Income tax

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing, as you know, with the Committee on Taxation's report on income tax. This is a matter that fundamentally is about respect for Swedish citizens' work and their right to retain as much as possible of the assets they have earned themselves.

For the Sweden Democrats, this is a core issue. We always protect the Swedish citizen's wallet, paycheck, and pension. We want work to pay off, diligence to be rewarded, and that those who have built up this country should be able to live a secure and dignified life without the state taking an unnecessarily large share of the result.

The Riksdag has already during the autumn stood behind the government's tax policy for 2026. We have implemented the tenth step in the job tax credit. We have increased the increased basic deduction for pensioners and strengthened the tax reduction for sickness and activity compensation.

It is concrete measures that leave more in the wallet for working Swedes and pensioners. It breaks the recession, increases purchasing power, and creates incentives to work and stay in the labor market. It is simply a policy that puts our citizens in Sweden first, not ideological experiments or special interests.

Mr. Speaker! The report rejects almost 150 motion proposals. Let me therefore be clear regarding some of what we are rejecting.

From the left, they want to introduce new taxes and furthermore phase out the job tax credit. It does not only affect the so-called rich but also other, ordinary, high-performing Swedes – engineers, teachers, small business owners and others who already contribute the most to our common welfare. To call it fair is to completely turn the concepts upside down.

Justice is to let people keep more of their own income, if it is not the case that the state needs just this. They should get to keep more because they have worked hard. One should not punish them for having succeeded.

We need a tax policy that creates growth and that also ensures we keep the jobs here in Sweden.

A number of Social Democrats propose, among other things, deductible trade union fees as well as a tapered job tax credit. It is the same old policy that we have heard about before. It benefits trade union organizations, not infrequently with a clear Social Democratic connection, at the taxpayers' expense.

Membership fees to trade unions are a personal living cost, not an expense that the state should subsidize with the Swedish workers' money. It is therefore obvious that taxpayers should not be burdened further by financing political interests. Citizens' assets should go to welfare and security, not to the Social Democrats' interests.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Sweden Democrats always put our society and our citizens first. We want the person who gets up early every morning to go to their job to be able to keep more of their salary. We want the retiree who has worked hard throughout an entire working life to be able to live on their pension without unnecessary tax gaps.

We want a tax policy that stimulates work, savings and growth – not one that punishes people who work hard and take responsibility.

Thanks to a well-thought-out economic policy, we in the Tidösamarbetet have succeeded in stopping the negative and destructive development that existed when we took over from the Social Democrats. Inflation has been fought while we have simultaneously been able to successfully combat, among other things, organized crime, thanks to the fact that we have received real tax revenues. Child poverty in Sweden – we have heard about this over the last few days – is the lowest in ten years. I could continue to mention a long series of successes, but there will be more opportunities to do so.

With this said, I wish to move for approval of the Committee on Taxation's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have just heard a member who is very pleased with the government's and SD's policy. I can, however, be a bit skeptical of that.

According to a new report from Hyresgästföreningen, Majblomman, Rädda Barnen, and Röda Korset, approximately 276,000 children in Sweden live with a very strained economy. Half of the single parents stated that they had had difficulty buying nutritious food, and four out of ten said that they themselves had not been able to eat until full. Just as many have had to borrow for basic expenses.

For families with children and low incomes, the worry about their own finances is at the same level as in the inflation year 2023.

Instead of supporting these families with, for example, increased child benefits, the government parties have chosen to prioritize enormous tax cuts for borrowed money primarily for those who earn the most. I would therefore like to ask Markus Wiechel: Are these really the right priorities?

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to remind you of the situation before the Tidö agreement took over in Sweden. We saw a very destructive development, which definitely hit families with children very hard. I am speaking primarily about the destructive growth forecast in the country, which the majority has now succeeded in breaking.

Just as I mentioned in my speech, child poverty, which the member was referring to, is at its lowest in ten years. That is something that is positive. We have actually succeeded in reversing a negative development.

I actually don't quite understand how the Social Democrats are going to improve the lives of ordinary families through increased taxes and through further pressure on ordinary families. I don't quite understand how that adds up.

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

Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)

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

Sweden is in a serious economic situation. The debt development at the Enforcement Authority speaks for itself. It shows that the economic crisis is taking a firm hold on households. In ten years, the debts at the Enforcement Authority have almost doubled, and Swedish households have found it increasingly difficult to make the money stretch. Every eleventh child in Sweden grows up in a family where at least one parent has debts or an ongoing debt restructuring with the Enforcement Authority, which corresponds to almost 200,000 children.

This is the reality we have to face. Therefore, I wonder if Markus Wiechel means that the report that the aid organizations have produced is wrong and if they are lying about the Swedish reality that these parents are testifying about.

We Social Democrats want to do something about this. Why don't the government and SD want to?

(Applause)

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Of course we are going to do something about it, and that is exactly what we are doing. My point was that the development was significantly worse when the Social Democrats were at the helm. Then we had, as I mentioned earlier, incredibly low growth and a forecast that looked very destructive. In addition, we had sky-high inflation that hit ordinary families very hard.

Thanks to the Tidö cooperation, ordinary families with children receive thousands of kronor more per month through tax cuts and various reliefs. Furthermore, we have, as mentioned, fought inflation very effectively, which is naturally very good for exactly that group that the member is speaking about.

