Income tax

Crister Carlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the Committee on Taxation's proposal in report SkU11.

As a resident of a rural county, I am pleased that the deduction for work trips with a private car is increased from 18.50 to 25 kronor per kilometer. This change is estimated to give car commuters an annual tax relief of approximately 4,700 kronor if one travels four kilometers to and from work per day, which is the average. It is certainly more in my home county, which is, therefore, a rural county.

In many places in my home county and other similar counties, there is no public transport, or the routes run so sparsely that it is impossible to commute to work for, for example, healthcare staff who work on weekends. If you live in, for example, Leksand and work in the afternoon or on weekends at Falu Hospital, you will get there but not back home. There are also smaller towns that do not even have public transport. I am well aware of this problem because I have previously been chairman for public transport in Region Dalarna. It is constantly pitted against priorities in healthcare.

That is why it is welcome that the deduction for work commuting is increased to 25 kronor per mile - finally, one might say, as it was a long time ago that the deduction was changed. Fuel prices have also skyrocketed due to previous political decisions and the war in Ukraine. The proposal is estimated to cost approximately 1.6 billion kronor and is a leg in principle that it should be profitable to work.

Mr. Speaker! Another proposal is an enhanced job tax credit for the elderly. That the job tax credit is enhanced for persons over 65 years of age shall function as an extra stimulus to give older people the opportunity to remain in the labor market. This is proposed partly against the background that Sweden's population is aging, that is, that the proportion of the population who are of working age is decreasing, partly against the background that we are becoming older – and actually healthier. We have the opportunity to work longer before we retire, and for most, work is good for health.

Speaking of healthcare personnel, Arbetsgivarverket writes that the proposal has good prospects of expanding the supply of labor. This should therefore also do some to alleviate the skills shortage in healthcare and ensure that we can continue to benefit from the experience and knowledge that older people have acquired over many years.

Sweden today has the world's sixth highest tax burden. During the past years, the Social Democratic government pursued a clear tax-increase policy where, in government position, they raised a total of 46 different taxes as soon as they got the chance. It is clear that the Swedish people wanted a different direction than more tax-increase policy, and in the election, they gave the bourgeois government a mandate for a new course.

We must ask ourselves whether, with the world's sixth highest tax burden, we have the world's sixth best healthcare, school, or elderly care. One can therefore reflect on how we distribute the resources.

Mr. Speaker! For the income year 2023, the threshold is 51,200 kronor per month. This means that you pay state income tax of 20 percent on your incomes over 51,200 kronor. The threshold applies to the taxable earned income. For the income year 2022, the threshold was 46,200 kronor.

Raising the threshold means more money in the wallet, which stimulates work and constitutes a principle that it should essentially pay to work. This is a standardized increase that should remain as it stimulates jobs and perhaps more consumption, which means that the state gets money back in the form of VAT.

If we do not raise the threshold, it effectively means a tax increase, and that is at least not what we want. Approximately 1 million people, many of them with ordinary occupations, would cross the threshold for state income tax and have to pay higher tax. To continue on the healthcare track, we can state that overtime unfortunately occurs to an all too great extent within healthcare, but that an employee, by virtue of this, gets a little more left in their pocket, which perhaps makes one feel that it pays to take an overtime shift and help out in the strained situation that prevails. Not raising the threshold would hardly increase the motivation to put in a little extra effort - that it should pay to work.

Mr. Speaker! Let us take an example: A further educated nurse who, with OB, basic salary, and potential overtime, exceeds the threshold for state income tax might take an extra shift to help and support their colleagues – and perhaps also to be able to save up to buy something extra or travel. He or she will then have to pay more than 70 percent in various taxes and VAT to purchase the item. This means that he or she must work five or six hours for free on an eight-hour shift. Not raising the threshold therefore hardly stimulates the motivation to take that extra shift and have to leave the family on a Friday night. It is at least my experience that it does not become stronger because of it.

We have a Tidö agreement and a majority that clearly stipulates that the tax on income from both work and pension shall be lowered. Together with an overall benefit reform, it will become more profitable to work and less profitable to receive benefits. I look forward to more tax cuts for everyone in the future, but as our Finance Minister has said countless times, we must fight inflation. I saw this morning that it rose further in February. Here, the government is in a challenging position and needs to present a tightening budget.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Crister Carlsson for an interesting contribution that I could ask many questions about.

I will, however, content myself with stating that the increase of the threshold that the member mentioned has led to the fact that we Members of Parliament and others with equivalent or higher incomes have received a tax reduction of 1,400 kronor per month. Members of Parliament will also receive a retroactive increase of our fees, with reference to the economic situation.

For pensioners born in 1957, the Riksdag and the government have instead raised the tax. A family where both retired last year will receive almost 6,000 kronor less in disposable income this year than they expected when they retired. Is it not a bit stomach-turning of the government to lower its own tax but not correct the mistake that has been made regarding pensioners born in 1957? It simply does not suffice to sit in power and blame previous governing parties, as several Moderates have done.

In the government's budget for 2023, the government also responds to a motion from PRO and SPF by increasing the work deduction. It shows that the current bourgeois government was aware of the unjust mistake that was made but actively chose not to do anything in the budget for 2023.

The pensioners born in 1957 do not care about who made the mistake, they care about who fixes it and who wants to fix it. They care about who ensures that they receive the tax rate they have counted on.

My question to Crister Carlsson is: Will the government return with retroactive transitional rules for pensioners born in 1957?

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ilona for the question.

One must still go back and see where this unfortunate decision comes from. It is an unfortunate decision; I truly regret it. But it is actually the previous government that should have informed about this change at an earlier stage, since the work already started in 2020.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to change the tax table for income tax retroactively, as it is locked in December. If this were to have been adjusted, it would have been done in the autumn budget, but as I understand it, there was no party in the Riksdag that did so.

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

TALMANNEN

We use both first and last names when we speak to each other in the chamber.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am quite used to people just saying my first name instead of having to struggle with my long surname, which however is quite easy to pronounce.

It is exactly as I say, regarding what Member Crister Carlsson is doing now: It is not enough to blame others. It was not only the Social Democrats who introduced these rules – the Moderates were also involved in introducing them. The Moderates knew what it looked like for persons born in 1957; it was even mentioned in the government's budget why they chose not to lower the tax for the 57s.

I do not think it is acceptable to blame previous governments. It is the Moderaterna who now lead the government. It is the Moderaterna who have the older and social insurance minister post. It is the Moderaterna who have the prime minister post. It is the Moderaterna who have the finance minister post. It is you in the Moderaterna who have the opportunity to do something.

I want to repeat that the pensioners born in 1957 do not care about who has made a mistake. They care about who fixes it. The government that Crister Carlsson represents, through the Riksdag, should do something.

Crister Carlsson spoke in his first contribution about the threshold and how good it is for the economy with lowered tax. But why is it then not good that pensioners get lowered tax? Why should pensioners get a higher tax that makes them lose 3,000 a month? What does it mean for their purchasing power, what does it mean for Sweden's economy and what does it mean for these people?

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We will strengthen the finances of pensioners through the guaranteed pension, which is increased by 8.7 percent for 2023, and by introducing a special job tax deduction for persons over 65. How it will be in the future with the 57s, I cannot answer today.

