Income tax

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the Committee on Taxation's proposal in report SkU9 Income Tax.

One of the government's primary priorities has been to combat inflation and ease the cost pressure on households. I do not dare say that the fight against inflation, in consultation with the Riksbank, is won, but it is an ongoing job. However, the government has shifted its focus regarding inflation from combat to monitoring.

The government is also working to create better conditions for the economy to grow in the long term. Good economic growth lays the foundation for a society that grows and becomes stronger – a society where more people support themselves and contribute to investments in the justice system, defense, welfare and much more that is necessary. The purpose is, therefore, to make the economic cake larger so that everyone gets more of it.

Madam Speaker! One is most often told that the Moderates and the Tidö parties only want to lower taxes for high-income earners. But we are lowering taxes for those who work and have worked and for those with low and medium incomes. It is both right and just that those who are involved in building Sweden should be able to keep more of their own money.

I believe that education must pay off. The person who continues their studies struggles for perhaps up to six years at a university or college and often receives a student debt of several hundred thousand kronor. The idea is that this is to be compensated by higher wages, but according to the OECD, it does not pay off at all to the same extent to study in Sweden as in other countries.

As soon as the salary exceeds slightly over 50,000 kronor per month, the so-called state income tax kicks in. From that point onwards, every pay raise, every bonus, and every extra hour will be taxed at at least 50 percent. A nurse or doctor who works a lot, takes many overtime shifts, and exceeds the threshold should surely at least get to keep half of their pay when they step up. They leave their family and take an extra shift on Christmas Eve because there is a shortage of people, or they go to work away from their family on a lukewarm Friday evening when it smells of grilled food in the neighborhood. Is it really right to raise taxes for healthcare staff who step up and take extra shifts for the good of society?

Madam Speaker! Lower taxes make Sweden richer. It makes it more rewarding to work, educate oneself, and strive, and that is important for Swedish growth and competitiveness. Future welfare can only be built with a growing economy. Just look at the removal of the wealth tax, which brought in more money to the state treasury than the tax itself did! It is surely a clear sign of what excessively high and harmful taxes can do.

The earned income tax credit for those under 66 years of age implies a tax reduction of up to almost 4,000 kronor per month. It increases for monthly incomes up to 39,592 kronor. Exactly how large the earned income tax credit will be therefore depends on how high one's earned income is.

In relation to salary, the tax cut is largest in the lower income brackets. In the same year one turns 67, the income tax is lower. This is due to the increased basic deduction, which gives lower tax on both salary and pension, as well as the increased job tax deduction which gives lower tax on salary from the age of 67.

The higher basic deduction for older people means lower tax on both salary and pension. This applies from January of the year one is to turn 67. It also means that older people are motivated to remain in working life, where they can share their experience and get social interaction and thus perhaps avoid loneliness, which is a major problem among older people.

A family with a full-time working police officer and nurse, each with their own median savings in an investment savings account, will receive over 10,000 kronor in lower tax in 2025 compared to 2024. In the same way, a family with two median retirees, each with their own median savings in an investment savings account, will receive 5,000 kronor in lower tax in 2025 compared to 2024.

Furthermore, if one lives in a rural county, for example my home county Dalarna, where one commutes long distances and where public transport does not cover the needs at all for, for example, shift workers and where the car is a necessity, one now pays at least 10 kronor less per liter for fuel. That must not be forgotten, and it is important for families with children who are severely economically disadvantaged.

In a world where the labor market is becoming increasingly specialized, excessively high taxes become a problem. An ever larger part of our economy comes from innovative and highly specialized companies whose very existence is based on there being a large supply of highly educated labor. A newly graduated engineer, who has cost the state several million to educate, does no good for Sweden if he or she chooses to take their talent abroad after graduation, where wages are higher and taxes are lower.

In Norway, the wealth tax was increased, which resulted in a record number of multi-millionaires and billionaires moving abroad. We have had this pattern previously in Sweden as well. But do we want it so that entrepreneurs take the jobs with them abroad?

It might sound like I am some multi-billionaire or wealthy entrepreneur who wants to escape taxes. No, I have worked in healthcare as both a nursing assistant, a care assistant, and a nurse before further educating myself. I have done this for 30 years with anything but a fat salary.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is important to have the right conditions for our companies, both small and large, and also for wealthy people who many times are innovators and create jobs. That is how the economic cake, as I said in the introduction, will become larger, which means that we will get higher pensions, better welfare, and a wealthier Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We heard from Crister Carlsson that it is important that it pays to work. I truly agree with that. I believe that everyone who works should feel security that the money is sufficient even at the end of the month. Therefore, it is appalling to today take part of the report that, among others, Majblomman has produced and which shows that many single parents cannot afford to eat their fill at the end of the month, as the economy looks today.

It is incredibly important that the government takes seriously the situation that many who are all too poorly paid, for example employees within elderly care or nursing assistants in our hospitals, find themselves in. Their economic situation should be prioritized higher than the millionaires for whom the government has lowered taxes, most recently with a proposal that there should be much lower tax for those who work with managing venture capital. Their incomes shall no longer be taxed as wages but as return on capital.