Of course we shall do everything we can to facilitate things for these groups, but it is our policy that has done it, not the Social Democrats'.

(Applause)

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

Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report on income tax, SkU13.

During the government's nearly four years in power, the economic gaps in Sweden have increased. Many households have found it increasingly difficult to manage their everyday finances, not least as a result of rising housing costs, high electricity bills, and high food prices. Poverty has grown, and more and more people have debts with the Enforcement Authority.

During the same period, the government has chosen to prioritize extensive tax cuts financed through increased borrowing. These tax cuts have primarily benefited people with high incomes and large assets. Collectively, the government's policy has resulted in the state budget being underfunded by more than 350 billion kronor.

The policy that the government is pursuing is not only unfair – we can even call it immoral in some respects – but it has also proven to be harmful to the Swedish economy. Instead of strengthening ordinary people's finances, the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have worsened the economic conditions for the most vulnerable by making it more expensive to collect medicines, worsening the housing allowance for families with children, and ignoring that the child allowance has been eroded. Ordinary people have had to take the economic hit while high-income earners have received large tax cuts.

At the same time as households have been subjected to great pressures, our common welfare has been weakened. Tax cuts for the richest go hand in hand with cuts in healthcare and school. When we witness a poor working environment within healthcare and school, we must link it to taxes. Tax cuts lead to cuts. There is a direct connection between how much we collectively pay in taxes and what quality we can have in school, healthcare and elderly care, as well as our ability to strengthen the justice system and Sweden's defense.

Madam Speaker! In the Fiscal Policy Council's latest report, we can read that "an expanded job tax credit is an inefficient way to increase employment, especially since it entails a significant and lasting deterioration of public finances." In our budget alternative, we prioritize the finances of ordinary people. We proposed a fair tax cut for ordinary people that provides as much as the government's proposal. We do not, however, think it is the time for an additional tax cut for those who earn over 67,000 kronor a month. We do not stand behind the removal of the tapering in the job tax credit. That money could have gone to more important things, such as raising child and student grants. The last time the child grant was raised was in 2018, as an act of a Social Democratic government. Since then, the costs for families with children have skyrocketed, but Sweden is the only country in the Nordics that has not raised the child grant during the cost crisis.

Madam Speaker! Full employment is of decisive importance for the quality of life of the entire population and for reducing the social and economic gaps in society. The Social Democrats' basic view is that people want to work. Our policy strives for a good working life and that everyone who can work shall also work. By having more people working, tax revenues increase, while public expenditures decrease.

Our highest priority is therefore to get more people into work. Growth, productivity, and more jobs are the best way to increase resources for the welfare system and create real wage increases for employees. Through the welfare that taxes finance, we create opportunities for more people to participate in the labor market. Tax-financed preschool, leisure activities, and elderly care allow more people to combine family and professional life. Tax-financed education investments increase productivity and improve matching in the labor market. The tax take thus enables a high labor force participation and a high level of prosperity.

Madam Speaker! High union membership is a fundamental part of the Swedish labor market model. In 2018, a tax deduction for the union fee was introduced, but in 2019 it was abolished by the right-wing majority in the Riksdag. In 2022, the Social Democratic-led government introduced a tax deduction for the unemployment insurance fee. The Social Democrats believe that the union fee should also be deductible in the same way as the employer's right to deduct the service fee to employer organizations.

Madam Speaker! The need for a new, comprehensive review of the tax system is great. We Social Democrats want to implement a tax reform that creates predictability and fairness and that rests on broad tax bases. The basis for the review is that the difference in the taxation of labor and capital is addressed, i.e., that the very wealthiest shall contribute more. In addition to broadening the tax base, we want to increase the taxation of large but low-taxed capital incomes, make the system simpler and more uniform, and limit the possibilities for tax evasion and aggressive tax planning.

The main task of the tax system is to ensure sufficient tax revenues to finance the welfare state. To contribute to a legitimate, fair, and efficient tax system, it is important that the tax rules are general with broad tax bases and uniform tax rates that are well-balanced against the goals of the economic policy. The tax system should have as few special rules and exceptions as possible. In cooperation with the economic policy, it shall contribute to redistribution, equality, and gender equality.

An overarching goal to secure the financing of the welfare system is that tax policy shall have a broad anchoring in the population. Tax shall be paid according to ability and welfare distributed according to need. Progressivity shall be protected so that those who have high incomes contribute more than those who have lower incomes, while everyone gets to share in the common welfare. That is how the Swedish welfare model looks.

The abolition of a number of taxes as well as large income tax cuts have led to those who are best off financially paying lower taxes. Capital income has increased sharply while many with high capital incomes benefit from extensive exemptions from ordinary capital taxation.

Capital income is very unevenly distributed compared to the other types of income. One can ask why the cashier should pay a larger share of their salary in tax than the owner of the retail chain does. It actually does not add up.

"Taxes and fees have been the instruments with which 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 says in a Social Democratic parliamentary motion from 1978 by Olof Palme, Lena Hjelm-Wallén, Ingvar Carlsson and others, and it applies to this day.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to move for the approval of reservation 2 under point 2 and reservation 5 under point 4.