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

Sofie Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Crister Carlsson for an exciting contribution. He skillfully set up the ball for me to smash.

We have a finance minister who claims that the government's plan with the fiscal policy is to fight inflation. One also claims to have an austerity budget, but in the same breath, one speaks of a tax cut of 13 billion kronor for Sweden's high-income earners. Generally, it is the case that the biggest reforms that the government puts forward concern things that can fuel inflation, with more money to high-income earners and to the fossil industry.

One can also reflect on the distribution policy. Crister Carlsson spoke about it being worthwhile to work. It always seems to be the case that it is precisely high-income earners who need more money for it to be worthwhile for them to work, while low-income earners are instead supposed to have less money. One can ask why.

Crister Carlsson has had an involvement in Region Dalarna. This is a region that now looks to be facing a deficit of 750 million kronor. It looks similar across all of Region Sverige. These 13 billion would have been needed in welfare or for our families with children.

One can also ask whether it is really the case that the ambition for the policy should be that nurses should take a lot of extra shifts. Is it not better that there is more money for more colleagues? I am completely convinced that there are many nurses out there who would gladly have an extra colleague.

My question to you, Crister Carlsson, is: How do you view this prioritization? Is it really reasonable?

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can draw no other conclusion than that Member Eriksson does not think it should be profitable to get an education. Many may have five, six or seven years of education and have not only taken on large student loans but have also, during these years, missed out on an annual salary that those people who have gone directly from upper secondary school to work have received.

According to SCB, the average salary for those with a high school education is 32,000 kronor. During the perhaps five and a half years that a doctor has been educated, the person has missed out on a salary of perhaps 1.5–2 million kronor and additionally incurred a lot of student debts. I think that these people are worth receiving a slightly higher salary and not having to tax away a large part of it.

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

Sofie Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Of course it should pay to get an education, and of course it should pay to work. But it is also the case that doctors have a quite significantly higher salary than, for example, nursing assistants.

One always returns to this. Those who have high salaries must receive more and more money so that it pays for them specifically to continue working. For low-income earners, on the other hand, one must tighten the belt as much as possible.

The question remains: Will there be more or less money for wage increases for those working in healthcare if welfare is cut? 13 billion kronor is quite a lot of money – it is 13,000 million. This money could have gone, for example, to higher wages or more colleagues. It could also have gone to supporting families with children in this difficult situation.

It is very clear that we have a government that totally disregards equality and justice in this country. One has just received the electricity support that arrived several months too late and which did not become a high-cost protection. A single person receives 700,000 kronor - who it is we are not told, for that has been shrouded in mystery. This corresponds to six years' food budget for a family with two children.

You are talking about nurses and doctors, Crister Carlsson, and it is absolutely heartbreaking. But we who sit here also get this tax cut. People in the government, who earn double, also get this tax cut. CEOs, who earn triple, quadruple, or five times as much, also get this tax cut. Why should they have more money? Why should we have more money? We do not need that thousand kronor, but there are others who would really need it. Wouldn't an extra 1,000 kronor for every family with children have made quite a big difference?

How can one come to the conclusion that this is a reasonable order and that it would also be restrictive? I find that difficult to understand.

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Doctors have a higher salary - or a high salary - after perhaps 13 years of education. Then they get a higher salary, but they still have student debts and lost work income. I think that doctors are worth a higher salary and that they are worth not having to tax away all their money.

Some people have high income and high wages. Many of them are entrepreneurs. They have succeeded in getting well off. Many times they have started companies that have been able to employ a lot of people who in turn have paid a lot of tax to the state and thus to healthcare.

We Moderates - and the Tidö parties - are for lower taxes for everyone. I believe that is the best driver to get people into jobs.

(Applause)

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

TALMANNEN

I remind you politely that we do not usually address each other as "you" across the floor in the chamber, but speak in the third person via the Speaker.

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

Sofie Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my warm condolences to all who knew Barbro Westerholm. I was not one of them myself, and we never met. But I and many others hold the greatest respect for Westerholm's enormous work in this chamber for democracy, freedom, and human rights.

Mr. Speaker! I move on to the debate. We are currently in a very strained economic situation. Many are finding it difficult to make ends meet. Porridge and diapers are among the goods that have increased most in price. One in three people, often a woman, who works in a shop has an actual income that lies below the poverty line. Part-time work, casual labor, low wages and hourly positions mean that working women are now in a particularly vulnerable situation.

In this situation, the government is spending 13 billion kronor to lower taxes for high-income earners. Then you tell people to look for low prices on food - as if it were a sensational news item. From waving that hot dog to telling people to bite their lip, it is a long step, but this step has been taken by parties in our government.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Taxation's report on income tax. The proposals being discussed are those of the Members of Parliament and were submitted during the general motion period.

The basis for the Social Democratic tax policy is to finance the country's welfare and create a more just distribution of society's wealth. "Taxes and fees have been the instruments with whose help we have been able to transform our country from a society of privilege into a welfare state built on the principles of solidarity and community." So it reads in a Social Democratic parliamentary motion by Olof Palme, Lena Hjelm-Wallén, Ingvar Carlsson and others from 1978.

Mr. Speaker! There are people who ask themselves, and I apologize for the language, what the hell one gets for the money. The answer is very simple. One gets a more dignified and more just society. One also gets a freer society, because in the countries where welfare is limited and the class gaps are enormous, the one with high income is not free either. Poverty escalates and forces the admittedly lavish villas behind fences and guards. I do not know how fun that is.

Tax is welfare. Tax is the nursing assistant at the care home, the breakfast at the preschool, and the midwife who delivers our children. Tax is hip replacements, national tests, and school transport. We get back many times more than what we pay in. All citizens benefit from living in a society where people with low incomes also have self-evident access to healthcare, school, and care. It becomes a safer society then.

When we witness a poor working environment within healthcare or schools, we must link it to taxation. Tax cuts lead to cuts. I can understand that there are people who wonder why one should pay more tax on income from wages than on returns from capital. Why should the cashier at Willys pay a larger share of her wage in tax than what the owner of Willys does? It actually does not add up. There are many more similar examples. We would therefore need to carry out a tax reform to address this and make the system more comprehensible, uniform, and fair.

Regarding the question of tax for pensioners born in 1957, it is obvious that many have not been sufficiently informed about the changes presented in 2017. It is a problem regardless of where one stands on the issue.

The question must now be posed to the government because it is the one that holds the tools. It is the government that can and must analyze the situation and come up with proposals. We Social Democrats have stated that we will act constructively if and when that happens.

So, regarding the question of the threshold for state income tax. To those who have to, it seems to be the right-wing parties' melody - for example, a single person received over 700,000 kronor in electricity support. One can wonder if the government's prioritization is reasonable. We do not think so. We believe that the 13 billion in tax cuts would have been needed for families with children and welfare. But our budget proposal, as is known, did not win, and we safeguard the cohesive budget process.

I move for approval of reservation 13 regarding the deduction for trade union fees. The state should not actively provide advantages to one party in the labor market that the other does not receive. But unfortunately, that is the case today. Companies are allowed to deduct their service fees for participation in employer organizations and for conflict funds that they build up. Members of the union, however, are not allowed to deduct their membership fees.

