it is therefore also time for a new tax reform. We regret that the political right does not seem to see that need. We believe that it is bad for the citizens, bad for the companies and bad for growth.

Mr. Speaker! It raises many questions about the government's priorities when tax cuts are implemented in a way that increases economic inequalities in society. Sweden is in a serious economic situation. The debt development at the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden) bears witness to a profound economic crisis among households. In ten years, the mountain of debt at the Enforcement Authority has almost doubled, and the Swedish Enforcement Authority notes that Swedish households are finding it increasingly difficult to make their money stretch. Every eleventh child in Sweden grows up in a family where at least one parent has debts or an ongoing debt restructuring with the Enforcement Authority. This corresponds to 189,000 children, an increase of over 9 percent in three years.

The situation on the labor market reinforces the picture. During the current parliamentary term, unemployment has increased by around 100,000 people. According to SCB, over 700,000 Swedes live in material and social poverty, which is a doubling since 2021. Child poverty is increasing in parallel. According to Save the Children's new child poverty measure, more than 276,000 children in Sweden live in poverty.

It is as if the reality outside this chamber does not exist for the government and among the bourgeois representatives.

We Social Democrats have a different picture, and we propose different priorities, also in the tax policy. We want to safeguard healthcare places and not 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, among other things, proposed that the source tax be modernized and that the so-called exit tax investigation be completed – all with the aim of limiting and avoiding tax evasion.

The government chose to scrap the exit tax investigation, even though 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 these rules work, but the government chose the easy way: to turn a blind eye to the loss of billions and to the needs of the welfare system.

The tax rules for small-scale companies are fundamentally intended to ensure neutral tax rules between those who choose to be employed and those who are entrepreneurs. In reality, however, the 3:12 rules often function as a tool to pay less tax, as it has become more favorable for owners of small-scale companies to convert earned income into dividend income. The Government has itself pointed out that increased dividends from small-scale companies are one of the biggest drivers behind the fact that the richest 10 percent of Swedes have seen their incomes rise relative to the rest of the population over the last decade.

We welcome a simpler and more easily understandable regulatory framework but simultaneously see a risk that the proposal opens up for increased income conversion. We therefore believe that a simplification should be implemented in a public-finance neutral manner.

Mr. Speaker! A policy that creates hope and faith in the future must be rooted in reality and see people's everyday lives beyond the Riksdag chamber and session halls. It must constitute a clear idea of what kind of society one wants to build and offer a clear direction for how it should be implemented. Smaller gaps in a society lead to better cohesion and higher growth. This reasoning is no longer just social democratic common sense. Many international institutions that previously professed market-liberal theories now realize that such economic policy succeeds best.

When we witness a poor working environment within healthcare or too little teaching and support in schools, or when we see how Skåne University Hospital in Malmö uses laundry cloths that could be used as sandpaper on construction sites, we must link it to the pursued economic policy.

Tax is, in fact, the nursing assistant at the residential home, the breakfast at the preschool, and the midwife who delivers our children. Tax is hip replacements, national tests, and school transport. Tax is trains, buses, and public transport. So it is connected. Tax is the collective financing of collective welfare.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I move for the approval of reservations 1 and 5.

(Applause)

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are now considering the Committee on Taxation's report number 15, which concerns a large number of motions and proposals within the tax area. There is a great breadth in the motions' direction and content, but it gives us an opportunity to discuss the direction of the tax policy and to evaluate the work the government has carried out during the mandate period. Many of the motions have already been addressed by the Riksdag, or investigations or preparations are ongoing within the Government Offices in the matters.

For the Moderates, however, the starting point is clear. Tax policy shall contribute to getting more people into work, providing better conditions for entrepreneurship and creating stable public finances. The fundamental principle is as always that tax revenues are the taxpayers' assets and that it is up to us to manage them as well as possible.

Mr. Speaker! Our government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, has had a clear ambition: to strengthen the work line and to restore respect for the taxpayers' money. After several years of high inflation and economic uncertainty, Sweden needs a policy that strengthens growth. That is why the government prioritizes reforms that make it more profitable to work, easier to run businesses, and more attractive to invest in Sweden.

I mean that it is the right way. A tax system must be competitive in a global economy. Capital and investments move quickly across borders. If Sweden is to be able to retain and attract companies, innovation, and jobs, the tax policy must be stable, predictable, and reasonable.

Mr. Speaker! What is interesting about this committee report is also that it clearly shows the difference between the government's policy and the opposition's various parties. We see in the motions a number of proposals that point in different, sometimes opposite, directions. From the left, there are recurring demands for increased taxes on labor, capital, and entrepreneurship. The reasoning is often that the state needs greater resources. But one speaks significantly less about the effects of such tax increases. How would they hit jobs, investments, and growth? The answer from the opposition's side is simple: More money solves all problems.