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

I have a question regarding the tax on the very wealthiest. A study from Svenskt Näringsliv shows that the abolition of the wealth tax has had a self-financing rate of as much as 200 percent, meaning that Sweden has profited from that tax being abolished. The analysis is based on data from SCB's income and assessment registers and concerns the entire population in the age range 20–64 years. After the reform, the tax base increased faster in the group that was previously affected by the wealth tax. The increase was so significant that the reform already after three years generated twice as much tax revenue as if the tax base had remained unchanged.

Madam Speaker! Does the member believe it was good that the wealth tax was abolished? It was, after all, the tax for the very richest, which the Social Democrats removed.

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

Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)

Madam Speaker! We stand today in a Sweden with large economic differences. The gaps in society are increasing a great deal, according to the report I mentioned earlier in an exchange with another member.

We Social Democrats think it is a major problem that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. We therefore want to see a more uniform tax policy. That is why we propose a review of the taxes and want a major tax reform.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer, but I do not know if it was a real answer to the question.

The member raised the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten). The largest group at the Swedish Enforcement Authority is young men sentenced to pay damages to crime victims. When it comes to families at the Swedish Enforcement Authority, the social services in the municipalities have a responsibility. The problems are greatest in Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö, and they are governed by Social Democratic party comrades. Has the member asked them what they are doing to reduce the group at the Swedish Enforcement Authority?

(Applause)

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

Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is a bit funny that the last few times I have stood here in the chamber, I have been asked what I should ask social democratic local politicians around the country about. I can, of course, speak with them, but Sweden has a government that rules and which has a reality to contend with, and we see that the debts at the Enforcement Authority are increasing.

I naturally think that those who have committed crimes should pay damages to the crime victims, but there is also a large part at the Enforcement Authority who have not committed crimes but have ended up there because they have not been able to afford to pay their bills. They have not been able to afford to pay the electricity bill. They have not been able to afford to pay the rent. I think that is a problem. There, we as a society have failed. Does the member not consider that to be a problem and that we should do something about it? Is it the right prioritization to lower the tax so much for high-income earners as the member has been involved in doing? I consider that to be a completely incorrect prioritization.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since it was a closing remark, the questions in the contribution may be seen as rhetorical.)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the Committee on Taxation's proposal in Report 13 Income Tax and the rejection of the motions.

Sweden was in a deep recession in 2022, driven by high interest rates and sharp price increases that pressured household purchasing power. In a recession, tax revenues fall automatically, and transfers increase. It is basic economics and not a political scandal that some want to make it out to be sometimes. The irresponsible decommissioning of nuclear power has also driven up prices, which the Tidö parties are now trying to change.

The Moderates have strengthened the job tax credit with a focus on low- and middle-income earners in three budgets in a row. The budgets have, in total, percentage-wise, given the most to those who earn the least. We have extremely strong public finances. With the reforms in the budget for 2026, an ordinary family with two children will get around 5,000 kronor more in their pocket every month.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need; that is precisely the policy we are now pursuing. We are lowering income taxes for hard-working people and combining it with stricter requirements for those on benefits. It is a true and just policy. It should pay to work and not go on benefits. Svenskt Näringsliv has also given us support because it leads to more hours worked and drives growth.

What is the alternative? Yes, higher taxes on labor, reintroduced inheritance and gift tax, state property tax on the homes of millions of families, and higher taxes on capital income. Is that what we will see if misfortune strikes and the Social Democrats form a government with Vänstern, Miljöpartiet, and Centerpartiet? That type of tax shock does not create more jobs – it destroys them.

Excessively high taxes and an over-regulated economy have historically hindered growth and job creation and sometimes driven the economy into crisis. The Social Democrats do not only have the Left Party and the Green Party to contend with, but also their own interest group, the Reformists, who want to push the Social Democrats to the left. What will the Social Democratic policy look like if they win the election? I think the Swedish people should be told that before the election.

Inequalities do not decrease by taxing away success. They decrease by more people entering the workforce. There are many people in Sweden who are not self-sufficient. That is the real problem. Employment has, however, increased. The Moderates' answer is to make it more profitable to work and to break the dependency on benefits, not to raise taxes for those who already toil and contribute. Welfare is best financed by a growing economy with more people in work. Economic policy shall be managed with respect for the taxpayers' money and the fiscal framework.

Madam Speaker! Education must pay off. Those who continue their studies, struggle, and perhaps spend up to six years at a university or college often end up with a student debt of hundreds of thousands of kronor plus lost work income. The idea is that it should be compensated by high salaries, but according to the OECD, it does not pay off to the same extent in Sweden as in other countries.

As soon as the salary exceeds 50,000 kronor per month, the state income tax kicks in. From that point onwards, every pay raise, every bonus, and every extra hour will be taxed at more than half. A nurse or doctor who works a lot, takes many overtime shifts, and exceeds the threshold should surely at least be allowed to keep half of their salary, just like the one who steps up, leaves their family, and takes an extra shift on Christmas Eve because there is a shortage of people, or goes to work on a lukewarm Friday evening when it smells of grilled food in the neighborhood? Is it really right to raise taxes for healthcare personnel who step up and take an extra shift for the good of society? Here, the Social Democrats have been opponents of raising the threshold.