With surprising speed, bourgeois majorities have abolished this deduction right, to the detriment of the wage earners, as soon as they have had the chance, first in 2007 and then in 2019. One can ask why. Is one not satisfied with the Swedish model? Why does one want to favor one party over the other? I will leave it unsaid, but we from the Social Democrats are clear on where we stand: The deduction right for the trade union fee must be reintroduced.

We also want the difference in taxation between sickness and activity benefits and earned income to be removed in all income brackets. Therefore, I also move for the approval of reservation number 1.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Sofie Eriksson for an engaged contribution. I agree with most of what was said, and we also share some of the reservations.

I want to bring up the Social Democrats' special statement regarding the economic conditions for pensioners born in 1957, which Sofie Eriksson also mentioned in her post. The Social Democrats argue that it is the sitting government that has to both implement and follow up on changes in the pension system. The Social Democrats argue that it appears reasonable for the government to analyze the situation that has arisen and return to the Riksdag with any adjustments or transitional rules. As Sofie Eriksson said in her post, the Social Democrats welcome such an initiative and will act constructively if so occurs.

My questions to Sofie Eriksson are therefore: Why did the Social Democrats not conduct this analysis before the Social Democratic-led government submitted the proposal that has led to this unjust economic consequence? Why do the Social Democrats choose to write a separate statement instead of supporting the Left Party's reservation regarding a lowered age limit for the increased basic deduction? If we agree in this chamber, we can rectify this injustice today.

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

Sofie Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ilona Szatmári Waldau for the questions.

Just as I mentioned in my main speech, many have not been sufficiently informed about the changes, which have been known since 2017. It is a problem.

We Social Democrats, however, stand behind the agreement that was made in the Pensions Group because we believe that broad agreements on our pension system are needed to secure future pensions.

Vänsterpartiet proposes no transitional rules but wants to undermine the Pensionsgruppens agreement. One can absolutely have a discussion about it, and it has been had. But I believe it is important to be aware of what it is we are dealing with in this report, and it is not about any transitional rules.

I repeat that the question must be posed to the government. We must turn our gaze there, because it is the government that holds the tools and that can and must analyze the situation and come up with proposals. And we Social Democrats have indeed stated that we will act constructively if, and in so far as, it occurs.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

Now we have heard from two speakers - and I assume we will hear it said more times in the speaker's chair - that it is considered a problem that it has become like this but that one does not intend to do anything. The Social Democrats' Sofie Eriksson repeats that one thinks it is the government's business to do something and that one is constructive and will participate if the government comes with a proposal.

Then my follow-up question is: What has the Social Democrats, as the largest opposition party, done to get the government to come forward with a proposal? The Left Party has, at least, submitted a motion in a proposal regarding a change concerning the age limits for the increased basic deduction. It is true that we do not have a proposal on transitional rules without us actually wanting to lower the age limit. But at the same time, it states in our motion proposal that the government shall return, which means that the government can return with a proposal that does not one hundred percent correspond with what the Riksdag has asked for. It is quite common for governments not to do as the Riksdag says but to slide a bit on the mandate they have been given.

I want to assert that one could agree to the Left Party's proposal and then modify it if it had been possible to find a compromise that all parties, or a majority of the chamber's parties, could stand behind. But this is a choice that the Social Democrats have therefore not made, but instead, it is said again: No, that is the current government's matter.

I repeat the question: What has the Social Democrats done towards the government so that the government will come back with a proposal that the Social Democrats can stand behind, when now the Left Party's proposal is not sufficient?

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

Sofie Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is hardly surprising that Ilona Szatmári Waldau thinks that we should probably be able to reach an agreement on the Left Party's proposal. But now, as we have touched upon, it is not a question of transitional rules. That is, in fact, what is being discussed most in the debate. I believe we could stand here and talk longer than in this exchange of remarks, but the fundamental question remains: Does the government want to do anything? Do the Sweden Democrats want to do anything? It is with them that the power lies.

We have said that we are ready to talk and that we are ready to do this. But I believe it is good for the pension system that we have broad agreements when it comes to these issues. The question remains: What do the parties want to do?

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats want the tax burden in Sweden to decrease. Lower taxes are a goal in themselves, especially just the income taxes. That people get to keep a little more of the money they have earned themselves strengthens freedom of choice.

It is important for Sweden and the Swedish welfare that more people work more hours. The job tax credit leads to more people working more and that the finances of municipalities and regions are strengthened in the long term. What is most significant for us to be able to maintain and develop the welfare is that the tax base develops positively. But when we are now in a situation with cost increases and an inflation that was 12 percent in February, the tax cuts we implement would be eaten up by inflation and build upon it. Therefore, large tax cuts right now are irresponsible and should wait until inflation has stabilized.

Mr. Speaker! The vast majority of us know how much we pay for our housing every month. We know what the phone costs. We know what we pay for internet at home and what other bills amount to. But most of us do not know how much our largest expense is. It is the tax we pay on our wages every month. The Christian Democrats believe that the tax burden must be made visible. Public employers can take the lead and show the way by clearly stating taxes and employer contributions on payslips. By highlighting and informing about which taxes employees pay, one can also understand that taxes are part of a prerequisite for the municipalities, regions, and the state's way of obtaining money for our common welfare.

Mr. Speaker! Certain tasks are just as important as breaking exclusion. Those who are now far from the labor market and live on benefits year after year need to break the dependency on benefits and become self-sufficient. Therefore, we in Kristdemokrater want to prioritize lower taxes, especially for low- and middle-income earners. They have the smallest margins and need them particularly much now that the price of butter and other things has increased.

But a subsidy reform is also needed. It is a task that the government has already started. A subsidy ceiling ensures that it will always be more rewarding to work than to receive subsidies.

Nothing creates prosperity in a country like work, nothing counters individuals' poverty like having a job, and nothing creates new social mobility like getting one's very first job. The Swedish business sector is a greenhouse for prosperity and innovation. All the enterprising people who run companies and create jobs deserve our respect. Therefore, rules must be simplified so that we reduce administration and it becomes easy to do the right thing. Free economy and free entrepreneurship are the foundation for our prosperity in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We believe the deduction for maintenance and renovation work is important. Renovating and repairing one's home, but also picking up children from preschool, can facilitate the everyday lives of ordinary people. Demand for these services has increased and contributes to increased employment, especially when it comes to jobs that do not require special education. The changes that have now been made to rot also embrace the climate transitions that favor green deductions, such as the installation of solar cells, with an increased allocation for measures for energy efficiency. It is also good that the government has commissioned an inquiry to counter fraud and crime in the labor market within the regulatory framework. The National Audit Office is also conducting a review to ensure that the rot deduction is used as intended and is not misused.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats particularly want to highlight donations to non-profit activities. We want a strong and vibrant 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. Through the donation tax deduction, organizations such as Stadsmissionen, Rädda Barnen, Hjärt-Lungfonden, and Cancerfonden are strengthened. The Christian Democrats were involved in introducing this for the first time in 2012, but unfortunately, the donation tax deduction was removed by the red-green government. It was a very hard blow for civil society organizations, and we Christian Democrats fought to have it reintroduced, and we succeeded in that through the joint budget with the Moderaterna. Since the summer of 2019, the donation tax deduction has been back.