These tax increases would not only be bad for the residents and household economies, who pay for the political expenditures in a tangible way, but they would also be very negative from a macroeconomic perspective, in order to manage the economic situation. They would lead to reduced consumption and make it less profitable to work, educate oneself, and take on increased responsibility at work. Increased taxes on entrepreneurship and capital also risk making Sweden less attractive as a country for establishment and driving large investments abroad.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, there are parties within the opposition that emphasize the need for growth and entrepreneurship in their rhetoric but which, in practice, still often end up with something that leads to tax increases or complicated tax rules. It creates an ambiguity in the opposition's economic policy, and the result is the fragmentation we see and a lack of a coherent line.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates argue that tax policy must be built on a few simple and clear principles. Firstly: It must pay to work. The work line is the foundation for both the individual's freedom and the financing of the welfare system. Secondly: Entrepreneurship and investments shall be encouraged, not punished. It is the companies that create jobs, innovations, and future tax revenues. Thirdly: The tax system must be simple and transparent. When the rules become too numerous and too complicated, both the administration and the risk of errors increase. It is against this background that the Moderaterna support the committee's proposal in the report.

Mr. Speaker! There is also an important principled issue here: the view on the taxpayers' money. The Moderates' view is that every tax krona is ultimately the result of people's work and effort. This implies a special responsibility for us politicians to use them carefully and effectively.

Sometimes it sounds in the debate as if higher taxes automatically solve all social problems, but it is not that simple. Experience shows that growth, work, and a strengthened business sector are the factors that, in the long run, provide the best results for the welfare.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces several major economic challenges: previously weak growth, an aging population, and a need for significant investments in infrastructure and defense, all while we face an uncertain global development. But Sweden stands strongly equipped. During the mandate period, our government has not only managed to curb skyrocketing inflation, which we inherited from the previous government, in record time, but it has also achieved many changes, all aimed at increased growth and improvements for both households and companies that make Sweden move forward.

We see now that it is moving in the right direction, even though the latest developments in the world may have a negative impact. In such a situation, it is particularly important that the tax policy strengthens – does not weaken – the economy's functioning. It matters who is in power. It matters that during a turbulent period we have had a majority in the Riksdag that has been able to act quickly and effectively to lead Sweden out of the crisis.

Mr. Speaker! When one reads the motions in the report, however, the dividing lines become clear. The government's line is about strengthening growth and jobs, but some opposition proposals instead deal with raising taxes and expanding the state. Other proposals are more unclear and sometimes contradictory.

For the Moderates, the choice is simple: We believe in work before benefits. We believe in entrepreneurship before tax increases. We believe in a tax policy that makes Sweden stronger, not weaker, in the international competition.

Mr. Speaker! Against this background, the Moderaterna support the proposal in the Committee on Taxation's report 15. I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! When the major tax reform was implemented in the early 90s, we in Sweden introduced something called a dual tax system or the Scandinavian tax model. It is based in practice on the fact that we distinguish between the taxation of labor and the taxation of capital.

At that time, the so-called 3:12 rules were also introduced, i.e., rules for the taxation of dividends from small-scale companies. The purpose of the change and the 3:12 rules was to prevent labor income from being converted into lower-taxed capital income.

These rules have been revised in several rounds over the recent years, and now the government has put forward a proposal that began to apply on 1 January 2026 and which meant simpler and better tax rules for shareholders in small companies. In practice, the simplicity was a pretext to further lower the tax and facilitate income conversion. Implementing this cost the state finances 1 billion.

I would like to ask the Moderate member: Can you explain to me in what way the proposal that you have now decided to implement makes it easier to live up to the original purpose of the tax reform carried out in the early 90s, namely to prevent labor income from being converted into lower-taxed capital income? Or is it perhaps the case that the new rules rather counteract the original purpose and facilitate income conversion?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Karlsson, for this exchange of remarks and the opportunity to explain the 3:12 rules! It is not done in a heartbeat, as both the member and I know.

There are several purposes for the change of the 3:12 rules, but it is primarily about simplification. Simplification above all is a fundamental pillar in our tax adjustment. I am immensely proud to say that we have the lowest tax burden in 50 years.

It is not a disadvantage to lower taxes, but this was not the purpose of the 3:12 rules and the change of them. The purpose was to simplify, and it has become simpler. Some have profited from it, while others have received a somewhat higher tax. It was naturally not our intention, but when one makes changes, it affects many different parts. It shows in the individual case whether it becomes better or worse. Generally speaking, it is simplification that we have been after.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The very simple question back to the member then is: Why is this not done in a public-finance neutral way? Because it is not. The reason that it should be simplification does not hold, because the whole thing in practice involves a tax cut and facilitates income conversion.

Those who are already taxed at a low rate in their private companies will receive even lower taxes at the same time as we see that the welfare system needs additional resources and has great needs. We see that the queues are growing and that the university hospital in Malmö has great concerns with the maternity care. Those resources, people do not want to provide.