The question of taxes for the very wealthiest is raised at regular intervals by the left wing. Dansk Industri has, with the help of a new study from Princeton University, estimated the effects of the proposal they have regarding a half percent tax on wealth over 25 million kronor, which was the Danes' proposal. The analysis shows that the tax would lower Danish GDP by half a percent, which corresponds to 16 billion Swedish kronor. A total of 850,000 jobs in family-owned companies would be in the danger zone.

The reason why most countries have abolished such taxes – Denmark in 1997 and Sweden in 2007 – is that they harm the entire economy and that entrepreneurs and investment capital risk fleeing the country.

The study relied on data from the introduction of property tax in Norway.

The government wants to make it more difficult for municipalities and regions to raise taxes. An investigator has presented a concrete proposal for a tax brake. A government must be able to achieve results for its tax policy. If politicians at the national level decide to lower the income tax, it should not be eaten up by local politicians taking the opportunity to raise their tax.

There is a difference of 6.72 percentage points between the municipality with the highest tax in Sweden and the one with the lowest. This enormous difference is due to politics, not to the conditions of these municipalities and regions. There is a balancing system that is intended to compensate for differences between municipalities regarding the residents' income levels, age structure, geography, and so on. All municipalities should, so to speak, have the same chance.

When the tax rate is high, it may very well be because local politicians have not bothered to manage their municipality or region in the best way, but instead chosen the easy way out by raising the tax.

My region Dalarna has raised the tax by 35 öre. Per year it becomes a quarter of a billion kronor, and over two years the people of Dalarna have paid approximately half a billion kronor. With everything cleared, they have gone 700 million plus, but what have the people of Dalarna received for that? The Social Democrats' tax increase there has been bad for Dalarna – just like Leksand's exit from SHL yesterday.

If people get slightly lower taxes, they can treat themselves with a restaurant visit, re-wallpaper, or whatever they now prioritize. Private consumption is a central driver and constitutes 50 percent of Sweden's total gross national product. Lower income tax is therefore a good driver for consumption. The vast majority know that increased taxes hit those with the smallest margins the hardest. Often it concerns poor pensioners and not those with already high salaries.

On April 1, the food VAT is lowered so that people with smaller margins will have a bit more room in their wallets. That the employer contribution is lowered for young people is, in addition, a way for young people to enter the labor market and secure a livelihood.

The Tidö parties have truly made a difference. Among other things, inflation has fallen, interest rates have fallen, growth has increased, and the shootings have decreased. Unfortunately, however, tragic events have occurred in the last few days.

What is the alternative on the left side? Miljöpartiet does not intend to sit in a government that builds new nuclear power. Centern does not want Vänstern in a government, but Vänstern wants to be in a government. As I see it, several puzzles have been mixed up and they are now trying to put the pieces together into a puzzle, which is impossible.

(Applause)

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

Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Carlsson spoke a lot about the importance of working, and that is something we Social Democrats agree with. Those who can work shall also work. On the other hand, we have a reality to contend with.

Sweden has performed worse than the rest of Europe in recent years. Large Swedish companies have issued notices and laid off staff. Bankruptcies are also continuing at record levels. Since the government took office, almost 30,000 companies have gone bankrupt.

We have failed with unemployment. While unemployment has decreased in Europe, it has continued to increase in Sweden. During the last year, Sweden has had an unemployment rate that is the third highest in the EU. Over half a million people are unemployed. More people lack jobs today than during the pandemic. We also see that unemployment is changing form and eating its way into new groups. More and more young people are starting their professional lives in unemployment.

This is not just statistics. Behind the figure of approximately 9 percent unemployment are half a million human destinies. It is about people who cannot afford to pay bills, parents who cannot afford to let their children play sports, and ordinary people who cannot afford to pick up their medicines.

One might think that the government does not understand how hard unemployment hits, especially for people who want to do the right thing, want a job to go to, and want to feel the security of their own income. I would therefore like to ask the member: Does the member not consider this to be a problem?

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! According to SCB, child poverty is decreasing. The proportion of children living in families with a low standard of income is shrinking. The government's economic policy over the mandate period benefits those with the lowest incomes the most in percentage terms.

The Gini coefficient, which is the most common way to measure economic inequality in the form of income distribution, is calculated to decrease over the mandate period. Sweden has therefore become more equal since we took over.

We have also strengthened equality. Women's incomes are calculated to increase by a slightly higher percentage on average than men's over the mandate period.

All income groups are therefore judged to have had their purchasing power strengthened. Incomes go further at the end of the mandate period than they did at the beginning of the mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)

Madam Speaker! We can see that the gaps have increased in Sweden since the beginning of the 2000s. The total wealth has risen, but the income increase has been unevenly distributed. We should do something about this.

Between 2003 and 2022, the 10 percent with the highest economic standard have had a twice as good economic development as the rest of the population. The top decile has doubled its economic standard, while the rest of the population has seen it increase by between 35 and 50 percent.

In this context, Member Crister Carlsson defends the fact that the tapering of the job tax credit has been removed. This means that the intention was to have a tax cut exclusively aimed at those who earn the most money.

In yesterday's Dagens Nyheter, one could once again read about reports from Rädda Barnen, Röda Korset, and Majblomman. Parents testify there that they do not have the means to buy nutritious food for their children. They do not have the means to pay the membership fee for the children's sports.