I see now that even other parties have understood the importance of non-monetary gifts and have submitted motions on it. It is good that there are more who are driving the development and the raising of the limits. The Christian Democrats would have wished that we could have continued with more organizations and higher amounts, but in this tough economic situation, we are forced to prioritize other things.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has in its budget allocated further funds for civil society's work, not least to break involuntary loneliness. They are directed not only to the elderly but also to other vulnerable groups. The Government also provides increased support to Bris's national support line to help children and young people who are struggling and need conversation support.

Mr. Speaker! As a resident of Skåne, I also want to highlight the cross-border commuters. They are particularly affected. Nordic cross-border commuters who have worked from home during the pandemic years have sometimes been forced to pay tax in two countries. Within the social security system and the unemployment insurance, solutions have been found, but a similar solution is also needed in the tax area. Therefore, I am very pleased that we now have a review of the Öresund Agreement and other Nordic agreements so that we can improve the balance between those who pay tax in their municipality of residence and their municipality of work. Continued integration and a sense of region are good for the business sector, research, and growth in all our countries.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against all motions.

(Applause)

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

David Lång (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In the report we are debating, SkU11, motions from the general motion period regarding income tax are addressed.

A welfare state is something that entails costs, and income tax is one of the state's largest sources of revenue and perhaps also the tax that is most visible to the citizens. It is therefore important for the so-called social contract that income tax is perceived as fair, not only regarding tax capacity but also when it comes to the fact that those who work should be able to share in the return that the work provides.

It is important that our tax system stands strong, even in an international comparison. We all here want new and growing companies, which will probably be crucial for securing and safeguarding our welfare in the future.

To facilitate for private individuals to not only invest in shares or funds on the stock exchange, we want the taxes to be reviewed in order to increase the opportunities and incentives to invest in smaller companies. In times of high indebtedness and when a significant part of Swedes' wealth is tied up in public and private funds primarily through the pension system, a counterweight was needed.

The Sweden Democrats see the need for broad direct ownership of the Swedish business sector in Sweden. It is also in small and medium-sized enterprises that grow that the vast majority of new jobs are created. Therefore, we would like to see that newly started and small expanding companies should be able to offer their employees the opportunity to invest in the company, and we also want to improve the tax conditions for employee options. At an early stage, it may be the case that a company does not have the possibility to offer the highest salary for new employees, but they can be offered employee options with the possibility to share in any future profits in the company.

Att attracting investments and venture capital, not only from those traditionally called venture capitalists but also from private individuals and hard-working entrepreneurs, will be crucial for rebuilding the Swedish economy. We strive for a broad popular ownership of the Swedish business sector to a greater extent than is the case today.

Regarding income taxes, that is, today's debate on the committee's report 11, Sweden today has marginal taxes where the highest levels are almost at the world's top. It risks appearing to hinder wage earners' willingness to work more. The Sweden Democrats see no problem with a certain progressivity in income taxation, but we cannot in the long term be significantly higher than the average among comparable countries. In the long run, the goal should be a reduction from the current level.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, there are many actors in civil society that receive publicly funded support in the form of various grants from the state, municipality, or others. At the same time, different forms of financial support, such as donations from individuals, are of great importance in many cases for important activities conducted voluntarily.

We want to push through further reforms to strengthen civil society's independence through, among other things, gift tax deductions to facilitate for civil society actors to stand on their own feet economically. In this way, one avoids that civil society becomes too dependent on grants from the state and risks being directed directly or indirectly by the state.

Mr. Speaker! We have for some time emphasized the need to review a reform of the tax system. Sweden must be competitive against the rest of the world in the tax area, where political decisions constantly affect the business sector and the competitiveness of Swedish companies, while at the same time there is a need to level out inconsistent tax differences such as, for example, tax on pensions, tax on business activities, and tax differences between municipalities.

We also believe that the government should investigate an income tax deduction as an alternative to the multi-child supplement. We also see reason for the government to take measures to stimulate savings and counteract over-indebtedness. We want to investigate tax rules for the sports movement and reform the taxation of Swedish seafarers so that they have a predictable taxation without an excessively large administrative burden.

For the energy market to function well, fair conditions must apply. Special tax reductions for certain actors in the energy market or special penalty taxes for other actors create a particular imbalance and unfair conditions. We therefore want a review to be conducted of subsidies and reductions in the energy market in order to create stability, fairness, and efficiency.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have five reservations and one special statement in the report. Before the vote, I request to move for approval of reservation 24.

(Applause)

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

Sofie Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, David Lång, for your speech! I am reflecting on that matter of promising things a bit broadly and then getting them implemented. There is nothing wrong with wanting to change society or having ambitions. That is why we are here – it is rather something positive.

We have, however, gone through an election campaign that has been characterized by something else, namely extravagant promises that the senders knew they could not fulfill: 10 kronor at the pump, a referendum, high-cost protection for electricity bills and ultimate demands of 20 billion to the justice system. The list is long. What became of it all? One can wonder what a promise from the Sverigedemokraterna is worth.

The Sweden Democrats are a party that often has a high level of tail-end support. That can be had, but they usually have it when they do not need to take responsibility for anything. After the change of government, the Sweden Democrats are responsible for everything that passes this chamber.

I am reflecting on something. A question we have handled today is the tax for pensioners born in 1957. The Sweden Democrats have pointed out in various contexts that it is assumed the government will rectify this, and various measures have been promised. What happens? We are ready to have constructive conversations, but what is happening from the government and the Sweden Democrats?

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

David Lång (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That was a lot at once. I am not entirely clear on exactly what kind of answer Member Sofie Eriksson is requesting.

When it comes to the 57s, the Social Democrats and Sofie Eriksson perhaps know best themselves. The Sweden Democrats were not part of the Pensions Group, but it was a Social Democratic government that submitted the bill, when, among others, the Pensions Agency missed to object to what affected those born in 1957. The Sweden Democrats were the only party that voted against the bill.

As Sofie Eriksson mentioned, the Sweden Democrats are now, for the first time ever, part of a cooperation with a government, so it is a bit different compared to before. We have the Tidö Agreement to adhere to, and we have ongoing negotiations and discussions with the government. This means that we do not conduct exactly the same type of opposition as before, but we push forward for our policies within the framework of the cooperation.

When it comes to the area of income tax, it is a taxation that can finance our ambitions regarding welfare, security, defense, and so on. When it comes to welfare, we succeeded, for example, in preserving the unemployment insurance. I might be able to get a little praise from Sofie Eriksson for that.

We want the tax system not to act as a deterrent to work, entrepreneurship, and growth. Tax cuts in all their glory, but they must be financed primarily through a paradigm shift in the migration area. There, the Social Democrats have not shown themselves willing to meet us halfway, so far. If Sofie Eriksson is looking for the Sweden Democrats to instead cooperate with the Social Democrats, then the Social Democrats must probably change their stance on a number of issues.

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

Sofie Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, David Lång, for your answer!