On Monday, I met one of all those single mothers who struggle to make the finances work, who take all those extra shifts and still feel that it doesn't add up at the end of the month.

Even worse is it for those who can no longer work. One may have become ill or been affected by an accident that results in a disability, or one may have been born with a disability that means one may never be able to support oneself through work. They tax the government extra harshly.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite catch the question. But as I said in the speech, the government is lowering the tax for both low- and middle-income earners. I also know what it is like to go from the family to work on a Saturday and not have an overly fat salary.

I believe, as I have said, that work must pay off. The tax cuts that the government is now providing to both low- and middle-income earners provide an extra bonus for going to work. I view the government's further work in this issue with confidence and hope that one as a healthcare assistant can feel, if not that one is well-paid, at least that one receives a salary that is acceptable.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not acceptable as it is today with today's price levels. Furthermore, the wage setting is unequal in a way that disadvantages female-dominated professions. The government could really take action on this – invest in welfare and ensure that it is possible to live on, for example, a healthcare assistant's salary even if you are single and even if for some reason you have chosen not to live with the person you used to live with. We know that there are plenty of good reasons to leave, for example, a violent relationship. The economy should not hold back women who need to do so.

The government says that they are lowering taxes for low- and middle-income earners. But do you know who gets the most tax cuts from this government? Well, as I said, it is those who work with managing venture capital. We are talking about many millions of kronor that will now go to a few individuals who are hardly the most vulnerable in society or those we are talking about here who take an extra shift in healthcare.

I think the government is prioritizing completely wrongly. I think people are turning a blind eye to the fact that there is a large group of people who actually work and yet still cannot make their finances work. The government is happy to talk about the small tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners, but when we sit in the Committee on Taxation and handle enormous amounts that are to go to some of those who already earn the most, one feels that it is not really intended in good faith.

I would also like to hear how Crister Carlsson reasons regarding all those who cannot work. Why are they punished with higher taxes? Anyone can have a child with a disability that makes it impossible to work. Any one of us can be affected by an accident that leaves us in that position. With the government's policy, we get extra taxes. Most of all, those who are most vulnerable.

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I have been in exactly that situation. I have not been in a violent relationship, but I have divorced. It was precisely when I was studying to become a nurse. I was in a very bad position, quite simply. I know exactly how one functions in those situations.

I say, however, in any case that lowered taxes for low- and middle-income earners will result in them having a different economic situation. The tax burdens that the left side wants to impose will never benefit low-income earners. We can only see how the left side, for example, wants to suppress female entrepreneurship. It is usually women who work in the RUT companies, and RUT is what they want to remove. They want to create a situation where black market jobs increase instead. That is what they will do if one removes the RUT deductions.

I still see that the government has a good plan even for low- and middle-income earners.

(Applause)

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

Marcus Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Taxation's report 9 Income Tax. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 28 for time efficiency in the handling of the matter.

Sweden is in a tough economic situation. Unemployment stands at a staggering 10 percent, and food prices have increased by up to 30 percent in a few years. What happened with the Magda prices? What happened with getting the economy in order? Every third household is now struggling to make ends meet. Every other single parent with a low income cannot afford to put nutritious food on the table. Children are worried about the family's finances. Sweden is losing in the equality index. One can ask how the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna intend to handle tax cuts for those who already have it very good.

Madam Speaker! Today, a Swedish wage earner contributes 28 times more to the common good than anyone with wealth does. At the same time, the ministers express themselves in the media in a completely perfunctory manner, without having a reality-based tax policy for ordinary people. When ordinary people are forced to opt out of leisure activities for their children, the Prime Minister expresses that one has to bite the bullet. We have a Finance Minister who gives tips on buying cheaper food when we see how children eat more school meals on Mondays and Fridays because the parents cannot afford to shop to the same extent.

Madam Speaker! It is in such times that the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats significantly lower the tax for those who earn over 66,000 kronor a month.

At the same time as these large tax cuts are occurring, the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna choose to tax people who have unfortunately happened to suffer a permanent illness or worn themselves out at work. The so-called "funkisskatt" means that those who receive sickness and activity compensation pay higher tax than those who work. One cannot believe that it is true. Not only are they already struggling with their condition, they shall also be punished with a higher tax.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish labor market has led us to a fantastic prosperity, which is unique in the world. It has benefited companies, innovations, and workers. More job opportunities with good wages have given us a strong welfare. In addition to this, the relations between unions and employers have ensured that we have had a stable model where there are not a lot of wild strikes. A high degree of union organization will continue to strengthen the model that has carried us to the prosperity we have today.

Madam Speaker! In 2018, a tax reduction for the union fee was introduced, but in 2019 it was abolished by the right-conservative parties. We want the tax reduction for the union membership to be reintroduced, not least to be equivalent to the employer's right of deduction for the service fee to the employer organizations.

During the autumn of 2024, the government commissioned an investigator to review the taxation of special profit share, that is, carried interest. Let me speak plainly: The government commissioned a task to lower the tax for venture capitalists. Now that the investigator has presented their proposal, it indeed means that venture capitalists are to receive a tax reduction. Among those who benefit from the proposal is also one of the Moderaternas largest donors.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a tax system that is clear, predictable and uncomplicated. We need a fair tax system with ordinary people in focus. But this government does the opposite, namely they reward the already richest. In times of international economic uncertainty and war in our vicinity, we need stable public finances. Is it then really reasonable and fair that those who earn less are the ones who should contribute the most? At the same time, the news reports on Swedish private jets and jet-set lives for wealthy high school students in the Alps. This is happening at the same time as we face the greatest security threat since the Second World War.

