Income tax
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns income tax and the design of the tax system. M considers it a moral issue that it should pay to work and that reduced tax on labor is important 1. M argues that the job tax credit has been successful and that the marginal tax must not discourage those who invest in education 1. M opposes the bank tax as it becomes more expensive for borrowers and companies 1. M argues that Sweden does not need a large tax reform but continued tax reductions on labor 1 and that a large reform would freeze other important issues 2. M nevertheless wants changes in the tax system to be made continuously 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate SkU11, which is a motion report regarding income tax and the various parts concerning income tax and various deductions proposed in a number of different motions.
Mr. Speaker! Let me first say that for us Moderates, it is important that it pays to work and that one can support oneself. One should simply be able to live on one's salary. Lower taxes on work is a core issue for us Moderates, not only because it is good for the economy, but it is also a moral issue. The person who works should also feel that something remains in the wallet.
Mr. Speaker! The introduction of the job tax credit has been a very successful reform that has resulted in more people entering employment and more people becoming self-sufficient. For us, it is important that more people work, that older people can work, and that it pays to work. The work line shall be the norm in society. We therefore do not believe in the idea that we should work less in Sweden.
Mr. Speaker! Marginal tax looks on paper to be a very good tax, meaning that those who earn a little more should also contribute a little more. But in reality, it becomes the opposite. When the tax is raised on the extra hours one works, it often happens that the work is not done, and then the state and society lose revenue. It is revenue that could have gone to school, healthcare, defense, and so on. This applies actually regardless of which industry we take as an example, but often it is the productivity or the number of hours worked for doctors, engineers, and programmers that deteriorates or becomes lower.
Mr. Speaker! This was highlighted in particular in the investigation that has been conducted regarding the removal of the so-called "värnskatt" (defense tax). There it was shown that the tax has paid for itself twice. There are great incentives to ensure that we have low marginal taxes.
The marginal tax is also an extra education tax. It is the case that those who invest in an education that is a bit longer and a bit more comprehensive must also be able to get that investment back by taking a job with a higher salary that is not eaten up by various taxes. In that case, it is important that the marginal tax does not have a counteracting effect.
Mr. Speaker! We Moderates say no to imposing an extra tax on loans, that is, the so-called bank tax. It is a burden that would mean it would become significantly more expensive for everyone who has borrowed for their home or for some other item - a car or similar.
But it will also be felt by all companies that need to borrow in order to be able to invest and ensure that there are more jobs in Sweden. A bank tax means that all of Sweden's borrowers will get higher interest rates. We believe that it is completely the wrong way to go. It is, however, important for all sectors of society that the financial system functions well, has reasonable conditions to be able to operate, and that there is high competition in the area.
The "rut" and "rot" deductions constitute an important reform to counteract undeclared work and support the construction industry. We support this reform and think that the temporary increase that has been made regarding the "rot" deduction is a very good part.
Mr. Speaker! Green transition with, among other things, increased electricity production is a very important priority for this government. In this perspective, we do not believe that the best thing is to mix households' energy savings and electricity production into a system for households that is complicated with climate credits, as proposed in a motion from the Centerpartiet. We do not believe that it would be a good system. Already today, there is a system for how we should take electricity-saving measures in the best way. Attempting to take the price mechanism out of play with advanced systems for climate credits risks resulting in large costs for very little gain.
The government takes a great responsibility for the electrification of Sweden. We have strengthened the tax reduction for the installation of solar cells; it is a good way to support households. The focus of the government is the expansion of electricity production and the infrastructure for charging electric cars. Regarding electric cars, the tax reduction makes it cheap to install your own charging box at home, and the temporary tax exemption for charging at workplaces makes it simpler and cheaper to offer your employees a charging station. In this context, it should also be mentioned that the travel deduction has been significantly improved for individuals and that the compensation for electric cars has been increased.
Mr. Speaker! Regarding this committee report, I also want to mention this regarding employee options, as it is raised in several motions. We Moderates believe that it is important that companies have the opportunity to access capital and to be an attractive employer in order to be able to recruit and retain staff. The rules were changed not so long ago and now also include board members and deputy board members.