It was absolutely important with the unemployment insurance fund, but it would not have happened if a relatively large Social Democratic workers' party had not been there and pressing on the same issue.

One must keep in mind that nothing passes this chamber without the Sverigedemokraterna having given their approval, least of all the budget. Sverigedemokraterna had the chance in the autumn. Why did they do nothing? They have promised time and again that they would rectify the problems. They have had the chance. There are resources inside the chanceries, in the inner cabinet or whatever it is called. There have been many promises, but where did they go?

The question I asked was: What do you do now? What will you return to the Riksdag with regarding the issues where you have had a high tail-end, in this case the question we are debating today, namely tax for pensioners born in 1957? Or is it that one says one thing before the election and promises people a lot of things so that they will vote for one, and then it becomes what it becomes when the election has been carried out – that reality comes and hits you in the face? I do not know. But David Lång can answer what the Sverigedemokraterna are doing now.

Just yesterday there was an article in some evening newspaper where it stated that the Sweden Democrats remind the government that it is indebted to the Sweden Democrats.

So what are you doing in this matter?

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

David Lång (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Member Sofie Eriksson said in a previous exchange of remarks that the Social Democrats stand ready to cooperate to solve the problem of the unfair treatment that persons born in 1957 have been subjected to because of the bill that the Social Democrats submitted.

The Sweden Democrats have a cooperation with the government, and we are available there as well. Our economic policy spokesperson has stated that we want to work towards the problem being resolved. I have also seen that Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson, in a response to a written question, has said that the government will return with proposals.

I therefore hope that the Social Democrats are as constructive and cooperative as they have now promised.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin my speech today by mentioning a few words about Barbro Westerholm. Yesterday, we were reached by the tragic news that Barbro has died. Barbro was a member of the Riksdag for 27 years. She was an incredible role model and a freedom fighter. She always stood up for the unfree and ensured that she did what she could for them. And above all, she lived as she taught.

Her impact was many. To name a few, she led the way in many ways. She pushed for the liberalization of the abortion legislation, which will now be constitutionally protected. As Director General of the National Board of Health and Welfare, she removed that homosexuality should be classified as a disease, something we now consider a self-evident fact. She also fought for the law that allowed same-sex partnerships. She has always stood at the forefront for the rights of hbtq persons, for the rights of the weak, and for the unfree. Thank you, Barbro, for your fantastic life's work! You will be incredibly missed.

Now I shall move on to today's debate on income taxes.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report in its entirety.

We are going to debate, among other things, income tax. It is a broad and important subject. The very first thing I would like to establish is an important principle for me and the Liberals, namely that work is more than a salary. Being able to contribute and feel needed creates self-actualization and a sense of community. It gives people a purpose. The individual gains independence and can, if necessary, stand free from their partner and decide over their own life. One gains empowerment. Young people gain hope for the future and learn to take responsibility. Newcomers gain access to the most important key to entering society, learning the language, feeling needed, and being part of a whole.

It is against this background that today's debate is so important and concerns much more than the technical matters regarding different tax rates.

Mr. Speaker! What the Liberals have always fought for and will always fight for is people's freedom, inviolable value, and the opportunity to stand on their own feet. We in this chamber know best the importance of having a good school that gives all children good knowledge and not only that but also a sense of self-confidence, that they can achieve exactly what they want with their lives. In our country, there are opportunities for everyone to educate themselves after upper secondary school if they wish, or the opportunity to choose a craft profession, work in the public sector, or start their own company. The individual can choose their own path in life.

But now do not think that I am so naive that I do not know that there are great obstacles for children, youth, and adults, that it requires different amounts of hard work for each and that life is not always fair. We all have different circumstances. That is where we politicians come in and have an important role to lower the thresholds so that every child can manage school.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals believe that our welfare system is very important, and for more than a hundred years in the Riksdag, we have been involved in creating many of the important principles that we have in our common welfare. But unlike the parties on the left, we know that humans fundamentally want to manage on their wages. People want to feel empowerment and self-determination over their incomes. We should not have a system in Sweden that is based on the need for benefits to be able to manage one's daily life. We should have a system where it pays to work, so that in the vast majority of cases, one can support oneself regardless of which profession one chooses to work in.

On 1 January 2007, the first earned income tax credit was introduced. Since then, it has been expanded on five occasions. This was part of a policy for the work line. It should pay to work. Those who benefit the most from the earned income tax credit are those who move from unemployment to work. The credit is phased out as income increases. These are good and important reforms, and according to the agreement in the Tidö Agreement, this shall continue to be developed during the mandate period.

The Liberals' position is that the tax system should be designed so that it favors diligence, ambition and education. When it is more attractive to work and start companies, we get a larger cake to share for the important common welfare.

In order to be able to build a strong common welfare, we need to pay tax. That is how we can ensure that there are teachers in the classrooms, doctors and nurses at the health centers, and police officers in the squares. The more people who work or start companies, the more can contribute to our common. Therefore, we need to reintroduce and develop the work principle.

Mr. Speaker! Over 1 million Swedes do not support themselves, and long-term unemployment is persisting. We Liberals want to give the individual the power to stand on their own feet. No one who can work should be forced to be dependent on the state or anyone else for their livelihood. That is why it is important that those who work receive pay for their labor. It should always pay to go to a job instead of receiving benefits. By going to work, one also enters society and becomes part of the community. It is the best engine for integration.

We have today a large shortage in certain professional groups. It is within both the private business sector and within the public sector. These are professions such as programmers, engineers, police officers, midwives, teachers and so on. The list is long. The Liberals realize that a lower percentage tax burden can mean a higher total tax income for our common welfare because more people work, because more people educate themselves for a profession and because more people contribute to our common welfare. It is with a policy that favors work, business, and entrepreneurship that we also get a strong welfare.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is almost time for me to start thinking about retirement. And some of my friends and acquaintances have already drawn their pensions or are considering doing so. Everyone is calculating whether they will be able to afford the rent, the food, and life's necessities, or if they need to work a couple more years despite what the body says. The same calculations were also made by those retirees born in 1957, a group of about 100,000 people who suddenly lose up to 3,000 kronor a month compared to their calculation and whose budget now does not hold. A large part of them also have no choice as the right to other security systems has ceased.

How could it have become like this? Well, on May 31 last year, the majority of the Riksdag decided to raise the age limits in the pension system. All parties in the previous government, that is, the Social Democrats and the Green Party, and the parties in the current government, that is, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, as well as the Centre Party, voted for the proposal. The Left Party voted no.

When they raised the retirement age, they made no exception in the taxation for those born in 1957 and 1959. This means that pensioners born in 1957 this year will have to pay a significantly higher tax than pensioners born in 1956 or earlier. Pensioners born in 1957 pay up to 2,995 kronor more in tax per month compared to pensioners born in 1956 - a tax hit that they did not know about when they retired.

It has been known since last autumn that the 57s are to pay a higher tax. But the parties in the Pensions Group have not been interested in correcting the tax rates, even though there has been time to do so. Furthermore, the 57s were not informed in time that their pension would be lower after tax than they had calculated, and some had also already managed to retire when the decision was made. Most have therefore not had any possibility to continue working as they had already retired or reached an agreement with their employer to take out their pension.