Defense needs to grow. The societal preparedness must become much more robust. Can Sweden really afford not to level out the tax so that those who have an extreme abundance can contribute to a greater extent? It is for this reason that we Social Democrats believe that a tax reform should review in the long term how those with large assets and those with the highest incomes can contribute more to Sweden's welfare, defense force, and other parts of the total defense. This would benefit ordinary people, Sweden's security, our finances, and it would also increase the tax system's legitimacy. In times like these, we need a leadership that looks out for the entire population of Sweden, not a government that only looks out for lowering taxes for venture capitalists.

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats want to reintroduce the tax deduction for union fees, just as Member Andersson was touching upon. But we also know that certain unions contribute financially to the Social Democratic Party.

Why should taxpayers indirectly, through their taxes, sponsor the Social Democrats, which is the consequence of these tax cuts?

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

Marcus Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question from Crister Carlsson.

We can begin by stating that there is already a certain type of reduction among the employers. In this case, the proposal that we have submitted can also strengthen the workers' organizations. We are now talking about the entire Swedish labor market. Just as I touched upon in my speech, it is fundamentally about ensuring that we continue to have a stable labor market model.

I want to see the proposals that you are putting forward. We have seen that, for example, the big banks have paid out a dividend of 769 billion over five years. These are profits they have taken out built on ordinary people's finances. Why do the Moderaterna choose to do nothing about this?

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Then I would like to know how much the reductions of the tax deduction for trade union fees will be in total. It is something that, in that case, hits welfare. Is that what you want?

Then I come to the bank taxes. There is no good solution to that question. What you have done previously, namely to impose a bank tax, will ultimately only affect the individual savers and borrowers.

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

Marcus Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! We have a different model that we use for distribution. Our tax cut is based on a different distribution policy than the government's. Just as I pointed out in my speech, the government chooses to lower the tax again for those who earn the most. We naturally prioritize people with ordinary incomes.

Madam Speaker! We are taking more measures for families with children and pensioners. In principle, all families with children will get more money in their pockets with our proposal. A family with two children where the parents work as a nurse and a police officer would get 1,000 kronor more with our budget compared to the government's.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Income taxes continue to be engaging. This is evident from the latest proposals and changes within the tax policy. Today we are discussing the job tax credit as well as various deductions and tax reductions.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats, through their participation in the government, have been involved in consistently lowering taxes for ordinary wage earners. This concerns broad groups with normal incomes. That people get to keep more of their salary, of the money they earn, strengthens freedom of choice. It can also contribute positively to the public finances. It is good for households when they get increased purchasing power. At the same time, the increased purchasing power leads to increased employment when the incentives to work instead of receiving benefits increase. Tax cuts are also good for welfare. Increased employment leads to more tax revenues for the state and municipalities and thus more welfare. Through work, we build Sweden strong.

Madam Speaker! Breaking social exclusion is our most pressing task. People who have been dependent on benefits for a long time need support to transition to self-sufficiency through work. We therefore view positively reforms that aim to make it more profitable to work than to live on benefits.

Nothing creates prosperity and counters poverty as effectively as work. It is first and foremost a win for the individual with growing self-esteem by virtue of self-sufficiency and more money in the wallet. It is simultaneously a great economic gain for society. When more people enter the workforce, more of us pay tax. It is good for Sweden, for freedom, and for welfare.

Madam Speaker! Swedish business is an engine for prosperity and innovation. Entrepreneurs who invest both capital and their own commitment create jobs. Therefore, it is important to continue simplifying regulations and reducing the administrative burden for companies. It should become easier to do the right thing. A free economy and free entrepreneurship are the foundation for our welfare and the tax revenues that we need for welfare.

Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight the importance of donations to non-profit activities. It is very pleasing that the investigation currently underway in your committee's partial report proposes that a tax incentive be introduced for legal entities' donations to non-profit activities and scientific research.

We Christian Democrats have long pointed out and advocated that companies and organizations should be given the opportunity to better contribute to civil society. This is a step in the right direction. Through incentives, more companies are encouraged to support non-profit activities and research. This can lead to increased donations. In this way, social engagement is strengthened, and important socially beneficial activities get better opportunities to make a difference.

Organizations such as Stadsmissionen and Rädda Barnen and cancer research receive greater resources to help the vulnerable and conduct life-saving research. It strengthens civil society and research and is a win for the whole society.

With that said, we welcome the Christian Democrats' [KD] reform and look forward to more proposals that give companies the chance to do good in society.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are, as you know, dealing with the Committee on Taxation's extensive report on income tax. It is a subject that affects us all and which has a direct impact on our freedom as individuals.

Tax policy is not just a matter of figures, but also a matter of how we enable every individual to shoulder their own freedom and potential in society. A well-considered tax policy can provide both society and us as individuals with tools to shape the lives we desire, to participate actively in civil society, and to support one another in various engagements.