No, this shows very clearly who we represent and what interests we have in politics. I assert that the interests that the member from Moderaterna represents are completely different interests than those I represent. The fact is that the 3:12 rules are often a tool to pay less tax, and now you are making it even easier. You are lowering the tax for those who already pay low tax.

It is the case that you in the government yourselves have pointed out that the increased payouts from private companies, through the so-called 3:12 rules, are one of the biggest drivers behind the fact that the richest 10 percent of Swedes have seen their incomes pull away from the incomes of the rest of the population during the last decade.

This has opened up for increased income conversion, but now you say that it is not enough. You call it simplification, but you would rather show care for those who already have than provide resources for our common welfare. That is the reason for what is now happening.

(Applause)

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Niklas, for the clarification that you Social Democrats stand for higher taxes in all cases! It is clear in the proposals that you will put forward that it is tax increases that apply. I think it is good that the member is clear about this in his speech. Tax increases are what awaits with a potential Social Democratic government.

We are proud that we are lowering the tax. It is not bad, but on the contrary, it is good to give both low-income earners and high-income earners the opportunity to have more money left over. It is, after all, their money from the beginning. And that we have created space for everyone – for the nurse, for the police officer, for the entrepreneur – to have more left over after the tax is deducted, we see as purely positive.

It was not the purpose of the 3:12 rules, and it has not become the only effect, but it is not a bad effect. We care about the entrepreneurs. We think it is good that companies can grow and develop. It creates future opportunities for Sweden to grow, both in the public and private sectors.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Over five years, the number of poor people in Sweden has doubled. It is now estimated by SCB to be closer to 730,000 people.

At the same time, the number of billionaires in Sweden is increasing. There is no real statistics on how many they are, because since we do not have any wealth tax, we also do not have any wealth declaration. In 2021, the number of billionaires in Sweden was estimated to be 542. Now the figure 700 is mentioned.

There are also 46 Swedes who are dollar billionaires, and their wealth has increased by 24 percent over the past year. Oxfam has calculated that the 46 dollar billionaires together own more than 8 million Swedes.

In Sweden, the number of billionaires is increasing, but also the number of people who cannot eat their fill every day and who completely lack any margins. The number of evictions is increasing, the number of people with debts at the Enforcement Authority is increasing, and the charities testify to more people seeking help. Sweden has become a colder and harder country for many. Until the 90s, Sweden was a pioneer country for an equalizing welfare policy. Now we are no longer a pioneer country. Instead, Sweden is below the EU average when it comes to social protection.

This is not the society that the Left Party wants. We want a society with smaller gaps where we can be proud of our welfare and once again be a pioneering country in welfare policy. Research shows that societies with smaller gaps have less crime, more safety, greater cohesion, and actually even higher growth.

Now even the capitalists on Wall Street are being warned that the Swedish inequalities are too large and that it risks leading to social unrest. The fact is that Sweden is now one of the world's most unequal countries. In a few years, we have gone from being the world's most equal country to becoming one of the world's most unequal. At the same time, crime and insecurity have increased without the government seeing the connection. Instead, they blame others, for example, Sweden's immigrants.

The gaps in Sweden need to decrease. At the same time, those who own a lot need to contribute more to the welfare, because it is completely crazy that the person who is on sick leave or unemployed has a higher tax than the person who is healthy and remains on the labor market. It is completely crazy that the person who is on sick leave or unemployed pays a higher tax than the person who lives on capital, that the corporate tax rate has been lowered in several steps, and that the taxation of shareholders in small companies has been made more favorable compared to tax on wage income.

An important reason for the increased inequalities is how the Swedish tax system has developed. Sweden has gone from being one of the countries whose tax system redistributes the most to having the least redistributive tax system within the EU's core countries.

Another central factor behind the growing inequality is the development and distribution of capital income. Sweden is today one of few countries that has neither wealth, inheritance, nor gift tax, or a property tax linked to the property's value. The absence of capital and property taxes has contributed strongly to the fact that, from an international perspective, Sweden has an extremely skewed wealth distribution.

Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes that the property taxes should be reviewed.

Mr. Speaker! This committee report is titled Companies, Capital, and Property. I have chosen to only speak about capital or, more specifically, property taxation. But of course, I stand behind all motions and reservations from Vänsterpartiet that are addressed in this committee report. They concern, for example, the need for a readiness tax, that the tax rules for small companies should not mean that the owners pay less tax, effective capital taxation of persons moving out of Sweden in the form of an exit tax, a measure and time plan for a review of the tax rules to achieve a more equal balance between rental apartments and condominiums, to evaluate and propose measures to develop coastal shipping and the system of tonnage taxation, that a tax on banks' excess profits must be introduced, and that Kommuninvest shall be exempted from the risk tax for credit institutions.

The reservation that I choose to vote in favor of is therefore reservation 9, which concerns property taxes.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are talking about entrepreneurship, capital, and real estate. At first glance, these may appear to be technical questions about taxes and systems. But fundamentally, it is about something much larger: the conditions for work, investment, and responsibility in Sweden.