Mr. Speaker! This report also contains a motion proposal that one should attempt to undertake a new tax reform in Sweden and that it would benefit the country. We believe that Sweden does not need a new tax reform, but what Sweden needs is continued tax cuts, especially on labor. We think that the current tax system largely works well, even though there are naturally individual cases that need to be discussed and reformed.
Even if we were to see differently on what tax collection we should have – what level and what percentage – we do not believe that a tax reform is the right tool. A tax reform admittedly takes quite a long time to investigate and to implement. We believe that Sweden needs to have a more nimble and agile approach in order to be able to meet the changes occurring in our global environment. This perhaps applies particularly to corporate taxes and capital taxes, where the institutional competition between states is high and mobility is great. We believe rather that that path is better to go, this of course without changing the predictability or the legal certainty in the system.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in SkU11.
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a very tough economic situation. We know how Swedish households are pressured by high food prices, high rents, and high interest rates. Even though the inflation rate is slowing down, the cost level is still very high. It hits Swedish households very hard, while unemployment is rising and growth is weak.
Above all, it is the welfare that takes the hit. We are in an acute healthcare crisis created by the government, which, budget after budget, has ignored the great needs in Swedish welfare and chosen to underfund healthcare. They have chosen to implement large tax cuts for those who have it the best instead of providing completely necessary resources to the welfare.
Despite this, Prime Minister Kristersson promised in a moment of inspiration in a live broadcast on TV4 that no one would have to be laid off from Swedish healthcare. Healthcare would still be managed despite the large tax cuts. Of that, it has become zero and nothing - not even a drop.
I want to ask Ahlstedt, who represents the Moderaterna and the governing parties: Is it worth it? Is it worth lowering the tax for those who have it the best at the same time as healthcare in Skåne is laying off 800 positions, the already long healthcare queues are increasing and the quality is deteriorating? What is happening now, with the healthcare crisis we have, is a direct consequence of the pursued policy, where one prioritizes large tax cuts for those who already have instead of investing in welfare. Is it worth it, Fredrik Ahlstedt?
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Mr. Speaker! The current government inherited an economy that was more or less in free fall. Interest rates and inflation rose, productivity fell. GDP had developed negatively for several years. The growth rate was very low.
The most important priority for the government, also to ensure that the economy in this country could continue to develop, was to get control of inflation and try to bring it down. Through that, one could also get control of the interest rate. Inflation can actually only be fought in one way, namely by holding back on expenditures. Costs must be limited.
Then there are amounts of growth measures that need to be taken to stimulate and get the economy moving. But the priority is to ensure that the wage earners are protected. The wage earners' worst enemy is inflation. Many wage earners have mortgages. Many wage earners saw their real wages completely or partially eaten up by the inflation spiral that Sweden was in.
The Finance Minister's and the government's simple message was that inflation had to go down – when inflation goes down, the interest rate will also go down. Everyone had to contribute to the cost reductions. Municipalities, regions, wage earners, individuals, pensioners, companies – all sectors of society have had to be involved and contribute. Despite this, the government has prioritized providing additional state grants of several billion to the regions.
Therefore, it is important to remember that lower inflation and lower interest rates are the key to a better economy in Sweden.
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I do not know if anyone became wiser from Ahlstedt's answer, so he shall be given a chance again.
Whether the economic situation is inherited or imported can, of course, be discussed. But regardless of the circumstances, the bourgeois government has chosen to prioritize, and in doing so, it has prioritized tax cuts for those who are already well-off and let the welfare system take the hit. When healthcare is on its knees, when staff need to be laid off, when care queues increase, when accessibility becomes worse and when quality deteriorates, the government chooses to lower taxes for those with high incomes instead of providing the resources that the welfare system needs.
I do not know if one should try to interpret what Member Ahlstedt says, but there was a tendency for the answer to actually become: Yes, it was worth it. It was worth lowering the tax for those who were already well off and letting ordinary patients and the healthcare staff pay the price.