Against this background, it is important that income tax is not only transparent but also fair. By fair, it is not meant only as tax capacity, but also that someone who chooses to educate themselves and who toils and works hard should be able to share in the return from their valuable efforts.

Madam Speaker! It has been said before, but it is worth saying again: Sweden has for a long time had among the highest tax burdens in the world. Even the marginal taxes are among the world's highest, which means that the motivation of employees or entrepreneurs to put in a little extra effort is dampened. It is a loss not only for the individual but for our entire society.

When efforts in the form of toil and sacrifices or risk-taking no longer pay off to a sufficient extent, we risk creating a society where people do not strive to achieve their full potential. I am therefore very pleased that the Tidö agreement takes steps away from the destructive tax policy that has long characterized our country.

Madam Speaker! Civil society, which consists of a multitude of different organizations, associations, and communities, forms the foundation of our social life. These structures often emerge from below, without state involvement, and give people the opportunity to cooperate. But for this civil society to continue to function and flourish, reforms are required that strengthen its independence and potential.

The contributions from civil society contribute significantly to societal development. It is not just about creating social capital but also about promoting public health, democracy, and the preservation of our valuable cultural heritage. By understanding and supporting the central role of individuals in civil society, we can strengthen our common freedom.

It is important that we improve the conditions for civil society. Financial support in the form of donations is crucial for many non-profit activities. We Sverigedemokrater are therefore particularly pleased that the tax reduction for donations to non-profit activities has been reintroduced through the so-called donation tax deduction.

We would, however, like to see more changes. It is necessary for the gift tax deduction to be further developed to give civil society actors a reasonable opportunity to stand on their own feet financially. Unfortunately, our current model is administratively burdensome and stingy compared to many other countries. We believe that the ceiling for the deduction should be raised to increase the positive impact on civil society.

For many non-profit organizations, the deduction means a closed door. It is about fairness and recognizing the value of the work performed by various actors within civil society. It is also important that we do not forget the legal entities. These do not have the possibility today to make a tax reduction for donations. Such a possibility could have a great impact.

Madam Speaker! Twelve years ago, I also stood here in the speaker's chair, then primarily in the capacity of member of the Committee on Civil Affairs, which among other things handles housing policy. We saw major problems on the housing market then; young people wanted to move out of their homes but lacked the economic opportunities to do so. Today, twelve years later, we see the same problems. Furthermore, the problems were in no way new then either.

We need to create incentives for housing savings, which would give young people better conditions to reach their dream home. Deductible housing savings combined with a tax reduction would make a big difference.

Madam Speaker! Capital supply for newly started companies is another central issue. Many innovative ideas never see the light of day solely because of a lack of financing. By improving the conditions for employee stock options, we can attract talent and enable companies to grow.

We need to review the entire tax system to create a more just and long-term structure. High taxes can stifle private consumption and hinder the development of the business sector. It is about designing a tax system that rewards work and investments instead of punishing them. This, in turn, would give us more freedom to shape our lives.

In conclusion: We need to conduct a thorough review of the tax system to identify and eliminate inconsistencies. We must address injustices that cause the public to lose confidence in the tax system. It is about ensuring fair taxation, regardless of where in our elongated country one lives, and working to strengthen our common economy.

Madam Speaker! We naturally support all SD reservations but will content ourselves with moving for approval only to reservation 30.

(Applause)

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

Marcus Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! As a Marcus with C, one must take the opportunity to have a debate with a Markus with K when the opportunity arises. Jokes aside! It is fascinating to listen to the Sweden Democrats and member Markus's enthusiasm for tax and reviewing the tax system.

It is mentioned in your policy but not particularly much in the speech that it is the richest who benefit most from this tax cut. Are you ashamed that you choose to do this, or is it something you stand up for?

In the Sweden Democrats' election manifesto 2022, it stated clearly that they promise to "leave behind a country with a stronger welfare". I become a bit thoughtful about how the large tax cuts for risk capitalists that they implement tie into this.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Marcuses with C are in the majority. It is always fun to have that debate.

It never fails – the Social Democrats always want to raise taxes. A Social Democrat always wants individuals to pay more to the common good, regardless of what happens with the money afterwards. We have seen the consequences of Social Democratic policy. Despite high taxes, the welfare has in many cases deteriorated. Of course, we should leave behind a significantly better welfare society than the one we started with. But it is naturally not high taxes that is the solution. On the contrary, one must ensure that the taxes we collect from the people go to the right things. In many cases, we have seen that a heavy tax burden on, for example, innovative companies or successful individuals can have the opposite effect, if we look at the country's best interests. But as I said, it never fails – the Social Democrats always want to raise taxes for everyone.

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

Marcus Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! This is what we hear over and over again. One still becomes a bit puzzled. Here in the chamber, the Sweden Democrats are sitting and supporting the government's budgets. Yet, one constantly tries to just throw themselves backward. You are sitting here and deciding. You rule more or less.

