(cont. from § 9) Response to interpellation 2023/24:394 on a tax freeze for the country's municipalities and regions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a possible tax cap for municipalities and regions. KD argues that there is no directive on a tax cap and that the government does not advocate for it 1. KD emphasizes that municipalities should be able to lower taxes and that the investigation should address high and increasing taxes 1. KD admits that a soft tax cap with incentives is a possibility that previous governments have used 2. S argues that municipalities need more resources to strengthen welfare without raising taxes. S emphasizes that local self-government is important and that the right to tax should not be restricted.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! It is always a bit tricky to resume the debate after a break like this, I think, but we do our best.
To begin with, I want to tell my opponents that there is no proposal for a tax freeze. There is no directive to the committee regarding a tax freeze. I think that the events have been anticipated in the remarks made here in the speaker's chair. It is very possible that Eva Lindh, as a member of the Tax Equalization Committee, which is a parliamentary committee, has information that I do not have and that I, as a minister, should not have during an ongoing investigation.
We will have to see what the investigation concludes, and then we will see what the government comes to. The fact that I have not closed the door on a tax freeze does not mean that the government advocates for a tax freeze and will pursue this further. It is a huge difference.
Peder Björk asked if there is interest in a tax floor. No, there is not – that question has not been up for discussion at all. I think it is good if municipalities manage to lower the tax. I have personally been involved in doing that in the City of Stockholm. We lowered the tax while we were able to increase the funding for the core of the welfare. I think that is good. If municipalities manage to do this and increase the room in household finances in a very strained situation, I welcome it. A tax floor is therefore not on the table for this government.
Eva Lindh said that taxes in themselves have no intrinsic value. I hope that Eva Lindh sees a problem with high and increasing tax rates in Municipal Sweden. The supplementary directive to the investigation is intended to address the problem of high and increasing taxes in municipalities and that the gap is increasing more and more. The problem is not that the gap is increasing because municipalities are lowering the tax. The problem is that the gap is increasing because some municipalities are raising the tax and that the residents see their finances eroded more and more every month because the municipal tax is raised.
What is the reason for this? Do we need to do anything within the equalization system to rectify this, or is it the case that we today have an objectively functioning tax equalization system that compensates for structural deficiencies and which means there are other arbitrary reasons why the tax gap is so large? Are there other components?
It is absolutely free for a Member of Parliament to ask questions to me as a Minister, but it is not free for me to answer any questions whatsoever. The questions that Eva Lindh has asked in this interpellation are of such a nature that I unfortunately cannot answer them because an investigation is currently underway. It is therefore free to ask questions, but not free for me to answer them, because then I will be reported to the Committee on the Constitution – perhaps by someone from the same party that Eva Lindh belongs to, who knows.
Niklas Karlsson had some questions and mentioned that the tax cuts over time correspond to 400 billion kronor. So that is certain - I have not checked these figures.
If we look at the Social Democrats' shadow budget, we do indeed see some tax increases, but it is far from 400 billion. The Social Democrats seem to think that these tax cuts have been quite good, as they actually propose quite modest tax increases in their shadow budget. I think that, in itself, is good. It is easy to complain about large tax cuts and then accept in principle all the tax cuts that have been made.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I can state that the Minister for Civil Affairs obviously thinks it is more okay to answer questions from Svenskt Näringsliv about the tax freeze than to answer a Member of Parliament's question about the same thing. I just wanted to comment on that.
If one does not want the municipalities to raise taxes, one should perhaps give them the conditions to conduct their operations without having to raise taxes. There is a difference here between what the SD-led government stands for and what we have presented, that is to say, more resources to municipalities and regions so that they can not only maintain the core of the welfare but also be able to strengthen the quality.
It would be interesting to hear what the Minister for Civil Affairs has to say about the municipal right of taxation. Different ministers have referred to it as important, and the Council on Legislation and several inquiries have pointed out that limitations on municipalities' and regions' ability to raise or lower taxes is an interference with municipal self-government. I believe that municipal self-government is important and that we should not limit municipalities' and regions' right of taxation.
In summary: Welfare is important. The ability of municipalities and regions to provide a good welfare is important, and in that, the right to tax plays a major role. When the minister says that it is very much possible to reach a soft tax cap, I believe that most people think that it is an opening for a tax cap.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I think there is a big difference between when an employers' organization or a civil society organization asks a question and when a Member of Parliament who themselves sits on the investigation the question refers to submits an interpellation. It obviously affects my answer because I have to be very careful about how I answer the question.
Eva Lindh obviously has a better memory than I do, but I did answer something along the lines of that I do not close the door on it. It is possible that we land there. Who knows? It is an idea and a proposal that has existed in the debate. For example, the party I represent proposed it during the previous parliamentary term. But now I answer as a minister and as the responsible minister for the parliamentary inquiry on tax equalization, which naturally affects my answer in a purely constitutional sense.
A municipal tax freeze is not static but can be designed in different ways. Obviously, one can introduce a tax freeze that prohibits municipalities from raising or lowering the tax, and that would probably be a rather significant infringement on municipal self-government. But there are different variants of a tax freeze. Eva Lindh herself mentioned a soft tax freeze, and one can introduce different incentives where, through regulation of state grants and other means, municipalities that do not raise the tax are encouraged. Is it a tax freeze or something else? Social Democratic governments used this possibility in 1991, 1997, and 1998, so obviously it has been of interest to the Social Democrats as well – and the Council on Legislation did not veto it then.
The investigation is nearly complete. Let us see what it concludes, and then we will have a new debate on this, for example in the autumn.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.