Now Ahlstedt looks the colleague in the Committee on Taxation in the eye. But for a moment, perhaps Fredrik Ahlstedt might wonder what it would be like if he stood before a nursing assistant, a nurse, or a doctor at Skåne University Hospital, at Karolinska, or at Sahlgrenska and looked them in the eye while they pondered over the exact same question, or if he entered the hospital in Skåne or at Karolinska and in the entrance met a patient who looked at him and asked: Was it worth it?
I cannot interpret this in any other way than that the message from the bourgeoisie and the government is that it was worth it. It is unfortunately more important, better and - in a bourgeois world - probably also more just to lower the tax for people who are already well off and let patients and staff in healthcare pay the price.
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Mr. Speaker! In an economy where interest rates are rising and inflation is sky-high, all wage earners, many companies, and many other sectors of society are affected. But the municipal sector, both regions and municipalities, is also affected.
I believe that the government's priorities have been correct. Most external assessors consider it to have been a successful strategy to primarily try to combat inflation. By combating inflation, we get the interest rates down.
In the budget space we have had to make priorities, healthcare has been prioritized. Healthcare has received a very large portion of the funds that have existed to strengthen the welfare. I meet, not daily but surely at least once a week, employees primarily at Akademiska sjukhuset in Uppsala, because I live in Uppsala. They also have mortgage loans. They also have a household budget and a food budget that have not balanced in recent years. Most understand that Sweden's economy has been subjected to a very hard pressure due to record-high inflation and record-high interest rates.
Those who work at the hospital in Uppsala also have loans that must be paid. They have grocery bags that must be paid for. For them, the most important thing is that we get lower inflation and that we get down the interest rates. That is why the government's policy is so important. It is a matter of protecting the wage earners and strengthening healthcare through the extra state grants that the government has provided.
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.
I did not request the floor because the Center Party was apostrophized. I intended instead to raise a completely different issue, which the member did not take up, namely the fact that the Swedish Tax Agency taxes money that prostitutes receive when they are forced to sell sex.
I thought it was interesting that the member said that the Moderates do not want to see a tax reform - I was under the impression that almost everyone thinks that a modernization of the tax legislation is needed. It is, after all, the tax legislation that is the villain in the drama in the very complicated cases where the Swedish Tax Agency determines that tax must be collected. Being subjected to violence against women is being turned into a kind of job or hobby.
This has been noted and debated here in the chamber during the past year. It has also been debated in the Committee on Taxation. The Centre Party has a motion. I submitted a committee initiative with a different interpretation that did not pass.
Reference is made to an investigation that will not pass through the Ministry of Finance, where the Swedish Tax Agency is located and which the Moderaterna lead, but instead lies with the Ministry of Employment. I think this is to withdraw from responsibility. It would have been possible to speed this up. What is being said now is, in principle, that the investigation proposes a new investigation. There is no outer limit or direction for taking hold of and solving this issue, which the Minister for Finance has spoken about many times in this rostrum.
My question to the Moderaterna and the member is how they intend to handle this. How do they want to ensure that this issue does not fall between the cracks but actually comes up on the table, so that the unreasonable nature of this ceases?
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Mr. Speaker! Member Vilhelmsson has, as she has just explained, raised this issue earlier. This is a very good example of why we do not think a large tax reform is the best, most practical, and smartest way. If one says that one is going to carry out a large tax reform, one freezes all other matters.
We believe that we must be a bit more agile and that changes need to be made in the tax system all the time. We do not really believe in the model where everything is to be included in a large investigation that is to result in a large proposition; it was this that I tried to demonstrate. We believe that we shall continue the work of lowering the tax on labor. We believe that we shall continue the work of reviewing the parts that we think are a bit less good, that do not work or that give unreasonable consequences.
What Member Vilhelmsson raised in his speech concerns a part that we need to review. Just as the Member said, the Minister for Finance has said that this shall be reviewed at the department. Unfortunately, I have no other information today, neither regarding a timeline nor regarding any additional content.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.