I still cannot get an answer as to why one chooses to do as one does. Just as the member mentioned, we want to strengthen the welfare. We want to bring in tax money, and we want it to be used in the right way. Then we have, among other things, the question of carried interest, special profit share. But there, one chooses to do the opposite and let it go. It is about tax money that could go to tanks or to resources in various agencies. But no, those funds apparently do best with those who already have an extreme abundance.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now this is the final reply, and I know that Marcus does not have the opportunity to respond. We must view them as rhetorical questions: Is it the case that the Social Democrats ever think that it will pay off to work a little extra? Should it pay off to educate oneself a little extra and to take those extra shifts at work? In many cases, it is such that people choose not to do it if the tax burden is too heavy and the marginal taxes are too high, so that it simply does not pay off. It is not just an individual who is negatively affected by it, but the entire society.

If you are going to squeeze every tax crown out of the successful entrepreneurs we have in Sweden, it will ultimately result in them leaving for another country. They will move away from here, and it will not benefit either Swedish society or any individual. One simply needs to consider the public benefit, and you get no public benefit from imposing high taxes on people whom we need in our country.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! It should not be so expensive to be Swedish – we must safeguard the household economy of Swedish families with children, said the Deputy Prime Minister with reference to fuel prices. That it is expensive to be Swedish and that many families with children are on their knees when food prices spiral, rents skyrocket and the threshold for the high-cost protection on medicines is raised, does not however seem to concern anyone in the right-wing majority – only that it becomes cheaper to refuel the car. The finances of families with children were not what was important, because when the bourgeoisie rules, it doesn't matter that it is expensive to be Swedish.

The government's policy aims to make it cheaper to be rich and more expensive to be poor. Those who are sick and poor shall pay higher taxes than those who work, and the co-payment on medicine is increased. Nothing is done about the high food prices, and while the unemployed mother hunts for extra prices, the high-income earner gets a little more money to buy champagne and caviar for.

The situation for single low-income earners is furthermore becoming worse and worse every year. A recent survey by, among others, the Red Cross shows that in February this year, 29 percent of all single parents with low income reported that they had difficulty eating enough to be full. At the same time last year, it was 20 percent. It is a large increase from an already all-too-high level. Half of all single parents with low income have at one or more occasions not been able to afford to buy nutritious food for themselves and their children.

Every fourth parent with a low income has had difficulty paying bills related to their housing. The evictions are increasing. During the last half-year, almost half have borrowed to cover their expenses, and 14 percent have paid for basic expenses with unsecured loans, loans for which the government in one stroke removed the right to deduction. Government representatives' exhortations that people should manage by shopping where it is cheap is a mockery. When the government removes the housing supplement this summer, it will become even harder for families with children to manage. In the rhetoric, perhaps one stands on the side of families with children, but in practice, one does something completely different.

Since last year, the tax gap between those who are ill or unemployed and those who are healthy and working has increased even further with the increase of the job tax credit. Those who have the hardest time making ends meet should be those who receive the least when the right-wing majority lowers taxes. In the right-wing rhetoric, a high-income earner needs to get more money in their wallet to be stimulated to work more, while the person who is ill or unemployed gets less money in their wallet to be forced to take jobs that do not even exist.

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces several major challenges that all require public commitments. The defense needs to be upgraded, more police officers need to be hired, and the welfare system needs a recovery program. We face a climate emergency that requires large state investments.

The right-wing majority nevertheless chose to spend approximately 30 billion kronor on tax cuts. It is tone-deaf and unimaginative. The tax cuts will neither strengthen Sweden's competitiveness nor increase employment. It is obvious which interest the majority represents: the well-off. They chose to spend over 4 billion kronor solely on lowering the tax for those with incomes over 800,000 per year. In addition to this tax cut, which is aimed exclusively at high-income earners, the majority also chose to raise the threshold for state income tax.

As an example, a person with a monthly salary of 150,000 kronor received a tax cut of approximately 40,000 kronor per year. The corresponding figure for, for example, a nursing assistant with a monthly salary of 29,000 kronor is 2,000 per year. This is an extreme tax policy that strongly pulls society apart. It is not the high-income earners who are affected by the high food prices or the raised threshold for the high-cost protection. Half of the nursing assistant's tax cut goes toward the increased medicine prices. For those who earn under 25,000, the entire small tax cut goes toward medicines. Those who receive sickness benefits and perhaps have the greatest need for medicines must take money for the cost increase from their already very low compensation. Apparently, it is supposed to be expensive to be sick in the bourgeois Sweden.

The taxation of earned income currently contains more than ten different forms of tax reductions – including the travel deduction, the ROT deduction, and various forms of the job tax credit. None of them have clear, demonstrable positive effects. The job tax credit alone represents a tax reduction of approximately 150 billion kronor per year.

An important tax principle should be that equal incomes should be taxed equally. This principle was shattered when the various employment tax credits were introduced, because the employment tax credits only cover earned income. This means that those who receive sickness benefits or are unemployed pay several thousand more in tax per year.

The disability tax, as it is called, is a penalty tax on disability. The extra tax on the unemployment benefit is a penalty tax for unemployment, by a government that has now pushed unemployment up to almost 10 percent. Every tenth person who wants and can work therefore does not get a job.

Further lowering the tax for those who work, and mostly for those who earn the most, costs approximately 11 billion kronor per year. It is an unreasonable prioritization when the country's regions are forced to cut staff. The tax cut is an expensive reform that also does not give average earners particularly much more in their wallets.

