(cont. from § 5) Income tax (cont. SkU11)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In his speech earlier, Fredrik Ahlstedt highlighted the importance of it paying to work. This is a very fundamental principle that has been discussed in many different contexts – from the pension debate to discussions about the government wanting to make it difficult for people who are ill.

It is not this, however, that I intended to take up in my speech today. I intended to take up the Green Party's proposal on a new tax reform. What we see now regarding the question of whether it should pay to work is, in fact, that the gaps are increasing between those who earn money by working and those who earn money by not working but by already owning a lot.

I had a rather eye-opening conversation with a young person who is currently studying at university and who dreams of making money from their stock portfolio and not from a job.

The gaps are increasing between those who have a lot and receive low taxes on capital and those who struggle and work. You pay more in tax on your effort than on already having.

I want to ask if the Moderates stand behind the idea that it should pay to work and are prepared to review the tax gap between work and capital.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! We want to lower the tax on work for low- and middle-income earners. We think it is very important to review the marginal taxes and the marginal tax effects.

The member points out here that people who educate themselves, who get a good job, who are ambitious, who work a little extra and who are employed today are hit very hard by the marginal tax we have on incomes.

We want to continue to have a favorable tax system for those who are entrepreneurs, those who are innovative business owners, and those who are business owners and create new jobs and new companies.

The fundamental problem is not that we have too low taxes on capital, but that we have too high taxes on work, especially when we look at the marginal taxes.

Our main line is to lower taxes on work so that it pays more to work and that it pays to work more.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The ownership of capital in Sweden is extremely unequal. We are one of the most unequal countries. We surpass countries like even Russia when it comes to the concentration of ownership.

With very low taxes on capital, the consequence is that those who own the most simply become richer and richer. The one who works has no chance of catching up, because the taxes on labor are much higher than the taxes on capital.

To this, we can add that we face great societal challenges. Previously, we discussed the enormous cuts in healthcare. The climate transition requires investments. We need to invest in the school so that all children pass school and can take the jobs that are currently vacant because we lack competence.

If one adds up all the social investments that we need to make with the knowledge of how inequality in society increases due to the gaps between capital taxes and income taxes, it is the Miljöpartiets conclusion that we need to carry out a tax reform where we ensure that those who become even richer by already owning a lot actually contribute more so that we can both make it profitable to work and invest in the welfare and the climate transition.

I can only state that the Moderates' message is clear: It is lower taxes for everyone.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! This leads me to the fact that we need to start with the important connection when it comes to capital. It is the capital that makes it possible for us to get more companies in Sweden, that we can get growth in Sweden, that Sweden can continue to develop and get a higher GDP and that there will be more jobs in Sweden.

Companies are built on three main components. The first is, naturally, that there must be a very great or at least a good business idea. The second is that there must be competence – competent employees who can develop the company. The third is incredibly important, namely that it is not possible to start a company without having capital.

That is why it is important that we have capital in Sweden, so that we do not become dependent solely on capital from outside – from countries other than Sweden. Sweden is today quite capital-dependent on many other countries. Sweden has a successful business sector, but we are still a bit underserviced when it comes to capital. That is why capital is so important, and that is why we cannot tax capital in such a way that it moves to other countries and makes us even more dependent on them.

It is capital, it is business ideas and it is competence that build new companies which make it so that there are more job opportunities in Sweden. The main problem, however, is that we have too high taxes on labor, both for low-income earners and for middle-income earners, but also that we have marginal taxes that make it so that the incentives for many who have a good education and have studied for a long time do not work sufficiently much. This is our great challenge in the short term.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We find ourselves in a very strained economic situation. Many people are struggling to make ends meet. Food prices have increased by 26 percent over the last two years. One in three families struggles to make ends meet every month. The inflation crisis and the recession affect all of Sweden and all Swedes. The construction sector is in free fall, and gang crime is eating its way into society and threatening the safety of Swedish families in their everyday lives.

In a situation where Sweden is becoming poorer, a policy is required that is rooted in both reality and people's everyday lives. But of this, Madam Speaker, we see nothing from the government and the Sverigedemokraterna. In the toughest economic situation in decades, they choose to sit in the stands. The crisis is allowed to hit with full force, and they consistently blame someone else and shift the responsibility onto others. The price for the pursued policy is paid by hard-working wage earners.

We see this in all policy areas, where one either fails to take political initiatives or, when one does, addresses those who already have it well-prearranged. An old neoliberal maxim that is essentially embodied in the government's forward policy is that when it rains on the priest, it splashes on the bell-ringer.

It shows, not least when it comes to the tax policy, Madam Speaker. Let me take a turn. There will be tax cuts in the billions for high-income earners and raised ceilings for both the rot- and rut-deductions - a luxury that only those who already have plenty can take advantage of. An exit tax to prevent tax evasion is something they do not want. Even more favorable and lower taxes for small-scale companies are pending. Companies are allowed to deduct their service fees for participation in employer organizations and for conflict funds that they build up, but the employees who have chosen to become members of the union are not allowed to deduct their membership fee. Income from capital and assets is given a fast track compared to tax on labor and so on.

It is admittedly hardly surprising, Madam Speaker, that the pursued policy reflects the bourgeois view of society, where those who already have shall get a little more. On the other hand, it is both unjust and outrageous.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats represent completely different interests and stand for a completely different view of society and humanity, which is embodied in our view on the design of the tax policy. The basis for us is that the main task of the tax policy is to finance our common welfare and create a fair distribution of society's wealth.

We believe, in fact, in the idea that welfare frees people from the shackles of economic subordination. We do not become dependent on our own economic assets to access school, healthcare, or care, and we avoid having to give up large parts of our lives to take care of loved ones who need such services but do not have the possibility to purchase them on a market.