Everyone can make mistakes. When laws and rules are changed, inaccuracies can arise that must be corrected. But here, the Socialdemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna have chosen not to correct the mistake. The only party that stood behind the pension agreement, which has now realized the absurdity and wants to introduce transitional rules, is Miljöpartiet. Thank you for that! All other parties are shifting the blame. The Socialdemokraterna argue that this government should do something, while the current government says that the Socialdemokraterna should have corrected this last year. It is the Socialdemokraterna's fault for not informing in time, says the Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance, for example. It is the sitting government that has to both implement and follow up on changes in the pension system, say the Socialdemokraterna.

Now they have the chance to stop blaming each other and instead think about the pensioners and thus vote for the Left Party's motion, which means that the increased basic deduction shall apply to pensioners from the time they turn 65.

Before the 2023 budget, the pension organizations SPF and PRO lobbied the government regarding transitional rules. In its budget, the government, in response to the organizations' attempts to secure an amendment, refers to the increase of the job tax deduction as the reason why it does not change the tax for pensioners. The government writes as follows in the budget: "The reinforcement means that the job tax deduction for the elderly will again be larger than the ordinary job tax deduction. Against this background, the government finds no reason to make any new assessment regarding which age groups should be covered by the increased basic deduction."

The government and the Sweden Democrats, who also stood behind the budget, mean that low taxes on work can compensate the 57-year-olds for the higher tax on pensions. It is as if the 57-year-old who was unemployed or on sick leave can choose to work and as if the one who has retired could get their job or their company back.

It is, therefore, up to 2,995 kronor more in tax every month. Those who have a guaranteed pension must pay 1,400-1,500 kronor more in tax than older pensioners. Women and men in low-wage jobs who have labored physically or who have been on sick leave and can no longer work will now have even less money to move with.

For me, it is a mystery that the previous and the current government blame each other instead of doing something. Sweden's newly retired deserve better than to be forced to live on up to 3,000 kronor less per month because the current and previous governments have faltered.

At the same time, we members of Parliament have received a tax cut of 1,400 SEK per month and a retroactive increase of our fee due to the uncertain economic situation. When it comes to our own fees and benefits, no government seems to hesitate. Lower our fees and raise our and other high-income earners' tax, and put the money toward the pensioners instead!

Mr. Speaker! Even though I move for approval of reservation 5 regarding the increased basic deduction, I stand behind all my reservations and also want to say a few words about the Left Party's other motions.

Today, the car is the norm for taxation and planning of journeys and transports. If the economic instruments are changed so that they become mode-neutral, better opportunities can be created for people to choose public transport as a means of travel. This could reduce the negative impact of car traffic on the environment and climate.

Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes an enhanced incentive for public transport passes as a fringe benefit. Lower costs for traveling by public transport would strengthen equality and gender equality as well as reduce emissions. At the same time, a travel-neutral and distance-based travel deduction needs to be introduced. We need a travel deduction system that also benefits those traveling by public transport and bicycle and simultaneously does not disadvantage those who live in rural areas.

We have for a long time lived with a housing market where skewed economic and regulatory conditions apply to the different types of tenure, to the disadvantage of the rental apartment. The tax injustice between the types of tenure has, among other things, led to a newly built rental apartment being up to 2,500 kronor more expensive per month than a corresponding condominium.

That the state pours billions in tax subsidies into the owned forms of tenure, while no corresponding support exists for the rental housing, has also resulted in the tenants spending a significantly larger proportion of their income on housing than those living in owned housing, despite the disposable income being lowest among tenants. The economic injustice between the forms of tenure also leads to more expensive maintenance of rental apartments.

We need a functioning and more just housing market. The goal must be that all forms of tenure shall be equally attractive, and it is the society's task to ensure that it becomes so. Otherwise, in the Left Party, we presented our proposals for a just tax system in our budget motion.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 5 regarding an increased basic deduction for pensioners so that all parties in this chamber have the chance to join when we go to a vote this afternoon.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party says in its statement that they want to rectify the problem for the 57s. I can truly agree with Member Ilona Szatmári Waldau that it is a problem and a tiresome mistake that people have ended up in a bind.

I do not consider explaining how it happened to be evading responsibility. It is a fact which government submitted the proposal during the last parliamentary term and nothing else.

It is also the case that Vänsterpartiet, in its budget motion, did not include any change in the proposal. They are now presenting a motion that is completely funded since they themselves did not have this in their budget motion.

In their budget motion, however, the Left Party (Vänsterpartiet) had included that the wealth tax and the inheritance and gift tax should be reintroduced. They would raise the tax for middle-income earners who earned more than 43,000 kronor. They would not increase the threshold for state tax.

To constantly say that an upward adjustment of a bracket limit is a tax cut is nothing other than distorting the truth. I expect that in this chamber, people say it as it is. The Government and its coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna have adjusted a bracket limit upwards. It is not a cut.

In addition to that, the Left Party also wants to abolish the rot deduction, lower the rot deduction and tax-shock entrepreneurs in its budget motion. How do you in the Left Party intend to make that equation work?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

I want to start by answering with a question. What are the Liberals and the government doing to rectify the problem for the 57s? To explain that one thinks something should have been done last year is one thing. But to be unable to come up with a single proposal on how it can be rectified is a completely different thing. In that regard, so far all parties from the government and its support parties have been held accountable. You cannot answer. It is time to do so now. I urge Cecilia Rönn to answer that question.

The Left Party's budget motion is a whole. We have a different proposal for the pension system altogether. This means that if the Left Party's budget motion had passed, this problem would not have arisen. We would have had a different pension system and a different retirement age.

Our budget motion is a whole. We cannot both have a budget motion where we talk about how Vänsterpartiet wants to change the pension system and at the same time have a completely different proposal that corrects the government's problems. It is not possible. One cannot have contradictory proposals in one's budget. But we would not have had this problem if the chamber had voted yes to Vänsterpartiets budget motion.

Finally: When it comes to the threshold for state tax, one can wonder about a few things. The threshold means that it is those who earn - if I remember correctly - over 48,000 who get a tax cut. Why don't the Liberals and the government think that those who earn under 48,000 should be able to get a tax cut because we have inflation? Why is it only those who earn a lot who are supposed to have more? It is not the high-earners who need tax cuts. It is the low-earners.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ilona Szatmári Waldau, for the somewhat complicated answer, which I do not know if we fully understood.

However, the fact is that it is nothing less than irresponsible to adopt a motion here that is completely unfunded. To potentially correct this mistake - which I truly agree with the member that is a regrettable mistake - is something that, in that case, one needs to do in their upcoming budget.

When it comes to the threshold and tax levels, in addition to increasing the threshold for state tax, we have increased other things that are automatically deductible, such as pensions and student grants and other types of grants and support for the people who need it. It is about a responsible policy in the time we are living in now.

Just as I said in my speech, the Tidö Agreement has an ambition to continue with the job tax credit, where low- and middle-income earners are those who benefit the most. It is something we need to look at and something we want to do. But it must be done responsibly given the economic situation we have.