For the Christian Democrats, the starting point is clear. Sweden needs a tax system that encourages work, entrepreneurship, and long-term ownership. The tax system shall be stable, fair, and predictable. When people exert themselves, start companies, invest, and save, the policy should not interfere and place unnecessary obstacles in the way.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish economy rests largely on our small and medium-sized enterprises. Throughout the country – in small municipalities, in suburbs, and in our cities – there are entrepreneurs who take responsibility for their businesses, their employees, and their local communities. They create jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to the welfare we all depend on.

But entrepreneurship also involves risks. The person who starts a company risks their capital, their time, and often their own security. For that very reason, policy must be designed so that it encourages entrepreneurship, not hinders it. Complicated regulations, uncertain tax rules, and constant changes create uncertainty and risk slowing down investments and growth.

The Christian Democrats therefore argue that stability and long-term perspective in the tax system are crucial. Business can be planned for the future. Investments are usually made with a perspective of many years, sometimes decades. In that case, the rules of the game must also be clear and predictable. We are making them so now with the new 3:12 rules, where we simplify for the companies.

Mr. Speaker! Another important issue in this report concerns capital and ownership. For us Christian Democrats, the right of ownership is a fundamental principle in a free society. It gives people independence, security, and the opportunity to shape their own lives. Being able to own one's home, being able to save for the future, and being able to build a company is for many people an important part of security in life.

But ownership is not just about economics. It is also about taking responsibility, about long-term thinking, and about belonging. The one who owns something often cares for it better and takes care of their investment for the future. This applies both in the small and in the large, from owning one's own home to owning a company that creates jobs and prosperity. Therefore, politics needs to safeguard a broad and popular ownership in society.

It concerns, as said, not least housing. For many families, the home is the largest and most important economic asset they have. But it is also something more than that. A home is the place where children grow up, where families gather and where life is lived. Therefore, it is important to have a stable and predictable system for the taxation of housing and real estate – a system that does not punish people for having saved, worked and invested in their home.

We Christian Democrats therefore want to abolish the capital gains tax. Owning and maintaining one's house should pay off. A home is not a share. It is people's security, their roots, and their everyday life. Politics should not treat people's homes as objects of speculation but as they actually are, the foundation for family life, responsibility, and long-term security.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to talk about sponsorship of culture and leisure. It is an important issue for the Christian Democrats, because civil society – not least the sports movement and cultural life – plays a decisive role for our community, for public health, and for young people's opportunities to live well throughout the country.

For a long time, the rules for sponsorship have been unclear. Companies have often hesitated to step in and support activities, because it has been uncertain whether the costs are tax-deductible. This has, in practice, hindered the opportunities for cooperation between the business community and civil society.

The government has therefore taken the initiative to review the regulatory framework. A government investigation has proposals for a more generous and clearer deduction right for sponsorship. The purpose is precisely to make it easier for companies to contribute to culture, sports, and other non-profit activities. Deduction rights shall be able to be granted even when sponsorship aims to strengthen the company's brand and social commitment, not only when there is an economic consideration of the same value.

This is an important step to create better conditions for establishing collaborations between companies and civil society. When the business sector is given better opportunities to contribute, more children and young people can also gain access to sports and culture, and more activities across the country can receive more stable funding. It is fundamentally positive both for civil society and for society as a whole.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats' policy is based on the conviction that a strong society is built through the interaction between people, families, civil society, and companies – not solely through state decisions. Entrepreneurs who create jobs, people who save and invest, and families who plan for the future are all important for sharing Sweden's economic and social development.

When the tax system functions well, conditions are created for exactly this. Then companies can grow, new jobs can be created, and people can feel greater security in their economic decisions. If the tax system instead becomes unpredictable, unnecessarily complicated, or all too burdensome, we risk hindering both entrepreneurship and investments. In the long run, this affects the entire society and our welfare.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats therefore want to continue working for a tax system that is simpler, more predictable and more growth-promoting. We want to strengthen the conditions for entrepreneurship throughout the country and safeguard people's opportunity to own, save and invest. In this way, we get a Sweden where more jobs emerge, where companies dare to invest and where people feel greater security. That is how we get more money for welfare.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I previously had an exchange of remarks with a colleague of Engström, the Moderate Reuterskiöld, regarding the taxation of small business rules, i.e., the so-called 3:12 rules.

The government even writes in its analyses, writings, and budget bills that precisely the dividends from small-scale companies are one of the biggest drivers behind the fact that the richest 10 percent of Swedes over the last decade have seen their incomes pull away from the rest of the population.

It is argued that the change the government is now making is not primarily a simplification but aims to lower the tax further and encourage even more income conversion. Those who are already very well off will get it even better.

The answer I received was that the change that is now occurring is good. It is good with tax cuts, and one stands by the effects: that 100,000 more are unemployed, that the debt increases, that more people end up with the Enforcement Authority and that child poverty is growing.