Our view on tax policy is based on the public service principle that we contribute jointly according to ability so that welfare is there when it is needed and is distributed according to need. Mr. Speaker! In my world, as a representative for the Social Democrats, it is a very simple and timeless idea, or put differently: healthcare, school, and care are important for people's opportunities in life. Life chances become smaller when they are not there.

Tax is, in fact, the nursing assistant at the elderly care 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 hangs together – tax for the collective financing of common concerns and collective welfare.

When we witness a poor working environment within healthcare or too little teaching and support in schools, we link it to taxes. Tax cuts, after all, lead to cuts. Over the last 20 years, the tax ratio, that is, what we are prepared to forego of our assets - our common collective wealth in our country - has decreased by almost 7 percentage points. In terms of kronor, it concerns a loss of income for the entire welfare system of over 400 billion kronor compared to if the tax ratio had been the same as at the last turn of the century.

It is clear that 400 billion kronor do not go unnoticed. This no one - not even the most well-intentioned bourgeois politician - can argue away with dynamic effects or self-sufficiency rates. No, it has contributed to a significant reduction in and quality deterioration of the welfare. It is a very serious and at least spectacular development, which clearly reflects the underfunding of the general welfare.

But, Madam Speaker, as if this were not enough, today's tax system is also designed in such a way that we pay more in tax on income from wages than on returns from capital. For those who already have, we shall make it a little better, and for those who already work hard, we shall make it a little tougher. Such a tax system is not what we want.

Unlike the Moderates, who here today in the chamber of the Riksdag clearly declare that they are not interested in engaging in any form of political deliberation to find a common tax system that is uniform, neutral, and fair over time, we are of the opinion that the tax system we have today has many flaws that need to be addressed, primarily to make the system more fair, not least between those who work and those who already have large assets.

Madam Speaker! Why should the cashier at Ica pay a larger share of her salary in tax than Ica's owner does? For me, it does not add up. There are also more similar examples. Therefore, the need for a tax reform is great - to make the system comprehensible, uniform, neutral and, above all, fair.

When the world is changing and we do not know with certainty what tomorrow looks like, the strong society has become the security that has made people curious about the future, which has made them dare to face a new day without knowing what it looks like but still welcome it in the certainty that things will get better. All people, both those who are unemployed and those who are not, shall have something to look forward to.

Based on those principles, the Social Democrats formulate their view on tax policy. It is about the view of humanity, and it is about the view of society.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for the approval of reservation 6 under point 4 and reservation 18 under point 9.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I became a little curious after Member Karlsson's speech. It was very well-formulated and elaborate regarding the philosophy behind and the purpose of social democratic tax policy. But I became a little curious, Madam Speaker, about which taxes the Social Democrats want to increase. Is it the tax on gasoline and diesel? Is it the tax on labor? Is it the tax on capital? Or is it some other taxes?

We have seen in motions that there are proposals regarding bank tax, readiness tax and so on. But that was not what Member Karlsson was talking about. He talked about a tax reform, and I got the impression that everyone would get a tax increase.

I believe it would be valuable and interesting, perhaps especially for the citizens, to find out which taxes the Social Democrats want to increase.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It feels satisfying when the Moderate member stands in the chamber's rostrum and says that he has become curious about my speech instead of thinking, by spinal reflex, that everything I say is by definition wrong. Then we are at least a bit of the way there.

If Member Ahlstedt had also held the view that we would jointly find a tax reform and not just have a one-man show where each person from their party says that we decide and it shall be like this, the conditions would have existed to conduct these arguments.

We do not intend to go out and publicly state exactly what we want to do, because then we would lock ourselves in. Our starting point, however, is that justice in the tax system shall be restored. This naturally means that the voters whom the Moderate member Ahlstedt represents, who have large assets and wealth, would likely be able to expect a somewhat higher tax than those who are ordinary wage earners.

We are happy to discuss details regarding what the Moderaterna are prepared to bring to the table. But our starting point is to restore justice in taxation.

Instead, Ahlstedt should perhaps explain to me why it is reasonable that those who already have should have it even better. It turns out that it is those with the large incomes who receive the large tax cuts in the economic policy that the government now advocates and presents before the Riksdag.

The price is paid by the welfare. It is cuts and layoffs in healthcare and the welfare. For me, it is an untimely, outdated, and unjust policy. We have a completely different view.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! It was very difficult to get the lid off the Social Democratic tax box. We did, however, get a small glimpse of what different proposals can be accommodated there. It was also a bit like what we feared. We do not, in fact, believe in raising the tax burden or increasing the number of taxes. We believe rather the opposite. We think that we should lower taxes, especially on work. That is our starting point.

That is why we do not think there is any reason to carry out a major tax reform that covers everything and everyone. We think that we, above all, need to work on the taxes on work.

I also made an argument in my speech that we perhaps need to be a bit more agile when it comes to corporate taxes and capital taxation. We need to meet both international discussions and the institutional competition and work with those issues. In that case, we do not believe that any large investigation or large reform is the way forward.

You who are listening to this have surely understood that in that tax box that Member Karlsson is not so eager to open, there are some, I assume, slightly hidden proposals. If one is to realize what Member Karlsson says, it is about increased point taxes on, for example, petrol and diesel, increased tax on labor, removal of the job tax credit, and increased tax on capital, for example, ISK.

We do not believe that it is the policy that Sweden needs or wants at all. That is why we reject the proposals on tax reform.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! There is no reason for me to moralize over what the Moderaterna advocate and say in the parliamentary rostrum. That is actually your task. You believe that those who have it better should get it even much better. The price for that, when you implement your tax cuts, is that ordinary people have to take the hit. It is honest and straightforward that the Moderaterna are prepared to stand in the parliamentary chamber and say it. It honors the member.