The Left Party's budget motion, on the other hand, is very irresponsible. It is completely unfunded, and it departs from the political economic goals we have.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker and Cecilia Rönn! I am fascinated once again by a member standing here and saying that she agrees that there is a problem with the 57s' tax and that the problem needs to be corrected. But there are no proposals on how it should be done.

I would like to know if this means that the government will have a proposal in an amendment budget, where it is ensured that the unfair taxation of those born in 1957 will be changed. So far, we have only heard excuse after excuse. I would like to have concrete information - and if I want it, I wonder how eagerly the 57s would like to have information.

You have responded to their emails. You have blamed others. Some parties have said that they want to change this, but they are not putting forward any concrete proposals. The 57s are getting no answers to their questions. They have emailed ministers who refuse to answer. It is time to answer! If you cannot do this in the chamber - at least give the pensioners born in 1957 a notice so that they know what to expect! Say that you are listening to them, or admit that you are not!

I understand that Cecilia Rönn does not agree with the Left Party's budget, because it is good for low-income earners. It is good for reducing inequalities and increasing fairness in Sweden, and that is not the policy that Cecilia Rönn stands for. But to say that it is unfunded – that is, however, wrong.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ilona Szatmári Waldau, for the presentation! I have a statement and a question.

It is not the government that raises the fees for the members of Parliament, as was claimed here. It is the Parliament's Fee Committee, which does not contain either ministers or members of Parliament.

I would like to know how you intend to rectify the problem with the 57s more specifically. Since you did not include it in the budget, this must have been a bit of a wake-up call for you as well. I would like to hear a bit more specifically about this. What do you intend to do about the problem around the 57s?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Crister Carlsson, for the question! Yes, that is correct. It is not the government that raises the members of parliament's fees.

I would still like to ask Crister Carlsson: Is it right that we Members of Parliament should receive a fee increase that takes into account the economic situation when others in society do not? The trade unions are being urged to hold back on their wage demands so as not to drive up inflation. Why do we have the right to wage increases when others in society do not? Why is it directors who have the right to wage increases to meet inflation when those who work on the floor do not? I would really like to know that.

I also want to say something regarding the budget. If we lower the threshold - which there is also a proposal for, which I have voted in favor of - the treasury will receive quite a lot of money. Then we can instead lower the tax for those born in 1957.

I must admit that I have not calculated this, but it involves quite a lot of money. There are quite a few who earn over 48,000, and there are also many who earn over 70,000 and receive a tax reduction of 1,400 per month. I am completely convinced that this will cover the increased costs that will occur for the 57s.

This is about justice. I know we have a government that does not think that justice and solidarity are the most important things in the world, but think about those born in 1957! Think a little justice and solidarity when it comes to them!

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I received no answer on how this is to be financed. The only thing Ilona Szatmári Waldau says is that a lowered threshold is the solution. But then one does not consider the dynamic effects this has. If one raises the tax, perhaps it lowers the ambition to work. As a result, it leads to a lower income for the state's affairs. What Ilona Szatmári Waldau says therefore does not really add up.

We want to lower taxes for everyone, and that stimulates jobs. More jobs provide more income to the state treasury. That is our philosophy.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker and Crister Carlsson! The government and the bourgeois parties supporting the government do not want to lower taxes for everyone at all, because you do not want to lower the taxes for those pensioners who were born in 1957. According to you, they are to have 3,000 kronor less net per month to move around with.

I do not understand how the government - as Crister Carlsson repeated in a previous exchange - can mean that one does not need to lower the tax for the 57-year-olds because one has increased the job tax deduction so that it pays for them to work. But how are they to be able to get jobs? Those who have sickness insurance or a-kassa are not allowed to continue living on those systems, they must go into retirement. How are they to be able to get a job and benefit from an increased job tax deduction? They need a pension they can live on. They need to have a prerequisite. They do not need the rules to be changed in the middle of an ongoing retirement.

That I have received a tax reduction of 1,400 kronor per month and that I will receive an increased fee is more money. That can be planned for. But less money is much harder to plan for.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 11.

Far away in hell-white, far zero in well-adored, yes my accordion for the ache in the soul.

The bellows have cracked. Cracked is the soul. Far zero in hell-white. Far away in well-a.

About a year ago, I sat at a kitchen table at Anders Andersson's home. He lives in Svanabyn, which is located outside Dorotea in the inland. We drank coffee, ate his delicious doroteakaka, and talked about problems with the plowing of private roads. In the middle of a sentence, Anders quoted exactly this. It is a poem by a bard named Helmer Grundström, a Norrland worker-writer and nature describer who grew up in a crofter's cottage in the area.

Anders also said that the reason for the lack of community services is that there is no money in the municipality and that there is too little money for the individual road associations. That was why he thought the words in the poem fit so well. Svanabyn, Dorotea, and Vilhelmina may be considered by some as very "far out in the sticks."

He called me so that we could talk about this issue, and that was exactly why I was there. While he sipped the hot coffee in the beautiful blue and white cups, I also heard what the situation looked like in his village. About 15 people live there. Previously, an older man had plowed the road with his tractor, but he could no longer manage it.

The problem today is getting hold of contractors who can go there and plow the road. It is not the case that snowplows are just lying around in the area. They might have to drive several kilometers just to get there in the first place and be able to plow the road. Then you can understand what the mobilization fee becomes – it is thousands of kronor. Going to the municipality and asking for extra support is also not an option. These small municipalities can hardly afford to pay the ongoing bills at the end of the month as they are.

A few years ago, I met a municipal council member from one of the inland municipalities in Västerbotten, specifically Dorotea – you know, those that have the highest municipal tax in the entire country. He told me that the finances for the municipality were incredibly tough and that at the end of the month, he had a very hard time sleeping because he didn't know if the money would be enough to cover the bills. This means that one might not always be able to maintain similar social services that many others take for granted, such as plowed roads or lit streetlights.

What should one do then to attract more people to move to the municipality? One can hardly raise the municipal tax any further. It is already Sweden's highest. It will not get more companies to want to establish themselves there either. So what should one do? This is a real problem that small municipalities in Sweden see today, not least in the north where the large distances are and where it is far to the nearest labor market. Therefore, we in Centerpartiet want to do something about the municipal tax equalization system as a whole. Over the years, something has been done about parts but not the whole.

Mr. Speaker! As perhaps not many know, this tax equalization system was introduced as early as the 60s. It was to equalize differences between city and country. So far, so good. But today, the largest part of the purse in the equalization system goes to metropolitan regions, not to the countryside. In some cases, it has also become a budget regulator for certain municipalities. In the system, there is namely today no incentive to work harder with the challenges because the money comes in anyway.

Of course, there are great challenges even in metropolitan areas. But one has something that smaller municipalities in rural areas do not have: proximity to the labor market, access to labor, and so on.

Mr. Speaker! I know that there is a committee looking at the municipal tax equalization system. I hope that it is seen that it must be changed in its entirety and that the challenges of the small municipalities and our rural areas to make the finances work are seen. We know that the solution for small inland municipalities with large distances is hardly merger. Several empty purses do not become a full purse because one merges them.