The tax gap must be closed for all incomes, such as sickness and rehabilitation allowance, compensation from the unemployment insurance fund, sickness and activity allowance, and compensation from the parental insurance. This means lower taxes for groups with small economic margins.

Sweden needs a new major tax reform that increases tax revenues and strengthens the uniformity of the tax system.

Madam Speaker! The deductions for so-called cleaning and household services are examples of tax reductions in the income tax area. Vänsterpartiet has nothing against household services. What we oppose is that they should be tax-subsidized. The largest part of those subsidies goes to the tenth of the population who have the highest incomes. This means in practice that low- and middle-income earners subsidize high-income earners' cleaning help, in Sweden and abroad.

It is not only unreasonable and unjust, but it is also a waste of taxpayers' money. If the rut deduction were abolished, for example, the treasury would have been strengthened by approximately 7.8 billion kronor during 2024. That corresponds to the total wage cost for approximately 14,500 nursing assistants within elderly care, or for that part within regions and healthcare, where many are being laid off today.

Vänsterpartiet joins reservation 21 on travel deductions. I naturally stand behind all motions from Vänsterpartiet. They are all important and would contribute to a more equal society. But, Madam Speaker, I want to highlight here reservation 15 on the tapering of the job tax credit.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Income tax is about the relationship between the state and the individual. This debate is not really about income tax. It is about the individual. It is about the human being. It is about the woman who lives in Limmared, in Sysslebäck, or in Gäddede in Strömsund Municipality in northern Jämtland. Let us move there today – to Limmared, Sysslebäck, or Gäddede – and to those who live there.

Madam Speaker! Have you thought about how when politicians in well-chosen ties or in tailored suits speak about the countryside, they do so almost always from a perspective from Stockholm. The countryside is something else that exists somewhere else. Just the word countryside creates a distance, a we and them. As if the countryside is somewhere else, almost not Sweden for real.

For me as a member of the Center Party, it is something that constantly causes friction. We in the Center Party have since 1910 fought for democracy and freedom. For us, there is no "us" and "them"; for us, it is the whole of Sweden that matters. It is about the individual's and thus everyone's conditions. It always stands at the top, regardless of whether it concerns sexual orientation, equality, or city and country. It is about everyone's equal conditions.

Madam Speaker! In Sysslebäck in northern Värmland, yes, in fact a mile away, residents have gathered in a joint property association. There, they cannot take part in municipal services and must join together to coordinate, among other things, snow removal, road maintenance, and waste management.

It is naturally both costly and time-consuming. They are far from alone in this solution. Many residents across Sweden have joined together in joint property associations to manage common facilities such as roads, streetlights, energy facilities, playgrounds, sewage pipes, bathing places, and boat piers.

What is funded via the tax bill in the urban center, they in the joint property association must pay themselves out of their own pockets. It is not reasonable. Therefore, we in the Center Party believe that a rural deduction, as we can call it, should be introduced, which could mean up to 3,000 kronor more in the wallet for residents who are members of joint property associations. It shall be a deduction that can be made in the tax return.

Madam Speaker! In Gäddede in northern Jämtland, there is a house for sale right now, with a breathtaking view over Lake Hetögeln. There is a viewing on Friday, I saw. The asking price is 850,000 kronor. Gäddede is nestled in a mountain environment on the border to Norway. What is it like to live there? Perhaps someone who is connected to the mountain rescue in Härjedalen and Jämtland wants to move there?

A prerequisite for all of us to be able to stay in the mountains is that there are mountain rescuers. Sometimes it is a navigation error that makes the hike longer than intended when the weather turns. Sometimes it is a mountain-experienced skier from the neighboring village who gets injured and is unable to make it to the nearest mountain station.

In Jämtland and Härjedalen, there are today 175 mountain rescuers. It is a voluntary assignment, where mountain rescuers must have snowmobiles suitable for tough missions as well as sleds and cars with trailers. Today, unfortunately, the legal situation for the mountain rescuers is unclear.

Apart from the unclear legal situation, we in the Centerpartiet propose two immediate measures to strengthen the mountain rescue. These are, firstly, that a snowmobile grant of 50,000 kronor is introduced for volunteer mountain rescuers, and secondly, that a support for reconnaissance trips of 5,000 kronor per year is established. Save the mountain rescue, we say. It may seem like a detail, but it concerns all of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Limmared lies along the railway between Gothenburg and Kalmar – the Kust-till-kust-banan. It is a railway that, frankly, has museum quality. In Limmared, there is an inn that serves exquisite schnitzels. I shall go there shortly to return to a part of my family's roots in the Sjuhärad region.

Living in Limmared is living in the world. When we must necessarily transition our society away from the fossil, we shall ensure to do so with great inclusion and with wise economic measures and steps. It should be easy to be Berndt and Märta in Limmared and switch from a fossil fuel car to an electric car, get solar cells and energy storage, and furthermore profit from it.

The fine thing about using the tax instrument to steer away from the fossil is that it is profitable for both Sweden and the individual. It is win-win. Sweden introduced a carbon tax in the early 1990s. We see now, many years later, how we have succeeded with what is called decoupling, that is to say, decoupling economic growth from increasing carbon emissions.