But as honorable as it is for the member to present it, just as out of time is such a policy. When you now lower the tax for those with the large incomes, it is their colleagues with slightly lower incomes who pay the price by becoming unemployed.

Healthcare now has to take the hit. Over 800 people in healthcare in my region, Skåne, need to leave because the government is not prepared to take responsibility for healthcare. At the same time, you are lowering the tax for a high-income earner like the doctor so that the doctor can afford to pay their housing costs, as the member said in another exchange. The one who pays for his increased housing costs through reduced tax is the colleague, the nursing assistant, who is now becoming unemployed.

I cannot represent such a policy. What this means for me is that we must be prepared to finance our welfare. Then we need a tax policy that is fair and modern.

If Member Ahlstedt and the Moderaterna are interested in which taxes we might consider changing, we are of course prepared to open that box, as Ahlstedt puts it. But that also presupposes that Ahlstedt is prepared to come to the table and talk about this. Otherwise, there is no box to open.

The responsibility now lies with the government and the Moderaterna, not with us Socialdemokrater.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Income taxes are engaging, and we see it in today's motion report. Here are proposals regarding job tax credit, regional tax reduction, increased basic deduction, ROT and RUT, gift tax deduction, green deduction, green tax shift, benefits, transition credit, and a larger tax reform.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats want the tax burden in Sweden to decrease. Lower taxes are a goal in themselves, and this applies particularly to income taxes. That people get to keep a little more of the money they have earned strengthens freedom of choice – but actually also the treasury.

It is important for Sweden and the Swedish welfare state that more people work more hours. The job tax credit leads to more people working more and to the finances of municipalities and regions being strengthened. What is most significant for the welfare to be able to be maintained and developed is that the tax base develops positively.

The earned income tax credit is a state tax reduction that is directly proportional to the municipal tax and is financed entirely by the state. The higher the municipal tax is, the larger the earned income tax credit becomes. That the tax reduction is larger in high-tax municipalities means that the earned income tax credit also functions, to some extent, as a tax equalizer between municipalities. The current earned income tax credit is primarily targeted at full-time workers with low and medium-high incomes because it is tapered down for higher incomes.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats believe that the tax burden must be made visible. That is why it is good that the government has now appointed an inquiry to review how public employers can show the employer's contribution on the payslip. By highlighting and informing about which taxes the employees pay, one can also understand that the tax is a prerequisite for municipalities, regions, and the state to receive money for our common welfare. It is about school and care and about ensuring that the bus to work runs.

Madam Speaker! A few tasks are as important as breaking exclusion. Those who stand outside and live on benefits year after year need to exchange benefit dependency for self-sufficiency. But a benefit reform also needs to be implemented, and the government has started that work. A benefit ceiling ensures that it will always pay off better to work than to live on benefits. Nothing creates prosperity in a country like work. Nothing counters individuals' poverty like having a job. And nothing creates more new social mobility than people getting their very first job.

Swedish business is also a greenhouse for prosperity and innovation. All the enterprising people who run companies and create jobs deserve our respect. They risk their money to create jobs for others. Therefore, it is good that the government ensures that regulations are simplified so that we reduce the administrative burden. It should be easy to do the right thing. Free economy and free entrepreneurship are the foundation of our welfare.

Madam Speaker! I also want to raise the issue of donations to non-profit activities. We Christian Democrats want a strong, vibrant and independent civil society. Therefore, we have worked to ensure that there is a donation tax deduction. In practice, this means a tax relief for those who give donations to social causes and to research.

It is pleasing that other parties have also understood the importance of voluntary gifts and have submitted motions regarding it. It is good that there are more who are pushing for a development where the limits are raised. Through the gift tax deduction, organizations such as Stadsmissionen, Rädda Barnen, Hjärt-Lungfonden, and Cancerfonden are strengthened.

I am also very pleased that the government has now appointed an investigator to review simpler VAT rules for gifts and for the sale of used goods. It shall also be opened up so that the right to deduction applies even for legal entities, that is, for companies that give gifts to non-profit activities and civil society.

Madam Speaker! The Government has appointed an inquiry that shall submit proposals on modernized tax rules for a flexible working life. It needs to be modernized because a flexible working life also means that the workplace is not always where one thinks it is, and because the deduction for increased living costs is based on the workplace.

The investigation shall analyze how the rules on workplace and deductions for increased living costs can be modernized to make the tax rules simpler for employers, employees, and companies. Where a person has their workplace is crucial for the assessment of the right to deductions for increased living costs during travel in the line of duty and in business activities, as well as the right to deductions for travel to and from work.

With that, 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)

Eric Westroth (SD)

Madam Speaker! The bill we are debating today concerns income taxes and deals with the motions that were submitted during the general motion period in the autumn.

The Sweden Democrats is a social-conservative party, and we believe that the state has an important function in maintaining a welfare state for the citizens. A welfare state is, of course, something that entails costs for the state, and income tax is one of the state's largest sources of income. Alongside VAT, it is probably the tax that is most visible to the citizens.

That is why it is also important for the so-called social contract that the income tax is fair and transparent. Fairness then does not only refer to tax capacity, but it also means that the one who educates themselves, invests and works hard shall get to share in the return from their work and their efforts and risk-taking.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for a long time had one of the highest tax burdens in the world. The marginal taxes are also among the highest in the world, which means that a large part of the last earned krona goes directly to the state. This can result in the motivation of wage earners and entrepreneurs to put in a little extra effort being dampened. When hard work, effort, and risk-taking do not pay off to a sufficient extent, we risk creating a society where people do not strive to achieve their full potential.