Mr. Speaker! Another opportunity to provide hope for the future and increase the expansion of renewable energy is to let the property tax for water and wind power go back to the local community. I know that there are some in this chamber who think it is a very bad idea, but the Center Party thinks it is a very good idea. This is something we have also pushed for for decades.

I will take an example. Jokkmokk in Norrbotten is one of the municipalities in Sweden that delivers the most energy to our country. But what do you get in return? Well, not very many jobs, in any case. Furthermore, one hardly has money to pay one's bills with at the end of the month. Instead, one often has to go to the state with the hat in hand and beg for alms.

This is nothing that one would need to do. If Jokkmokk and other hydropower municipalities were to get back a portion of the property tax, one could plan for the future in a completely different way. One could also look at growth with more confidence. If anything, that would be a good idea to consider further.

Another possibility is that those who construct wind power also receive compensation from the property tax. In Finland, they do exactly this. This has meant that many Finnish municipalities compete for establishments, as they receive something back while simultaneously increasing the supply of renewable energy. It can improve the economy, and one gains a sense of optimism for the future.

Mr. Speaker! I would also like to say a little bit about the green deduction, which the Center Party has pushed through. It entails a tax reduction for labor and materials during the installation of green technology, and it must be said to have been successful. Private individuals can now more easily participate and contribute to the transition by investing in technology that lowers the household's own carbon footprint. We would, however, like the green deduction to be broadened to accelerate the transition and include things such as investments in solar heating, energy efficiency measures, water-saving products, smart home applications, and conversion of cars to gas or ethanol.

I would like to take an example that is very current in the countryside where I live, and surely in many other places around Sweden, namely that one needs to replace private wells. When I moved into my house, the first thing I did was not to run and see what the well looked like. When one then became aware of it, it was almost embarrassing – it was probably an old oil tank, I think. So that is how it looks in many places. The neighbor only had a simple cement pipe in the ground, without a bottom.

It is clear that, given the eutrophication, these must be replaced for the sake of the environment. The challenge is that it is very costly. Someone who has a thick wallet can pay for it. For my part, it became 70,000 kronor. For some others, it becomes over 100,000 kronor. If you are single, perhaps have a pension that you live on, and a replacement of a well costs more than the value of the house itself, you understand yourselves that it is a bit difficult to go to the bank and borrow money for such an investment.

That is why we need to help with a green deduction so that more people can make, for example, this investment. Furthermore, we know that there will be high electricity prices even at the end of this year and at the beginning of next, during the cold winter months. Then we may need more solutions than just increased support for solar panels. That is also good, and the government also has that in its budget. But we wish it would be significantly more.

Mr. Speaker! Now I see that I have spoken for a very long time. I actually have more to say, but since there are others waiting in the chamber - I believe it is the Committee on Justice that is present - I will conclude by just saying a few words about the rural deduction. It must be a lot of rural today, but it still suits a member of the Center Party.

Tax policy should be used as a tool to be growth-creating throughout the country. Municipalities with declining tax bases that have been forced to raise taxes to finance welfare should not have that as the only solution. The average municipal tax rate for municipalities in northern Sweden is, as mentioned, high. It currently stands at almost 34 percent. Dorotea is absolutely the highest. This can be compared with just under 30 percent in Stockholm and approximately 32 percent for the country.

This development does not only lead to the countryside being placed at an economic disadvantage. It also constitutes a deep structural injustice. Rural residents have a right to healthcare, school, care, security, and infrastructure equal to that of everyone else.

Rural residents should also have equivalent economic conditions. In connection with the budget bill for 2020, it was decided to level this tax gap through a rural deduction. We want that to continue. Therefore, I issue a small request to the sitting government to please consider increasing the rural deduction. It is needed.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! An hour ago, I was informed that my dear colleague Rebecka Le Moine had to call in sick today. There we stood with a very fine speech and only a few candidates to share it with you. Thanks to the Chamber Office, who quickly and easily arranged that I can read this out!

For the sake of transparency, I shall state that I was born in 1957. But I have, as you know, a decent compensation from here and should perhaps not be considered biased.

Income taxes are important for maintaining our welfare. Miljöpartiet wants to see a more just taxation of incomes and greater redistribution to reduce the growing economic gaps. We want to see a Sweden that holds together. We must stop the development towards increased gaps. Economic equality is closely linked with a number of other benefits, not least the trust in other people and society's institutions in general.

It is completely wrongly prioritized by the government to significantly lower the tax for high-income earners - even if it can be argued that it concerns changed thresholds - while far too many households are forced to pinch every penny to make the money stretch for the most important expenses. It is not reasonable that the tax is lowered for people who are well-off while the Prime Minister, instead of presenting proposals for measures that can alleviate the effects of the cost crisis for those who need it most, advises Swedish households to bite the bullet.

The previous bourgeois government introduced several unjust tax gaps during its tenure. Taxes were lowered for wage earners but not for pensioners and persons with sickness and activity compensation. We in Miljöpartiet worked to remove the unjust tax gaps during the time we sat in the government. We submitted proposals to completely remove the so-called pensioner tax and the funkis tax.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. When the right-wing parties voted through their budget for 2022, the tax gap between wages and sickness and activity allowance was reintroduced. Now, they choose to keep it for 2023 as well. It is unworthy. The Funkis tax should be removed as soon as possible. Those who receive sickness and activity allowance should not pay extra much in tax.

Another unjust tax gap that has arisen from what appears to be a very unfortunate mistake is that persons born in 1957 are not covered by the increased basic deduction. Everyone else who has reached the retirement age is covered by the increased basic deduction. Sometimes mistakes happen, but then politics must take responsibility and rectify it. We have proposed that this should be done.

It is not reasonable that the 57-year-olds should pay higher tax than other people who have reached retirement age. Unfortunately, the government seems more interested in shifting the blame than in addressing the problem. That the government does not take this seriously ultimately threatens the confidence in the Swedish pension system. It is very worrying. The government should stop shifting the blame and instead come up with proposals on how the situation can be rectified.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Green Party have long seen green tax shifting as an important tool to achieve a more sustainable society. Green tax shifting means that one raises taxes on things that pollute and are harmful to the climate and environment and, at the other end, exchanges this for lower taxes on work or on things that reduce emissions and environmental destruction. Green tax shifting will play an important role in the work to achieve a circular economy, where resources are recycled and reused. Recycled material often requires more labor and must become more competitive to promote the transition to a sustainable and circular economy.

Income tax

Living rural areas are important for the whole country. All of Sweden shall live. We understand that the economic situation can become tough when one is dependent on the car and fuel prices go up. Therefore, we believe that taxes should be lowered for people who live in the countryside. It is a significantly more effective way to support people in the countryside during the current cost crisis than to increase fossil subsidies. The current cost crisis shows that our dependence on fossil fuels is a major economic risk for Swedish households. Therefore, we must accelerate the green transition instead of deepening our dependence on the fuels that caused the crisis from the beginning.

When we find ourselves in a tough economic situation, it requires politicians who can manage to prioritize what is important. Therefore, the economic policy must support the households that have the greatest need instead of making large tax cuts for high-income earners. It is a prioritization that I believe the vast majority can agree is right and correct.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for time-saving reasons, I move for the approval of only reservation number 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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