When it comes to healthcare, we in the part of the country that MP Engström and I come from see, not least that the university hospital in Malmö has problems with the maternity care. They cannot afford proper laundry sheets there, and they send the midwives home far too early. These are the consequences of the pursued economic policy where one, among other things, chooses to lower taxes for those who are already well off.

This was what the member in the previous exchange of remarks was proud of, and he stood for these effects. Now I wonder: Do the Christian Democrats stand on that side? Do you agree? Do you stand for the effects? Is it good with increased unemployment? Is it good with growing poverty? Is it good that the university hospital in Malmö has problems and cannot manage the maternity care as the hospital should?

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes one wonders if it is the right world one has ended up in. With the Social Democrats, it is always the case that one wonders if the companies are evil – but it is the companies that create welfare! It does not seem that the Social Democrats have understood.

It is about companies that are growing and have the opportunity to invest and create more jobs – it is the companies that create jobs for the employees in our country. It is they who pay in revenues to our taxes, which also become welfare.

That seems to have not been understood in the Social Democrats, namely that it is actually the companies that are the foundation of our welfare. Without growing companies and companies that live a good life, we do not get any welfare money. I wonder if the Social Democrats would succeed in solving that.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! If the bourgeois representatives and the Christian Democrats wonder whether we think companies are evil, the member shall receive a straight and clear message on this: Of course not! Companies are important, but companies must do right by others, and companies must have reasonable conditions.

What is happening now under the bourgeois government is that the economic gaps are increasing and that the 10 percent of Swedes who have increased their incomes most are those who have received favorable income conversion opportunities through the so-called 3:12 rules. For them, you are doing even better! You are facilitating this even more, in order to increase the gaps.

This is not about hostility towards businesses. This is about justice, and this is about reasonableness. It is about all of us contributing to financing the common welfare: the university hospital in Malmö, a maternity care that works, that unemployment is combated, and that people do not need to end up with the Enforcement Authority. Then everyone needs to contribute – some should not be given fast lanes.

It is not about pointing out entrepreneurs as evil. It is about justice. I wonder: Is the current policy reasonable, when certain people who are already very well off with the current policy are going to be even better off, while more and more people become unemployed and end up with the Enforcement Authority, child poverty grows, and the maternity care does not function? That is the question, and I would very much like to have an answer to this. Do the Christian Democrats stand shoulder to shoulder with the Moderates and say that this is a good development?

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! That Swedish companies contribute to our welfare, I think, is the absolute most important thing, and we have truly proven that today. It is the companies' conditions that make it possible to grow. In an export-dependent country like Sweden, one must also have good conditions to be an entrepreneur.

It is also not the case that all companies are doing great and have money left over. It sounds like all business owners have huge profits and are enriching themselves. That is really not the case. Many small business owners struggle with their regulations every day, and there is a lot that takes energy and strength when one has to follow all the rules that we have set up for them.

One must do the right thing. Naturally, everyone should do that. No one questions that companies should do the right thing – and they do! They pay the taxes they are supposed to, they follow the rules that exist, and they truly do what they can to run their company.

But it is also a risk to be an entrepreneur. Can you sleep at night? Will you have any income next month? Will you be able to pay wages to your employees? That is what one constantly lives with as an entrepreneur.

I do not think the Social Democrats know what it is like to be an entrepreneur.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today's report undeniably has many subheadings. Here, three large sections on companies, capital, and real estate are addressed, so the scope of the debate is extensive. The area is, however, so important as it touches upon many of the issues that people all around the country have in their everyday lives.

One of the major challenges is the high unemployment that exists in Sweden today. To meet it, we need a jobs policy that makes it easier both to hire more people and to create more jobs. For the Center Party, the key is to see what needs to be done for the small and medium-sized companies, but also for the larger ones. It must be as simple and cheap as possible for companies to hire more employees, so that they dare to do so.

Not least, it is important to make it easier in regions with few companies, as well as to reduce regulatory burdens and make it easier for people to understand the different corporate forms. There we see that one way in is to make the taxation more flat-rate for companies with lower turnover, that is to say, very small companies. Instead of complicated bookkeeping and various taxes, they should pay a simple flat-rate tax on turnover. We believe that it can be possible to achieve a setup that makes it just as easy to be an entrepreneur as to be an employee. Micro-enterprises we call it, and if we could achieve this, it would mean opportunities not least for people in rural areas to create their own livelihood.

Small business owners are the backbone of our economy, and to give small and growing companies the opportunity to grow, lower costs are required. We believe that is one of the keys. But capital and corporate taxation also need to be improved; today it is a complicated patchwork of all regulations, and it often requires expensive expert help to understand and master them. We really need to continue the work with simplifications and with improving the conditions so that the diversity of entrepreneurs can more easily focus on their core business instead of on administrative work.