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the new government, Sweden is now losing positions in the list of countries with the highest tax pressure, even though we are still a good way off the OECD average. The Sweden Democrats, of course, stand behind the government and the budget agreement we have in the Tidö agreement, but we have some proposals in our policy that the government should be able to investigate further improvements. I thought I would mention a few here.

When it comes to the so-called house deduction, better known as rot and rut, we voted yesterday for a temporary increased rot deduction to stimulate the construction market, which is having a tough time. That is good and well, but we believe that the government should also conduct a review of the system with a focus on simplifications, including regarding the different deduction levels and the ceiling amounts that now circumvent the system.

Given the maintenance debt that exists among many rental properties in the country, one should also investigate the possibility of a rot deduction for these stocks. Deductions within the system should also be able to be granted for renovation and maintenance of properties and buildings with special cultural-historical value, a so-called heritage rot. Finally, an investigation should also be conducted with proposals for measures to reduce the occurrence of abuse.

Another proposal concerns changes to the system for gift tax deductions that exists today. Currently, one can make a tax reduction of 25 percent up to 3,000 kronor per tax year for gifts to approved gift recipients. We believe that the system has potential to be developed. Sverigedemokraterna places great value on civil society, and financial support for this in the form of gifts from individuals is of great importance for important activities run voluntarily.

We mean that the cap on the deduction is set too low, while at the same time the system excludes many public service activities. Furthermore, legal entities are not covered by the possibility of tax reduction, and the system is also administratively cumbersome. We advocate for an investigation to rectify these deficiencies so that the purpose of the gift tax deduction can be better achieved, which will be a step on the way towards a stronger and more independent civil society.

The Sweden Democrats also believe that the possibility for private individuals to invest in smaller companies should be improved by making adjustments in the tax area. Since smaller companies and startup companies often have difficulty borrowing on the capital market, there is a need not only to be able to obtain capital for the company but also to attract key expertise.

One way to do this is to facilitate for smaller companies to issue employee options. Attracting investments and venture capital not only from those who traditionally call themselves venture capitalists but also from private individuals and hard-working entrepreneurs will be a decisive factor for growth in the Swedish economy.

The government has now given a supplementary directive to the committee tasked with submitting proposals for simplifications within the 3:12 regulations to also analyze in what way the regulations can be changed to make the system of employee options more effective when it comes to attracting and retaining key competence.

According to the latest information, the committee will present its results in the coming days. We look forward to receiving its report.

The Sweden Democrats also propose that a new system for pension savings should be introduced, an "allemanspension" (universal pension), with the same age categories as for individual pension savings and with the same rules for withdrawals, but where no tax deduction occurs upon deposit up to one price base amount. It could have strengthened private savings for retirement in all income classes.

Finally, Madam Speaker, most parties here in the chamber have probably realized that we needed a tax reform, perhaps except for one party. We live today in a globalized world, where people, capital, and companies move across national borders in a way that I do not believe we could have predicted at Sweden's last tax reform nearly 35 years ago.

Sweden needs competitive tax levels for both companies and venture capital, but also for taxation on income from service. This is especially important for Sweden to be attractive for both foreign investors and for new startups, and for us to be able to attract the competence needed in the entire business sector in an international market.

We realize that the type of tax reform that was carried out just over 35 years ago would be a significantly greater challenge today. This is due to the fact that the EU determines in certain parts what we may and may not tax, but also to what the parliamentary situation looks like right now. It also depends on the transition that is currently taking place in the wake of the Tidö cooperation, which is investigation-heavy and leaves little capacity for a major tax reform.

In summary, we need a tax system that favors entrepreneurship, innovation, risk-taking, education and diligence, while it also needs to have a redistributive function to find acceptance and for the maintenance of a welfare state.

Madam Speaker! As we in the Sweden Democrats honor the Tidö Agreement and the cooperation we have together with the other Tidö parties to take responsibility for Sweden in a joint cooperation during the mandate period, we will, in the event that approval is sought for any of the reservations under points 14 or 19, vote in favor of the committee's proposal, even though we have our own reservations under the respective points. This explanation of vote is also included as special statements in the report.

We in the Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations in the report, with the reservation I just mentioned. But for the sake of time during the voting, I move for approval of our reservation 14 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! While I adjust the height of the lectern, I take the opportunity to move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

We live in a time where it is more important than ever to encourage work, investment, and entrepreneurship if we want Sweden's prosperity to continue to stand strong. By making it more attractive to work and invest, we ensure that we create the economic cake that we all share through our common welfare.

Taxes are a subject that often leads to discussion within politics and among citizens and economists. It is not particularly strange in a high-tax country like Sweden. Taxes provide economic means to our public sector. At the same time, the design of the taxes affects decisions made by both private individuals and companies. This in itself plays a major role.

If the tax system, for example, consists of too many differentiated VAT rates, the risk of a certain mistrust towards the system increases as it can be perceived as difficult to understand, complicated and inefficient. If properly implemented, a new tax reform, which several others here before me in the speaker's chair have raised, can form the basis for a societal development that inspires more work, business and entrepreneurship, and less cheating. It would be positive for our country. I hope that within a near future we can achieve this.

High marginal taxes on labor reduce the return on education and effort, and corporate taxation makes entrepreneurship and investments less profitable if it becomes unbalanced. Discrepancies in taxation mean that resources can be allocated to where the tax is lowest, not where they do the most good.

Madam Speaker! Let us not forget that the tax system is fundamental for financing our common welfare. It is through taxes that we can ensure that there are teachers in our classrooms, doctors and nurses at our health centers, as well as police officers out on our streets and squares who maintain order in our country.