It has been scientifically proven several times, most recently in a Swedish research study published in The Review of Financial Studies. It is then strange that the government pursues a policy that leads to increased emissions. It is foolish both for the climate and for Swedish and individual economy.

When one uses fig-language, it is about internalizing negative externalities. It is the art of including things that generate costs in society which today are not included in the economic system. The carbon tax, or for all intents and purposes EU's emissions trading system, succeeds in exactly this.

It is about including costs in the economy and steering our behavior towards reduced emissions and, in the long run, a strengthened economy. Furthermore, a general steering instrument such as a carbon tax puts the market and thus the individual in motion, and the cheapest solutions will be realized. One could say that it is in direct contrast to the government's nuclear power policy, which instead is of a planned economy cut, expensive and inflexible.

We in the Center Party have a wealth of proposals in the area of income tax, where both Märta and Berndt in Limmared, Swedish entrepreneurship and the climate become winners.

It is about green tax shifting, that is, lowered tax on jobs and entrepreneurship while simultaneously increasing tax on fossil emissions. There is a particular focus on our transports and on a good distribution policy so that individuals are not affected in the short term. It is about an increased tax deduction for energy efficiency. It is about removing the tax on self-consumed solar power. It is about lowered tax on share ownership of solar energy. It is about improved conditions for combined heat and power, hydropower, and energy storage.

Yes, the list can be made very long.

On behalf of all of Sweden, I move for the approval of reservation 17.

Madam Speaker! To live in Sweden is to live in Limmared, Sysslebäck and Gäddede. We in the Center Party want – besides the obvious which concerns revenues for the public – to use the tax instrument for everyone's development, to level the playing field between people and to simplify life for everyone.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today, Majblomman, Rädda Barnen, and Hyresgästföreningen are releasing a hair-raising report on the situation for some of Sweden's most vulnerable children. These are children of single parents who have been hit incredibly hard by the skyrocketing cost increases of recent years.

Rents are going up. Food prices are skyrocketing. At the same time, the child allowance remains unchanged. Soon, the government will abolish the supplement to the housing allowance that has been a lifeline for many.

Almost every third single parent has stated that they have difficulty eating enough to be full – almost every third. These are figures that should make the representatives of the government parties wake up, reflect on their priorities, and quickly call a press conference and say: We have reconsidered. We will not abolish the increased housing allowance for families with children. We will increase the child allowance instead of the self-payment for the high-cost protection for those who need to buy many medicines. We regret our decision. We don't care about lowering the tax for those who trade with venture capital and instead put those millions of kronor toward those in the greatest need. It is about the families with children who have difficulty eating enough to be full every month and the families who must prioritize away all leisure activities for the children.

In a time when society needs to unite to ensure that children are drawn toward a future at a workplace rather than a crime scene, it is devastating if more children are forced to leave football clubs because the parents, despite working full-time in many cases, cannot afford the fee.

Tax policy is about prioritizing. We need to collect taxes to afford the welfare – a world-class healthcare system and a school system that ensures all children have the chance to become anything, regardless of which family they are born into. Through our tax system, we can afford to ensure that everyone who has children can be on parental leave with their children through the parental insurance. And when we are ill, we do not, at least, have to be without income, because we have a sickness insurance.

Politics is about prioritizing. It is a matter of prioritizing wisely when it comes to what we spend our money on. But it is also about how we bring in money through the tax system and who should pay the most. We in Miljöpartiet want a solidarity-based tax policy where those who can pay more also contribute more. That policy is not like the policy that the right-wing government is driving, where those who are disabled and ill have a higher tax rate than those who are healthy and can work.

No one chooses to be born with a disability. Many are affected in the middle of life by unexpected accidents that can mean the end of their working life. But disability or lifelong illness should not be the same thing as poverty. The benefits in the sickness and activity compensation are extremely low. Still, one pays a higher percentage in tax than we who have the ability to work. It should pay to work, but we must not punish those people who cannot work.

Madam Speaker! We also believe that the tax system must be used to manage the climate transition. We have a climate emergency. We need to collect taxes to afford the transition, but we can also use the tax system smartly by, for example, lowering taxes for those who invest in technology that reduces climate emissions. This applies, for example, to those who install solar cells on roofs.

I am shocked every time the government presents yet another proposal that hinders the climate transition. Most recently, we received a proposal from the government to make it more expensive to have solar cells. It is about making it less profitable to contribute with renewable energy. They are raising the tax for those who have solar installations on their roofs.

We in Miljöpartiet want to do the opposite. We want more people to be able to profit from installing solar cell systems on roofs in Sweden.

We also want to encourage more people to install smart charging boxes in their homes, which can be used not only to charge the electric car but also to balance the electricity system. There is an incredible amount of smart technology that is actually produced in Sweden and that we would need to encourage more people to invest in. Then we could encourage electrification but also ensure that we use the energy in a smart and flexible way.

Let us say that you connect your electric car to a charging box that can buy and trade the electricity in the battery. We could eventually connect all of Sweden's electric cars to the power grid when they are parked. In that way, we could manage the power challenges that it is often said that nuclear power would be the only solution to.