We Social Democrats consider this to be a problem and therefore believe that the unfair tapering of the job tax credit should not remain. We want to remove it, and we also want to see a review of the entire tax system.

I cannot quite understand how the member cannot see that this is a problem. I therefore want to give him a chance to explain once again how it can be right that those who earn the most should get even better while a large part of Sweden's population has only fared worse during his party's time in government.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Who are those who earn the most? Is it those who have spent many years at university and taken on large student debts? As I said in my speech, it can be about doctors who have spent five or six years at university and thereby suffered a loss of earned income. Are they not worthy of earning a little extra? And are those who start companies not also worthy of being able to earn some money from the work efforts they make?

If you compare it with when the red-greens ruled Sweden, it is quite striking. Inequalities increased from 2014 to reach a new peak level during 2021. Inequalities thus increased when the Social Democrats ruled Sweden. It is another negative trend that we have reversed during this parliamentary term.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I was a bit taken aback, I must say, when Crister Carlsson said that municipalities with high taxes mismanage their finances. A couple of years ago, a unanimous investigation concluded that the equalization system needed to be changed. But Crister Carlsson is saying here that it was not necessary. I have heard other Moderates say that a preparation is underway in the Government Offices regarding a new equalization system, but should I interpret Crister Carlsson's contribution as that there will not be a proposal for a new equalization system because municipalities with high taxes are municipalities that mismanage their finances?

There is a difference of approximately 7 kronor in tax between the municipalities with the highest tax and those with the lowest tax. The one with the lowest tax is a Stockholm municipality, and the one with the highest tax is Dorotea. In Dorotea, barely 2,300 people live. Here, one must keep schools running with ten students, because it is ten miles to the next school. Does one need to do that in the densely populated Stockholm areas? It costs to be a small municipality that is also a sparsely populated municipality.

I would like Crister Carlsson to explain to his party colleagues in Norrland how they are to manage the finances when the Moderaterna and Crister Carlsson consider it to be poorly managed finances that make it difficult to make the finances balance in the inland of Norrland.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I notice that Member Waldau is deliberately misunderstanding what I said here in the rostrum. I said that it can be so. And I am not saying that it is so everywhere. It can be so. And I do not know, Member Waldau, if all municipalities manage their economies exemplarily and do exactly everything efficiently. Is that so?

I said that it can be so.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the non-answer! I still have not received an answer as to what the government intends to do with the Equalization Committee's proposal. Do the Moderates think that the equalization system should not be changed?

I intend to tell a bit more about Dorotea. Dorotea is as large as Blekinge on the surface and almost as large as half of Stockholm County. In Dorotea live, as I said, barely 2,300 people and in Stockholm County over 2.4 million. For Dorotea and other small rural municipalities to manage, we need an equalization system that equalizes more.

The reason why municipalities and regions are raising taxes is not that the government provides the room by lowering the tax, but rather it is because the right-wing government, when it lowered the tax, did not have any money left for the state grants to municipalities and regions. In other words, taxes are raised in municipalities and regions to be able to fund what one can no longer manage, due to inflation and the like, when this government chooses not to increase the state grants. They are connected.

Give the municipalities and regions a state grant that enables them to have a good operation instead of continuing to lower taxes and, above all, instead of introducing a stop law that punishes municipalities that have to raise taxes and rewards municipalities that have the financial room to lower taxes. We need a new equalization system.

I apologize, Madam Speaker, for that we are discussing this here when it actually lies with the Committee on Finance.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not have a hundred percent grasp of the equalization system. But it is supposed to distribute based on the needs that exist in the municipalities.

I want to point out that I said that it can be the case that one sometimes raises the tax a bit lightly. Then there are also many municipalities with very large challenges – we must keep that in mind.

Regarding the equalization system, everything has its process. It may very well need to be reviewed, absolutely. But it is a different question than the one we are discussing today.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Crister Carlsson, for your speech!

I was somewhat astonished by how the member described the tax equalization system. Even though the member mentioned that he meant it could be perceived that way, the member was overly clear about how it can be perceived that municipalities that do not manage their finances are wasting tax funds. Just as has been described here, there are large differences in the country. In northern Sweden, the tax is significantly higher than in southern Sweden, with the exception of the highlands and some other parts.

Does the Prime Minister mean that the current tax system is sufficient to achieve a more equal society through taxation? I believe that we must strengthen this to achieve a better functioning system.

If one looks at the municipalities that have high taxes, one sees that they do not have the best welfare. In those cases, many priorities are made. Some municipalities have to remove, for example, bicycle paths and other things considered to be self-evident in order to manage the core of the welfare, such as school and care.

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 I must repeat what I previously said in my reply to another member: There may be municipalities that easily raise their taxes. But there are also absolutely municipalities that have great challenges. Norrland municipalities are examples of this.

I did not quite grasp the question, so I may have to ask for some clarification.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The question was whether the member does not see reinforcements of the equalization system as a way to achieve a more equal welfare across the entire country. It can actually be the case that even a municipality with a low tax burden wastes its money, as the member expresses it. It does not have to be the one that has a high tax burden.