But we must also acknowledge that the current tax system has parts that counteract the forces that build our prosperity, as I just mentioned. Therefore, we must reform the system so that it becomes more profitable to work, educate oneself, and start companies.

A fundamental pillar for us liberals is that it should always pay to work. In Sweden today, over 1.3 million people do not support themselves. It is a massive failure, and long-term unemployment is a growing problem. We want to give the individual the power to stand on their own two feet. No one who can work should be forced to be dependent on either the state or anyone else for their livelihood. It should always pay to move from benefits to a job and self-sufficiency.

It is therefore pleasing that we now have, among other things, out for consultation regarding the budget bill, that we are to strengthen the earned income tax credit which until now has been so good. It is primarily aimed at full-time workers with low and medium incomes.

By getting to work, one also becomes a part of society and can contribute to our community. It is the best integration engine we have. An efficient tax system provides the drive for increased employment and more hours worked and makes our economy grow. Then the tax revenues are created that go to our common welfare.

But the most important reason is not macroeconomic, but concerns justice. The power over one's own life increases when the individual gets to keep more of the income that she or he has earned herself or himself. Therefore, taxes are a matter of people's freedom and self-determination.

Madam Speaker! We Liberals also emphasize the individual's right to shape their own future. By creating better conditions to earn more money, we also increase the possibility for personal savings. This increases the individual's power by providing economic security. With one's own economic capital, one has the freedom to, for example, leave destructive relationships. One can buy the home that one has long dreamed of or start a company and realize the idea that one has carried for so long.

At the same time, we must not forget to take responsibility for the planet we live on. Through green tax shifts, according to the principle that the polluter pays, we shall create incentives to work and contribute to a more sustainable society.

We must also become better at encouraging green innovation and driving our economy towards more sustainable solutions. Here, we believe that the public sector should participate and do its part. But we must also not forget to release capital within the private business sector, as market forces should also be part of reaching the environmental goals.

Sweden is one of the countries in the Western world where the tax on a salary increase, that is, the marginal tax, is as high as it is. It creates an inefficient tax system in itself where it pays poorly to work but also to increase working hours. Years of studies at a university or college are not seen at all today, or to a very small extent, in people's wallets compared to what they could have been.

Such a poor education premium in turn has negative side effects, not least on the supply of qualified labor. If Sweden is also in the future to be a country for new thinking, innovations and entrepreneurship, it must pay off to exert a little extra effort. It is about rewarding both the one who works that extra hour and the one who takes that extra course at the university.

It is also about Sweden continuing to stand strong in order to be able to attract foreign experts, researchers, and other key individuals to the domestic labor market. The current proposal to lower the experts' tax is perfectly timed. We need to create better conditions so that companies can attract and retain international key competence so that we can benefit Swedish competitiveness in a global market.

It is of the utmost importance that we continue to work for a tax system that supports rather than limits individual freedom and the economic potential that exists here. Only then can we create a society where work, innovation, and competitiveness truly flourish.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! During his speech, Patrik Karlson spoke about having a tax policy that contributes to the climate transition and to the environmental goals being met. Then I must still ask: Why do the Liberals consistently vote against such a tax policy, both in the Riksdag and in the committees?

During the previous parliamentary term, when we had the chance to pass a transport-neutral travel deduction so that those who travel by public transport, for example take the train, would not be disadvantaged, the proposal was defeated here in the chamber of the Riksdag. It was a proposal that could have led to exactly the climate transition regarding transport, one of the biggest challenges we have in order to reach the climate goals.

Why did the Liberals vote no in the Committee on Taxation when, as recently as a few months ago, I submitted a proposal to correct the Swedish Tax Agency's interpretation of the law regarding solar cell batteries? It is said now that those who buy batteries to store their solar power are not allowed to help stabilize the power grid for all of us else, at least not if they want to take part in the green deduction. Why do the Liberals not pursue a tax policy that leads to a just transition when they get the chance?

Madam Speaker! I cannot list all the examples, but these are at least two things that they would have had the chance to vote for already in this proposal.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! It is clear that one can discuss individual deductions and such when it comes to the different measures we take. But as a Liberal, and according to the principle I mentioned earlier, I believe that one needs to take a larger step back to reach the level we want to reach and the environmental goals we have set. There are, of course, a number of proposals to achieve this.

As I mentioned, environmental taxes fulfill a function by taxing environmentally harmful activities so that we are forced to take our environment and nature into account in our decisions. These taxes also correspond to the environmental cost we have, according to the polluter pays principle that we apply.

When it comes to environmental taxes, it is clear that it is somewhat admirable to want deductions for solar cells and such, but I believe that it hardly makes any difference at all on the total. We must take greater collective action to achieve this. We believe that this must be done at the European level, among other things. Even though I of course think that the right of taxation should remain at the national level, I believe that when it concerns the environment specifically, there must be a much larger debate and a conversation and dialogue regarding how we can achieve this, given that emissions do not stop at our borders. This is something that we Liberals are pushing very hard for. I do not quite agree with the criticism I am receiving here in the rostrum.

We are happy to join forces after the EU election on 9 June to ensure that we find more measures together to prevent the global warming that is currently taking place.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Those were very concrete questions. Why did the Liberals, when they had the chance, vote against concrete changes to achieve a tax system that steers more towards the climate transition?

Patrik Karlson says that we should take greater collective action and that larger reforms are needed - that the examples I raised were too small. This should take place at the EU level, but the EU should not tax.

Sorry, but I don't understand. It sounds a bit like empty talk. One says that one wants climate taxes, but one has no proposals for such. When we propose climate taxes, you think that those very proposals are bad.

This is the problem with the Liberals' entire climate policy. One says that one wants a climate policy, but one does not put forward any of one's own proposals. And then one votes no to the Green Party's proposals.