We in the Center Party also want to lower the tax for the owner-managed small businesses and make it easier and cheaper for family businesses to hand over to the next generation. There we see that many business owners across the country have a major challenge.

Regarding the 3:12 rules, which we have heard mentioned earlier in this debate, they determine how owners of small companies shall pay tax on their profit and dividends. We in Centerpartiet welcome the government's desire to change the system so that it becomes both simpler and better, and we believe it is possible to do even more than what is in the proposals that have been submitted. One must, however, be observant of whether it entails tax increases for some companies, for we consider that to be a matter of concern in that case. We therefore see that a continued review of the 3:12 rules is needed to lower costs and simplify for individual companies, not least the owner-managed small businesses.

Green transition is another section in this report. We know that ongoing work requires large investments. Many have already been made, but more are needed for us to reach the goal of a sustainable society. We want to make it easier and more profitable to make green investments, and to strengthen market mechanisms in environmental policy, we want to see an investigation into shorter depreciation periods for environmentally and climate-smart investments.

I have been in the countryside, and some of us who live out there know what it is like to have land mortgaged so that we can continue to own it but not use it. It can be for power lines, roads, or other purposes. All-future-use-grant (allframtidsupplåtelse) is something to really focus on. We think that a review is needed of the possibility of setting aside one-time compensation for land encroachment – all-future-use-grant – for tax distribution over several income years.

Now that I am on the topic of nature and nature conservation, I want to say that we welcome the new nature conservation account, which makes it tax-wise easier to receive compensation for nature conservation agreements. We do, however, want that these funds should be able to be withdrawn over a twice as long period, from 10 to 20 years, to match forestry's long life cycles.

Mr. Speaker! For us, it is also extremely important to stand up for and defend the model with forest accounts. It has meant a lot over time. It is about understanding the conditions one lives with when one has a forestry operation that, after active use for 80–100 years, can be harvested for income – but also about thinking about how this can continue to develop in the long term.

The forest account smooths out the income and makes it easier to spread the tax over several years instead of paying everything at once at the time of logging. The Center Party believes and sees that this truly promotes long-term thinking, and not least the drive, in the Swedish economy, as forest issues and forestry are important foundations for tax revenues for our common welfare. Here we think that what is best for the forest should be guiding, and therefore we see that we really must stand up for the model with the forest account.

We are also positive about finding models when it comes to sponsorship. A rich sports and cultural life is a very important prerequisite for attractive local communities, and also for factors of well-being and public health in various ways, all around the country. Many sports clubs, regardless of size, are to varying degrees dependent on different forms of sponsorship, both to conduct their activities and to develop them. For many, this is also an important task to achieve more sustainability. The problem can often be that there is a lack of clarity in the legislation regarding how sponsorship should be taxed.

Mr. Speaker! We see that a review of the rules for sponsorship is needed to ensure equal sponsorship and to create sustainable regulations. It would have positive effects all over the country.

I move for the approval of our reservation 3 in today's report and look forward to the continued debate.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate concerns several important taxes for both companies and private individuals.

Tax policy shall secure good and stable tax revenues, create conditions for sustainable growth, high employment and a fairly distributed prosperity, and contribute to an environmentally and socially sustainable society.

The Riksdag has previously established several important principles to support the economic policy. These include, among others, a legitimate and fair tax system, general and clear rules, taxation in close connection to the time of income, and sustainable rules in relation to the EU.

We in the committee propose to reject the motions for several reasons. Sometimes the proposals are simply in progress in the Government Offices, and sometimes we consider them to be incorrect.

Many of the basic ideas behind the tax reform of 1991 remain, and the Liberals' assessment is that it is important that the basic principles remain if one is to go in and make changes. It is easy to motion for changes, but the risk is that we will return to the patchwork that existed before 1991. Through the tax increases that have occurred in the municipalities since the 90s, we have moved some distance from the idea of 30 percent in municipal tax, an additional 20 percent in state tax, and the principle that one should always have half left.

The Social Democrats propose that a readiness tax be introduced. One might think that everyone is to participate in paying it; a strong defense is good for all Swedes. The Social Democrats' proposal is rather aimed at reintroducing the defense tax, which had nothing to do with the defense – all to dismantle the principle of half remaining, a principle that they stood behind in the century's tax reform.

Research and development is an extraordinarily important issue for Sweden. Therefore, it is good that the final report Tax incentives for research and development – A new incentive based on expenditures for R&D personnel was submitted on January 19 this year. The report is now being prepared in the Government Offices, and new legislation may enter into force on January 1, 2027.

The purpose is to develop tax rules that favor research and development. This can have a great significance for the willingness to invest in research in Sweden. Ireland is a clear example of a country that has succeeded in attracting investments in R&D. It is also important that the government continues the work already started on how to attract researchers from the USA to Sweden and whether it entails that one must review the experts tax.