Another thing that the member raised in their speech is the tax on labor. The Center Party believes that we should go even further when it comes to lowering the tax on labor, for it is harmful in a welfare society.

At the same time, funding must be secured. The Member was negative towards a broadening of the tax base, but in some way we still have to make this work. If we agree that we want to reduce the tax burden on work, the money must come from somewhere. I therefore also wonder which path the Moderates want to take.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are not against tax cuts where they are needed. Harmful taxes should, of course, be removed.

I am still wondering a bit about the Centre Party here. Now it becomes a rhetorical question, but how is the Centre Party going to get its policy through when one stands in direct opposition to what the Left Party, the Social Democrats, and even the Green Party stand for?

I welcome the Center Party into a Tidösamarbete moving forward so that we can work on lowering our taxes and removing harmful taxes.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! The government's policy aims to make it more expensive to be poor. Those who are sick and poor shall pay higher taxes than those who work. The co-payment on medicine has been increased, and those who lack security to take out a bank loan are not allowed to make interest deductions.

The situation for single low-income earners is getting worse and worse every year. 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. 270,000 children are judged to be growing up in poverty, and 824 children were evicted from their or their parents' housing during 2025. Since the government took office, the number of Swedes in material and relative poverty has doubled and was at 730,000 people at the turn of the year.

The government is proud that it is lowering the tax for those who work, but it lets those who are on sick leave or unemployed pay a higher tax. This summer, we could see that every third child of parents who are unemployed or on sick leave was at home all summer without planned activities.

For the right-wing majority, tax cuts for high-income earners take precedence over investments in children and young people, investments that could prevent young people from being drawn into crime. The children's perspective is completely absent.

A childhood without meaningful activities increases the risks of children ending up in isolation or, in the worst case, in destructive environments and crime. But the solution for the government is not to give all children a good upbringing, but to lower the age of criminal responsibility, introduce harsher punishments, and buy prison places abroad. It is not about preventing crime, but about punishing.

My tip to the government representatives is to read the latest report from Bris. The number of calls from children in financial distress has increased from 2022 to today. Here are some voices from children who call in:

"If I take food from the store, will I go to prison then?"

"I don't really want to take [it]. I took macaroni and sausage. There was no food at home."

"I have a job to have money to sleep and eat."

"I need to snatch sometimes so that I don't have to sleep hungry."

"I used to always be out in the evening and at night. They started talking to me and bought food for me because I hadn't eaten. They bought a jacket for me because I had none. Then they started asking if I could do small things for them, and I wanted to be kind to them, because it felt good to be with them, so I did it. Then it has just become more and more." Here, "they" refers to a criminal gang.

It is poverty that feeds the criminal gangs. The best way to prevent crime is to invest in families with children, not to lower taxes for high-income earners and threaten poor children with imprisonment or, if possible, deportation.

Madam Speaker! Sweden belongs to those OECD countries where economic inequality has increased the most since the 1980s. The government has lowered taxes for high-income earners by a total of 110 billion kronor during this parliamentary term. This year alone, taxes have been lowered by 50 billion.

A few tax cuts benefit those with small margins, but most go to those with high incomes. An average family has received smaller tax cuts in a year than, for example, the Prime Minister receives in a month. The tax gap between the one who is sick or unemployed and the one who is healthy and working increases every time this government raises the job tax credit. The one who has the hardest time making the finances work is the one who receives the least when the right-wing majority lowers the income taxes.

According to the right-wing rhetoric, a high-income earner needs to get more money in their wallet to be stimulated to work more. But the person who is sick or unemployed must get less money to want to work. In reality, the person who is sick wants to get well and work, and the person who is unemployed wants a job. But that presupposes that the healthcare system functions and that there is a job to be had.

An important tax principle, according to Vänsterpartiet, is that equal incomes should be taxed equally. This principle was shattered by the bourgeois government with the introduction of the various job tax credits. This means that the person who is unemployed and receives 25,000 kronor a month from the unemployment insurance pays approximately 1,900 kronor more in tax every month than the person who has a corresponding earned income. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet wants to see the tax gap closed for all incomes. This means lower taxes for groups with small economic margins. We also want the job tax credit to be phased out on incomes over 50,000.

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, it is prohibited to buy sex. An evaluation of the sex purchase law has shown that it has been an important tool for limiting the sex trade in Sweden. But at the same time, women who are exploited in the sex trade may be forced to pay tax. The government must develop guidelines for how persons in the sex trade should not have to pay tax on the payment they receive when they are exploited. If a change in the tax legislation is necessary, it must be made. The overall goal must be to stop the exploitation of people in prostitution, and this taxation does not contribute to that.

Another important issue is to lower the costs in public transport. It would strengthen equality and gender equality. Public transport creates accessibility to travel for large groups with low income. Since women currently use collective means of transport to a greater extent, such a reform would benefit women to a greater extent, who also generally have lower incomes than men.

In the current situation, an employer can stimulate environmentally friendly travel by car but not with public transport. An abolished taxation of public transport passes would result in a significant cost reduction.