The Liberals have the responsibility now; they hold the position of Minister for Climate and Environment. Words must be followed by concrete action. Now I want answers. What are the proposals in the tax area that the Liberals want to put forward? What major joint efforts is it about? What, concretely, are the major changes in the tax system that the Liberals will submit proposals for here in the chamber of the Riksdag?

The share of environmental taxes of GDP is decreasing. When my party negotiated the budget with the Liberals within the framework of the January agreement, they pushed very hard for an environmental tax, the plastic bag tax. That one has now been removed.

I do not understand. What tax proposal is the Liberals for in order to transition for the climate?

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if I was a bit unclear when I said that the right of taxation shall continue to be national. But I open up for the fact that we need to have a discussion regarding precisely environmental taxes at the EU level, for that is how I believe we combat emissions and global warming in the right way. If we just stand here in our national chamber and talk about environmental taxes, I actually think it will become more of a thing out of thin air.

I may also have to disappoint the members a little; I do not intend to precede the budget negotiations that are currently ongoing when it comes to what potential environmental taxes there may be. But it is clear that this is an important part of our tax system.

Then I just want to point out that I think it is good when there are fewer environmental taxes in terms of economic amounts, because it means they have had an effect. Then there will be fewer environmentally harmful items in trade and less of emissions and other things. That is what we want. This is about the fact that one must constantly adjust based on current conditions when it comes to what is environmentally harmful. Exactly what it is, we will have to come back to.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! When we debated income taxes last year, I devoted the main part of my speech to the situation for pensioners born in 1957. At that time, the government representatives did not really want to acknowledge that there was a tax injustice and that something needed to be done about it. The motion that I argued for did not receive the Riksdag's support.

But this year I do not need to devote my time to this because yesterday we took a decision to pay back the tax that the 57:s paid in too much. It took time, but finally most parties realized that this needed to be done.

Today, I will instead speak about income tax in a broader sense and go through the reservations that Vänsterpartiet has in this report.

Income tax has many purposes, including financing common commitments and leveling differences. Those who have a high income must contribute more to the welfare. This is the very foundation of a welfare society, where it is not your income that determines whether you receive care and what schooling your children have. Unfortunately, we no longer have that welfare society as schools have become more segregated and those who have the means can buy their way past care queues. Many have difficulty making ends meet, and poverty in Sweden is only increasing.

In Sweden, not only are the income gaps increasing, but also the wealth gaps, and we now have the EU's second-largest gaps. This is where we have arrived, from having been the world's most equal country.

It is political decisions that have brought us here. Those with the lowest incomes are lagging behind, and benefits and other compensation systems have not kept pace with the real wage increase - differences that will increase even further with the government's announced policy.

In recent years, the Swedish tax debate has been characterized by a clear focus on lowering taxes on earned income. The taxation of earned income today contains more than ten different forms of tax reductions - rutavdrag, rotavdrag, and various forms of job tax credits. The job tax credit alone represents a tax reduction of 140 billion kronor per year. Vänsterpartiet therefore considers that the job tax credits on high incomes should be phased out.

An important tax principle should be that equal incomes shall be taxed equally. This principle was shattered by the previous bourgeois government with the introduction of the various job tax credits, which only apply to those who work. The current right-wing government has increased the gap further as new job tax credits have been introduced. This tax gap is deeply unfair. For those who are early retirees, sick, persons with disabilities, unemployed, and on parental leave, the tax is significantly higher. People do not become healthier or find it easier to get into work through higher taxes and lower compensation.

Vänsterpartiet wants the tax gap to be closed for all incomes, for example sickness and rehabilitation allowance, unemployment benefits and parental leave. We want the difference in taxation of sickness and activity allowance in relation to earned income to be removed.

Therefore, we need a new major tax reform that increases tax revenues and strengthens the uniformity of the tax system.

Madam Speaker! The deductions for so-called RUT and ROT services are examples of tax reductions in the income tax area. Vänsterpartiet is not against household services. What we oppose is that these should be tax-subsidized. The largest part of the subsidies goes to the tenth of the population who have the highest incomes. This means in practice that low- and middle-income earners subsidize the cleaning help of high-income earners. This is not only unreasonable and unjust, but it is also a waste of the taxpayers' money. If the RUT deduction were abolished, the state treasury, for example, would be strengthened by approximately 8.2 billion kronor during 2024. This corresponds to the total wage cost for approximately 14,500 assistant nurses within elderly care, or for the part within the regions and healthcare, where many are being laid off today.

One of the reasons why rut and rot deductions were introduced was that it was desired to promote Swedish jobs and reduce undeclared work by ensuring that more services would be paid for and taxed. Nevertheless, these deductions can be used for renovations and household services in residences outside Sweden, and this is becoming increasingly common. The Riksdag should decide that the deductions can only be used for work performed in Sweden. It is not reasonable that one can hire a guy to manage the grill at a pool party in the Spanish holiday villa and then receive a tax deduction in Sweden.

The National Audit Office recently concluded that undeclared work is increasing within the construction industry. The reason for this is that no controls are performed on subcontractors. The individual who purchases the ROT service believes they are purchasing a white service, but the construction company that is hired uses undeclared wages in one or more links beyond the consumer link. If the company requesting a payment from the Swedish Tax Agency and invoking the ROT deduction provided information on which employees have performed the work, would this give the Swedish Tax Agency better conditions to detect cases where undeclared labor has been used? The entire Riksdag should be able to stand behind this. It is surprising that the majority of the Committee on Taxation rejects the Left Party's motion on the matter. Is the fight against undeclared work unimportant for the right-wing majority?