The report deals, among other things, with the popular savings form investment savings account (investeringssparkonto). I can agree to a large extent with what Eric said regarding the advantages of this savings form. It has become very popular, partly because it is now possible for most citizens to save for retirement given that there is no longer any deduction right. The Government has wanted to promote the savings form by raising the tax-free basic level from 150,000 to 300,000 kronor per year. It is a form that is easy to save in, but it is obviously very long-term since losses on sold shares cannot be offset against gains. It is a matter of a ten-year perspective rather than a five-year perspective.

Mr. Speaker! There are several motions concerning residential taxation. There are many motions where it is desired that various taxes and fees be removed or reduced. Fundamentally, properties are a good tax base. They are easy to identify, and they do not move abroad. Major adjustments have been made, such as the removal of the property tax and the abolition of the flat-rate fee on the deferred amount.

From the Liberals' side, we see no reason to further reduce the taxation of properties. It is lowered income taxes that we prioritize.

Vänsterpartiet opens with a motion for the municipal property fee to be supplemented with a state property tax. They say that it should not affect ordinary people, but if some money is to be collected, it must affect citizens in general. And once the property tax has been introduced, it is easy to raise it year after year.

We Liberals are for different forms of housing. Depending on where one is in life, one might want to live in a rental apartment or a housing cooperative apartment. When I worked with urban planning issues in Solna, at the regional level, and in SKR's working group for increased housing construction, there was a major problem for those who wanted to build rental apartments, namely the uncertainty for the developer regarding whether the rent levels needed to realize the project would actually be achieved. That made many not dare to invest in rental apartments. Since January 1st of this year, changed rules regarding rents for newly produced housing, so-called presumption rents, have applied, which creates long-term stability for those who build new rental apartments.

There are also motions regarding the tonnage tax. It is a bit strange since work is ongoing regarding the tonnage tax. The Government will present a bill on a significantly better tonnage tax system than the one introduced under the Social Democratic government.

The contacts I have had with the shipping industry show that the proposal will improve for Swedish shipping. The organization Svensk Sjöfart wrote in its referral response to the investigation that they "welcome the referred proposal which significantly improves the playing field for Swedish shipping companies, moreover in a time-critical situation for the industry and for Sweden's preparedness. Through several significant proposals that are presented, Swedish shipping operations can get a chance to develop without the specific obstacles that have hindered Swedish shipping activities."

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! During an hour's debate, I have listened to representatives for the Tidö parties who have spoken about tax policy. Not a single time has any of them spoken about the increasing inequality in Sweden. I wonder if we are living in different realities, where some of us are actually concerned that 700,000 Swedes live in poverty, that Sweden is hitting records in child evictions, and that the debts at the Enforcement Authority are skyrocketing, while the very richest in Sweden have pulled away in the other direction and become very much richer.

My simple question to Anders Ekegren is therefore: Does he think it is a problem that the gaps are increasing, that the richest are becoming ever richer and that we have more who are so poor that they cannot eat their fill at the end of the month without help from charity?

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker and members! First of all, I must ask a question. We have not even sat for four years. You and a few others sat for eight years before us. One must still ask the question: Why have you not done anything about this?

I have sent money to the Salvation Army and Stockholm City Mission for 20 years. The letters look about the same now as they did 20 years ago. That is why it is very surprising that you have not dealt with this. You even sat in the government for a while.

I think it is a problem that more people are becoming poor. That is why the government has invested specifically in getting as many people as possible into work. It is obviously that which can break the poverty trap.

The question of whether the rich have become richer is actually not as simple to answer. When wealth tax and inheritance tax were removed, it was done because very many chose to leave Sweden. So many did so that we received special legislation specifically aimed at those who were very wealthy. They did not want more companies like Ikea to move abroad. Therefore, the richest individuals in the country were given special legislation. We do not have that today.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I feel that Anders Ekegren nevertheless answered yes to the question of whether it is a problem that more people have become poor. But we do not seem to agree that it is a problem that this occurs in a situation where the absolutely richest are simultaneously becoming even richer. That is to say, we are fundamentally not in agreement that it is bad that the gaps in society are increasing.

Recently, the government received sharp criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council for having borrowed to fund large tax cuts. The Swedes have been indebted. Coming generations will have to pay so that the wealthy in Sweden can have lower taxes here and now, while at the same time more and more families cannot make the money stretch to cover the most necessary things. Preschools are introducing loan overalls so that children do not freeze when parents cannot afford to buy sufficiently warm winter clothes.

Anders Ekegren may not have noticed any difference, but I can tell you that we who have met the organizations that meet the most vulnerable hear that there is a difference. There is a difference in what people are asking for help with today, and it is more and more people who need help. Now, food is on the wish list of more and more applicants for help. Previously, perhaps the wishes were more about a touch of luxury in everyday life – that the children should get some Christmas present or do something fun during the summer holidays. But now we are talking about the most basic.