It is my and the Left Party's absolute conviction that Sweden needs a new major tax reform that increases tax revenues and strengthens the uniformity of the tax system – a tax system that contributes to a strong, jointly funded and equal healthcare, low unemployment, and a strong social insurance system that counters the class society. Today's large gaps between people must be reduced.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all motions from Vänsterpartiet, both those I have spoken about in this speech and the tax reduction for union fees, that the rotavdrag is converted into a completely green deduction for property improvement works, a distance-based and transport-neutral travel deduction, and so on. They are all important and would contribute to a more equal and egalitarian society. But, Madam Speaker, I particularly want to call for approval of reservation 3 regarding the tapering of the job tax deduction.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The member was talking about sugar compensation and activity compensation.

A tax reduction for sickness compensation and activity compensation was introduced in 2018 and increased in 2022. On 1 January 2026, the tax reduction for persons with sickness and activity compensation was strengthened by the reduction now being granted to everyone who has a basis exceeding 54,000 kronor per year.

Does the member not agree that this is a good initiative?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Sometimes one does not want to repeat oneself too much. When we discussed the budget bill, I just praised that the tax gap was closed for those who had sickness and activity compensation, just as I praise the previous Social Democratic government for removing the tax gap between pensioners and those who work.

But there are still tax gaps to close. I do not think it is reasonable that there is a difference of almost 2,000 kronor in tax between the person who is unemployed and receives a-kassa and the person who works at the same income. I also do not think it is reasonable that the person who is on sick leave has a higher tax or that the person who is on parental leave has a higher tax.

There are still many tax gaps left to close. I wish that even this government could close more tax gaps, but I do not have much hope for that. I have significantly greater hope that we will get a red-green government after the election, and then I know that it is more parties than Vänsterpartiet that want to close all tax gaps.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! There is a great deal of talk about these tax cuts for those who earn a lot and most.

I must go back and think about my own profession within healthcare. Doctors and nurses have large student debts and have had a large loss of income during the time they have studied. One also works a lot of overtime. One works evenings and weekends. One works Christmas Eve – I usually say that one leaves one's family on Christmas Eve when it is Kalle. Does the member not consider that one should be allowed to keep at least half of one's salary under such premises?

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I do not think it is how much one gets to keep of one's salary that determines what one educates themselves for or how one chooses to work.

What you in the government and on the right believe is that if one gets lower taxes, one works more. But there are investigations that show that if one gets lower taxes and thus more money in the wallet, one works less, because one does not need to work as much to make ends meet. That speaks against what the member says here. But I know that the member does not have the opportunity to answer.

Very many of those who have poor finances and find it difficult to make ends meet, such as those who cannot afford to buy food for their children, are people who work in healthcare and elderly care. They are healthcare assistants, nursing assistants, and others who do not receive as much back in taxes as those who have higher incomes.

I am thinking of people who struggle and fight to make the finances work, who fight to get food for their children, who fight to be able to buy a jacket for their child, and who fight so that the children can have an extracurricular activity or even participate in gymnastics by getting gymnastics clothes. For me, it is incredibly important that we have a tax system that brings money into society so that we can support and help them. It is those who have difficulty making ends meet who need tax cuts, not those who already have high incomes.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are considering the report on income tax. It concerns central parts of Swedish tax policy: the tax scale, the job tax credit, tax reductions, the ROT and RUT deductions, and the conditions for civil society.

For the Christian Democrats, the starting point is clear: the tax system shall be fair, responsible, and society-building. It shall finance the welfare but also strengthen society. People shall be able to work. Families shall function, businesses shall function, and civil society shall function.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has been in a prolonged recession. In that situation, it is right, as the government has done, to focus on strengthening household finances. Lower taxes on work and pensions give people greater economic room and contribute to making the economy a little easier again. At the same time, it is reasonable that the tax policy is characterized by stability and long-term perspective.

Madam Speaker! The job tax credit is a cornerstone of the work line. The reinforcement for incomes contributes to making it more rewarding to work. It is crucial not only for the individual but for the entire economy. Welfare needs to be strengthened. But one does not do that by raising taxes and reducing employment, for that dampens growth. A stronger tax base is created by more people working and by companies growing, not by raising taxes for those who already bear a large part of the financing.

At the same time, we welcome that the taxation of the sickness and activity allowance has been adjusted so that there is no longer any tax gap there.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the root and rut deductions, we can clearly see their significance.

The rotation of the [Rotavdraget] has contributed to reducing undeclared work and strengthening employment in the construction sector. The increase of the ceiling during 2025 was an important cyclical support.

The withdrawal has in turn created jobs, not least for people who are far from the labor market. It is important that it continues to be directed towards services where the thresholds into work are lower, where undeclared work can be avoided, and where demand can increase employment.

At the same time, we share the committee's assessment that the rut deduction should not cover services that require advanced special expertise and heavy technical equipment. It would change the deduction's fundamental purpose.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats have long pursued the issue of the gift tax deduction.

Civil society plays a crucial role in our society to support the vulnerable, build communities, and catch people where the public sector does not always suffice. Through a functioning gift tax deduction, we can strengthen the incentives for people to contribute to non-profit organizations and charitable causes.

We have now taken an important step by introducing tax reductions even for legal entities, that is to say companies. Their donations to social welfare activities and scientific research now also provide donation tax deductions. It is an important step in the right direction towards more parts of civil society being covered. At the same time, we want to strengthen the quality and legitimacy of the donations. The Christian Democrats would like to go even further in that.