That the right-wing majority has abolished the deduction for membership in trade union organizations is perhaps not as surprising from an ideological standpoint, but even the right-wing parties defend the Swedish labor market model. If one seriously wants to defend the Swedish model, the thresholds for becoming a member of a trade union must also be lowered. One such way is to reintroduce the tax reduction for trade union fees.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must have a transport system that meets the needs of transport for people and business and at the same time meets the climate goal and other environmental goals, road safety and health. The target vision is a zero-emission and transport-efficient society. Sweden's current government has however implemented a number of measures that significantly increase emissions. Among other things, they have lowered the reduction obligation and removed the support for electric vehicles. This increases the need for measures to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The government must reintroduce a policy for the climate and also produce proposals for a travel-means-neutral and distance-based travel deduction, which the Liberals in the previous exchange of remarks could not stand behind.

Politics has a great responsibility for more housing being built, but also for the right type of housing being built. What is needed above all are rental apartments with reasonable rents, but the economic and regulatory conditions that apply to the different types of tenure are skewed and consistently to the detriment of rental apartments. The goal must be that all types of tenure shall be equally attractive, and it is the task of society and politics to ensure that it becomes so. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to see a total review of both rules and taxes that can level the conditions.

Madam Speaker! I know that I should be wrapping up soon. But I still want to say a few words about tax on sexual services. Here, it is quite clear that something must be done. But it is about more than a specific tax issue and should therefore be handled in a larger context in order to also stop the exploitation of people in prostitution.

Centerpartiet has a motion that targets the tax issue itself, and the proposal in the motion is not the best way to go to solve the problem. Vänsterpartiet would have liked to see the committee take an initiative to quickly find a sustainable solution to the taxation issue. That did not happen. If the Riksdag is to vote on the motion, Vänsterpartiet will support it to clearly send a signal to the government that this must be resolved promptly.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 32, which concerns a tax reform.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The report we are considering today contains very many different tax issues.

In my speech, I will address two of our reservations. They concern the conditions for mountain rescuers and what we have already partially discussed, namely that the Swedish Tax Agency taxes the money that prostitutes receive from the sale of sexual services.

I would like to move for approval of reservations 24 and 28 already now.

When fuel prices were at their highest, in connection with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the mileage compensation the mountain rescuers received did not even cover the costs for fuel.

Many probably have the image of a mountain rescuer saving a person in danger after an accident in the mountains. But the mountain rescuers do so much more. During the winter, they must clear snow from trail markers so that they can be seen, and bridges over streams must be secured. All of this is done by the mountain rescuers. But they also perform missions during the summer. Like all rescue services, the mountain rescuers work day and night, all year round.

In Sweden, there are 400 mountain rescuers who, often under extreme conditions, are responsible for operations in the mountain world. All volunteer lifesavers are an invaluable resource for people's safety. For far too long, there has been talk about the need for encouragement and that there should be reasonable conditions and circumstances for the work. Motions have also been submitted regarding this.

We need to change this to increase safety in the mountain world. That is what the Center Party wants to do.

What do the Moderates and the government as a whole say about this? The Moderates are those who, in addition to the Center Party, are submitting a motion on this issue. I quote from the report: "Creating exception rules for a certain group in the tax area, however, leads to demands that other groups should also be treated specially, which leads to an overly complicated tax system. The committee notes that a temporary tax reduction for earned income to handle increased labor costs as a result of the pandemic has applied for the tax years 2021 and 2022."

The committee is not prepared to change or propose any special rules regarding the possibility of deductions for other expenses.

So, nothing is being done, instead it should be as it is today.

Then one must know that the mountain rescuers use their own snowmobiles, ATVs, and cars with trailers for transport. The equipment must be relatively new and fully insured. These are large investments. It would be reasonable and simple to consider that mountain rescuers could be granted tax deductions for the part where the vehicles are used in the public service, but for this to be possible, tax rules must be changed. But the government does not think so.

One could have looked at this in the tax review that we thought everyone was convinced would take place. It can still be considered news of the day that the Moderaterna are not.

Now I want to talk a bit more about the Swedish Tax Agency and what the Swedish Tax Agency does towards prostitutes. To be in prostitution is to be exposed - very, very vulnerable and exposed. It is the world's oldest oppression. It is not the world's oldest profession. Often, one does this with one's life at stake. It causes lifelong damage, shame, guilt, and anxiety. Therefore, it is very good that we have the sex purchase law in Sweden, where it is established that it is the buyer who is criminal and not the one who sells sex. I thought that the Judicial Sweden and the Administrative Sweden were in agreement on that. But, Madam Speaker, it turned out that was not the case.

Last summer, the case involving Maja, who is actually named something else, was highlighted. She was a victim of a burglary in her apartment. The police arrived to investigate the crime and found a large amount of cash. Maja was honest and said it as it was: They come from the tourists who have bought from me.

She was prosecuted and convicted of tax crimes because she failed to pay tax on these funds. I believe she had to pay staggering sums. She received more in fines than what sex buyers who get caught receive.

But it doesn't end there. Maja was asked by the Swedish Tax Agency to start a company and pay tax in order to settle the matter in that way and avoid new indictments.

The hypocrisy is endless here. If prostitutes are to pay taxes, I wonder what deductions they will make. Will they deduct the costs for condoms, lubricant, medicines, pregnancy tests, HIV tests, and travel to and from apartments or brothels? How lucky that one can file digitally. Then they can actually do it when they are locked up in a brothel.

Selling sex is not like selling any other service. We cannot equate selling a pizza with selling sex.