We in Miljöpartiet have had other priorities. We have had priorities such as raising the child allowance or ensuring that those who are absolutely wealthy can pay a little more, so that those who are poorest do not go hungry.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! I judge that Member Hirvonen's conclusions are a bit too simple and perhaps do not always correspond with reality.

I did not say that I am worried that poverty will increase. However, I always think, regardless of the time period, that it is a problem when people cannot live on their income. That is why we have been very careful that what lifts most people is to move from benefits to work. That is the most important question. That is what breaks a development.

Let me then bring up something else that also concerns ensuring that people get better off. It was actually during your time that we had double-digit inflation, and it created these problems for many people. That is why we step in and lower taxes for all citizens. We lower the food VAT, and we have done more to ensure that people actually get more money in their pockets.

I note that I have received no answer as to why you, who nevertheless sat in a government position or supported a government for two years, did not resolve the issue that the member of Parliament raises, as it did not cease upon our receiving a new government.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The gaps are increasing in Sweden. We are hitting records in child benefit claims and bankruptcies. The debts that Swedes have with the Enforcement Authority are increasing dramatically. More and more people cannot afford to pay for food, rent, and the most basic costs. 700,000 Swedes live in poverty, while the richest are becoming ever richer.

When we look at the tax system, we see that those who have, benefit. Those who earn money from work pay more in tax than those who earn money from already having money. The largest share is paid by those who are too sick to work.

Madam Speaker! This is a dangerous development, and we must break a development where the gaps in society are increasing. We need to move in the direction of increased equality.

The sitting government has borrowed for large tax cuts for the richest. Coming generations will pay the bill so that those who already earn the most can earn even more. And those who earn the most are also those whose consumption today in many other ways will also be costly for coming generations. Just look at the flying of private jets or other incredibly emission-heavy consumption!

We in Miljöpartiet want to transition the tax system so that it steers towards sustainability but also so that it contributes to increased equality and justice.

Madam Speaker! Some of the proposals we are discussing today are about those who move from Sweden and take with them large profits that they have earned here also should pay for those profits here in Sweden. It is quite fair and reasonable nevertheless, if we compare with all those who earn money and stay here and pay tax here. It is about the banks, which have earned the big haul while your and my mortgages have skyrocketed, should pay a little more.

It is about a more just taxation between those of us who receive a salary through work and those who run small-scale companies. It is about a more just housing taxation that does not disadvantage those who live in a rental apartment or a co-operative apartment compared to those who own their own villa.

Madam Speaker! With relatively wisely targeted measures, we could raise taxes for the absolutely wealthiest who have large capital incomes with very low taxation. With that money, we could strengthen the common welfare.

Madam Speaker! There is no intrinsic value in higher taxes. That is something we probably agree on. If we were asked whether we want higher or lower taxes, we would probably all say: Lower, please!

But when we ask: Would you like the children in the preschool to be seen a bit more often when they are doing poorly? Would you like an elderly person who falls and needs help from the home care service to get help a bit faster? Would you like a person who is dying and waiting for an ambulance to have a home care staff member sit ten minutes extra by their side until the ambulance arrives? Yes, then I believe most would answer yes.

It is the same if one is asked: Would you like to wait a little shorter time for the knee surgery? Would you wish that more children received help with their math homework? Then I also believe that more would answer yes.

Somewhere, this is what the tax policy boils down to. What is most important – is it most important to lower the tax for those who earn money by investing risk capital, or is it that we keep the welfare strong throughout all of Sweden?

For us in Miljöpartiet, a strong welfare throughout the entire country is important. Women should not be afraid to give birth to children because the BB in the suburb where they live has been shut down. People should not be worried that their children will get worse chances in life because the municipality can no longer afford support staff for those children who have a bit more ants in their pants.

Madam Speaker! The tax system must, just like the rest of politics, contribute to a just climate transition and to environmental benefit.

Today, we in Miljöpartiet presented new policies so that everyone can afford to switch to an electric car – with reduced tax on electric car charging, for example.

In this report, we have policies for more sustainable forestry. Those who care for nature should not lose out compared to those who choose to clear-cut.

With the government's policy, we come a little bit closer to the idea that those who care for nature should also profit from it. But in our reservation 12, which I move to approve, we in Miljöpartiet propose an even stronger policy that shall benefit forest owners who choose to care for nature. We also have proposals concerning how one should be benefited tax-wise by energy-efficienting their properties. We propose a climate-ROT, where one receives a deduction for investing in energy efficiency. By having more people choose to save on electricity and heating, we also lower the electricity bill for all of us. This is truly a win-win policy.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the mission-driven actors in Swedish welfare. They constitute an extremely small part of the welfare, a few percent, but they contribute very large values. The mission-driven actors, who are registered as such and who do not distribute profit to their owners, should be able to reinvest their profit entirely into the operations. We think that this needs to be investigated.

I naturally stand behind all of the Miljöpartiets reservations, but today I move for approval only of reservation 12 and reservation 17.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on 11 March.)

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