Madam Speaker! In a previous exchange with the Moderaterna, they claimed that we would want to abolish the travel deduction. That is not true. I did not have the opportunity to respond to that then. Therefore, I must say this now. I think it is important that one reads up before going up and criticizing each other. I think we should have an honest debate where we do not strive to misunderstand each other, but where we strive to address each other's best arguments.

We in Miljöpartiet have actually been positive towards lowering the tax on many types of services. There is also an environmental thought in that.

If we make it cheaper to, for example, repair bicycles or other products or to purchase services, we encourage a consumption that is more sustainable. At the same time, we want to make it more expensive to, for example, emit climate-damaging gases and engage in activities that simply destroy the environment. It is also part of a green tax policy that is intended to encourage circular consumption and reduced climate emissions.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Environment Party's reservations. I also join reservation 28 regarding special profit share under point 20. But since we cannot go through every point during the voting, I would like to move for approval of reservation 19 regarding reduced tax on shareholding of solar energy.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall, as you understand because I am the second speaker from Centerpartiet, address a single issue. It concerns an issue that no one else has touched upon, namely that Skatteverket levies tax on the money that vulnerable women in prostitution receive from sex buyers, torskar. Skatteverket considers this to be something to be taxed. Centerpartiet has consistently and strongly opposed this.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 24.

This story was uncovered and first entered the decision-making chambers when it turned out that the police had visited an apartment and found cash in the possession of a vulnerable woman in prostitution. They wondered where they came from and notified the Swedish Tax Agency, whereupon the Swedish Tax Agency determined that it was income of whatever it was called in the tax return. It was to be taken up for taxation.

It led to an urgent, important and extensive debate in various ways here in the chamber and in the media. Written questions were submitted to the Minister for Finance, as the issue lies on the Ministry of Finance's table, and interpellation debates were held where the Minister for Finance said that this is unreasonable. Reference was made to an exit program. One such has now arrived, which is good, but it does not prevent one from also reviewing whether the Swedish Tax Agency's actions are reasonable.

We propose that an investigation should be appointed to stop this, but the government does not think it is necessary. It is somewhat interesting. I have enjoyed looking at what the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna write in the report about why this is being dismissed. They mention that all incomes are taxable. The basic principle for income taxation is that all wages, benefits, and other incomes that a person receives due to their service are taxable unless it is specifically regulated that they are tax-exempt. Fine! One could have done something with that, but that is what they have not wanted to do.

I read further in the report: ”In most cases, it is no difficulty to assess whether an income comes from an employment or an assignment. But in some cases, it is not so clear whether a certain work is performed for an employer or a client, or whether it is a self-employed activity. – – – By ’other income-generating activity’ is meant that even self-employed activity without a profit motive, such as hobby activity, is taxed in the income category of service.”

Does the government think that prostitution is a hobby, or does one mean that it is a job, because it is regarded as being able to provide income from services, or should one perhaps add to the Swedish Tax Agency's directives or in the government's report that one can also count in income from illegal and criminal activities here? Buying sex is, after all, criminal. But the money goes through the vulnerable woman into the state's revenues.

One further reasons that the income category "service" functions as a collection item for other income-generating activities that are neither employment, assignment, hobby, capital or business activity. Here, perhaps one could add that it is okay to include income from illegal activity?

In the preamble, one then moves on to describe what one wants instead. That is to provide women in prostitution with support to cease prostitution with the help of an exit program. That is very good. We have longed for and talked about that for a long time. We really looked forward to that investigation. But that it was conducted is not in contradiction to giving Skatteverket or an investigation a mandate to review whether it is reasonable to levy tax on the money.

What is then written is what it is actually about. It says as follows: ”Regarding the tax exemption of income from prostitution, the government has stated that it has carefully analyzed the pros and cons of such a measure, with the starting point that the goal is to reduce the exploitation of persons in prostitution and to facilitate things for them. In that work, it emerged that there is a risk that a tax exemption increases the exploitation of persons in prostitution.”

Income tax

This is very interesting. That passage, Mr. Speaker, probably originates from a conversation that the government had with various organizations and authorities to discuss how one can help vulnerable women in prostitution to get out of it through support and protection. What was also stated as the reason why, after that conversation, one did not proceed with an investigation into exempting prostitutes' incomes from taxation was that if they are tax-exempt, it risks increasing the black market, the black money, and making the prostitutes part of a criminal market. It was as if they are not already that today.

I wonder when it became the responsibility of already vulnerable women to help the state fight another criminal economy. Why not do both? But it is this that prevents the state and the government from proceeding with an investigation.

We are talking about vulnerable women in prostitution. It doesn't matter whether it is one or several who have been affected by the Swedish Tax Agency chasing money from vulnerable women. If it is one, it is still one too many.

We are talking about women who are subjected to violence in a form of violence that is included in the government's other programs to combat. We are talking about vulnerable women, and if they are to pay tax on the money they earn from sex buyers – should they then also be allowed to make deductions in their tax return for condoms, HIV tests, apartments, and travel? What does that tax return look like?

Above all, we are talking about money coming from criminal activity whose money ends up among the state's revenues and thus finances your and my welfare. I think it is a ditching without equal.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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