Prostitutes are therefore supposed to pay tax. They are encouraged to start companies, which has indeed happened. It has happened that one has received that answer when sending a question to Skatteverket. But Skatteverket cannot issue an F-tax certificate, because at the same time they say that it is not a sustainable business idea. A vulnerable woman in prostitution who has a company must also have a bank account, but the banks deny women who are in prostitution a bank account. Why is there even a business code that can be associated with the sale of sexual services?

Since Centerpartiet wrote this motion, some things have happened. The investigation *Ut ur utsatthet* has been released. It should be remembered that it is an investigation of 400 pages, and one and a half pages concern this issue. The investigator came into contact with this issue. This was nothing that the investigator had been commissioned to look at. Nevertheless, the government refers to that investigation, which thus lands with the Ministry of Employment and lands not with the Ministry of Finance. It is strange.

This has, therefore, happened since I wrote the motion.

We from Centerpartiet would instead have wished that one, just as someone mentioned earlier, had dared to take a clear position from the Committee on Taxation, where this had been baked in. I agree that it is a larger issue than an individual tax issue. But we cannot hide the question in that preamble, because the Swedish Tax Agency is involved and will be involved.

It would have been good if the Committee on Taxation could already be clear and say: When we introduce an exit program for prostitutes, the Swedish Tax Agency shall be involved. One shall offer the prostitute debt relief and so on.

But today, nothing is being said. So far, the government parties have said no to the motion. They have said no to a proposal on a committee initiative that I submitted, where this was actually loosened up a bit. It would not just be about changing the tax legislation, but it would be seen as a whole. But this was also rejected.

Reference is made to an investigation that proposes a new investigation. No one benefits from this. It takes longer. It actually happens that prostitutes have the Swedish Tax Agency in their sights. It does not happen often – it must be admitted. But one is one too many. They have to wait several more years for this phenomenon to disappear. It is not acceptable.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to pick up where Helena Vilhelmsson left off. We in Miljöpartiet will vote for the reservation concerning making it clear to the government that we must redo and do right. Women who are exploited in prostitution shall be regarded as crime victims, not be punished for accounting crimes and tax crimes because they are being exploited by thugs who pay to commit assaults.

The Swedish sex trafficking law was unique in its kind when it was introduced. It is fundamentally about placing the debt and the responsibility where it belongs: with those, primarily men, who exploit the bodies of girls, boys, and women.

We in Miljöpartiet want to rectify an error that should never have occurred. Skatteverket shall not tax incomes for this type of vulnerable crime victims.

Madam Speaker! In my exchange with the Liberals, I requested a concrete tax proposal that lives up to what the Liberal member spoke about from the rostrum: that they want a tax policy that contributes to the transition.

The only thing we have seen from the government on that front so far is abolished and lowered environmental and climate taxes. And now even more is expected – this concerns, for example, the aviation tax. They are pursuing a policy to make it cheaper with fossil and cheaper to destroy rather than for what is needed now: a just climate transition.

Miljöpartiet has a range of proposals both in the tax area and within all other relevant areas of society for a just climate transition. It is about ensuring that the polluters pay but also about compensating those people who are dependent, for example, on driving to and from work. It is about ensuring that people in rural areas get a tax reduction, so that they are compensated. It is not those who do not have the possibility to transition who should pay the bill; it is we together.

During the previous parliamentary term, the government presented one of many reforms for a just climate transition, a transport-neutral travel deduction which would mean that regardless of whether you choose the train or the car, you have the possibility of a travel deduction. It is a travel deduction that would give less to those who commute to Stockholm from the suburbs and more to you in the countryside.

To achieve a just climate transition, we also need to ensure that it becomes cheaper to have more of what we need. Therefore, we have introduced a green deduction that ensures people who invest in, for example, renewable electricity production receive a tax deduction. This is what we in Miljöpartiet want to develop.

We need to make a major investment in renewable and cheap electricity production. We know that wind power today is the cheapest source of energy, but also that solar energy has enormous potential in Sweden as well. Through solar cells on residential roofs and apartment buildings, households can both save money on electricity bills and contribute to the climate transition, away from fossil fuels to renewables.

We are dismayed that the Swedish Tax Agency has now put a spoke in the wheel of the rapid transition we are seeing. It is about people who want to invest in batteries to store their solar power so that they can use it when they need it. But they also want to contribute to a robust energy system by selling the service so that we can all use those batteries, for example, in the winter. It is about storing electricity when a lot is produced and using it when it is blowing a bit less. These people no longer receive a share of the green deduction.

When we in Miljöpartiet raised the issue in the Committee on Taxation, it sounded as if everyone was in favor of making a change. Still, the government parties insist on voting no. They say they are for it, but when it comes down to it, they act against it.

We in Miljöpartiet also want to ensure that solar heat can be incorporated into the green technology deduction. With large-scale solar heat, we can replace a significant amount of the bioenergy and waste incineration that is currently used to produce heat for the district heating network.

Initial investment support is needed, however, but this would be important to enable the biofuels that we have to be used where they are needed most - and that is to replace fossil fuels.

Madam Speaker! A just climate transition is also about ensuring that all people can make ends meet. They must be able to afford to put food on the table, buy winter clothes for their children, and pay the bills at the end of the month.

We have had a cost crisis in the entire Swedish society. The government's response to it was to give more to those who already have the most. Our response from Miljöpartiet was to invest in welfare, to ensure that the teaching assistants and nursing assistants still keep their jobs, that the queues do not grow in the hospitals and that we do not let the children in school fall behind.

This is possible by prioritizing money for those who have the least for welfare and letting those who have the most pay more in tax. We think it is fair that people who become ill should receive the same tax percentage as we who have the privilege of having health and being able to work. The "funkisskatten" and the higher tax on sickness and activity benefits are unfair and must be removed.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations, but for the sake of time, I choose to only move for approval of our reservation 34.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 12 June.)

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