Madam Speaker! The report also contains reservations regarding increased taxes, changed deductions, and broad reforms of the tax system.

The Christian Democrats argue that the way forward is not to raise taxes on work and entrepreneurship. It risks hindering growth and hitting household finances.

At the same time, we see that the opposition speaks of major tax reforms but without a common direction. Clarity is required here. A tax reform must be built on stable principles: that work shall pay off, that companies shall be able to grow, and that the welfare shall be financed in the long term.

Madam Speaker! Tax policy is ultimately about what kind of society we want – a society where the state takes an ever larger role or a society where people, families, companies, and civil society are given the power to support one another. The Christian Democrats absolutely choose the latter. It is a society where work pays off and entrepreneurship is encouraged. With responsibility for the economy and respect for the taxpayers' money, and with a strong civil society, we build a Sweden that holds together. That is how we build a strong society – together.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Taxation's report SkU13 Income Tax.

Systems for financing a country's costs are built very differently in different countries. That is because countries have different amounts of natural resources, and that depends on the size of the country and how densely populated it is.

Sweden has chosen to tax labor more than in many other countries. This leads to many negative effects, which I will return to, but the total tax burden is just as high in many other countries. We were with the committee in the USA and saw then that several states have a higher tax burden than Sweden, however, not on labor but through a broadening of the tax base. Centerpartiet wants to lower the tax on labor and lower the employer contributions and the self-employment contributions for companies.

Madam Speaker! I want to move for approval of reservation 26 under point 19 regarding green tax shifting. We want to shift taxes by lowering the tax linked to work and taxing emissions, greenhouse gases, and environmental degradation more. This will lead to more people entering the workforce. We cannot do as today's government and accept that there are 500,000 who do not have a job. It is the biggest difference in welfare: not having a job or having a job. Here we must make differences, and lower taxation on work and lower employer contributions absolutely go in that direction.

This will strengthen the companies' competitiveness, but costs will arise along the way that we must compensate for so that the companies' costs do not increase when we make this transition. It is important that we have long-term rules of the game in this area that do not suddenly change. We must have a long-term vision of what we want with our tax system. This affects many industries. It affects the transport sector in general and road traffic in particular, but many industries will be affected.

In this report, we also address many individual matters within the tax area. I will go through some of them that are included in the report. One thing is the subsidy for solar electricity, which has decreased by 60 öre per kilowatt-hour. Given that it has more or less just been stopped, we must have a continued subsidy of some kind. The Center Party's proposal is that the tax on self-consumed solar electricity is abolished.

Another detail is that the conversion of fossil cars to fossil-free cars needs to be stimulated. When the government lowers the tax on gasoline and diesel, as has been proposed, Centerpartiet wants fuels such as electricity to also be included in the reduction so as not to disadvantage electric cars, which have difficulty gaining momentum in sales and which are also good for the environment.

Rot and rut deductions for services are also something we address in the report. They can also be used as a tool to improve and strengthen the environmental effect and achieve a green profile.

In the part of the report concerning gifts, we are positive about what concerns support for social welfare activities and scientific research. Centerpartiet also wants to broaden the gift opportunities for cultural activities.

It is also, as has been mentioned earlier, illogical to tax sexual services, as these are illegal. Here, one must do over and do it right. We must achieve a change, because it is unreasonable that women are subjected to violence because of a tax system.

We must aim for a new and modern tax system. It is large and complex, and it is important to have a transparent and easy-to-understand system to achieve high credibility in it. The environmental effects that I described earlier should be prioritized, as well as reuse and circulation of materials. When it comes to this, Madam Speaker, the tax tool is very effective.

I want to conclude by saying that emissions must be reduced. Sweden can do more!

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! A good deal of what Anders says feels right and correct. I am thinking primarily of lowered income taxes, because I believe that is important. I speak with different types of tax experts, and they say that it is one of the most important things we should do, namely to lower income taxes. In an international world where one can actually live in Sweden and work somewhere else, the differences in tax cannot be too large.

When I read through what different political parties think on tax issues, I see three different constellations. One is the group sitting over there in the chamber, that is, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party. I do not personally think they have an identical policy, but they still head in the same direction – that is to say, for different reasons, they like increased taxes. Then there are the Tidö parties, who have been able to agree on a common tax policy, and then there is the big outsider – the Center Party – which, in tax matters, actually is not a center party but an extremely right-wing party, I would like to say.

My former party colleague Birgitta Ohlsson would very much like to sit in a Social Democratic government and have Magdalena Andersson as the prime ministerial candidate. My question is: How can the Center Party, which has a diametrically opposite tax policy compared to the three red-green parties, be able to agree with them on a common line?

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Anders Ekegren, for the question! I notice that the Member has perceived the Center Party's tax policy completely correctly. Where we will be after the election, I do not know – I do not think you know it either. Member Crister Carlsson gave an invitation earlier and said that we are at least welcome somewhere. How it will be is written in the stars until election day, but it will be a compromise regardless of how it turns out.

We are very clear in this part. Lowering the tax burden on work and increasing it regarding environmentally harmful activities, I believe we could get a fairly broad acceptance from many parties after the election.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! Given the political landscape, it is well clear that one must make compromises in politics.

It is of course possible to compromise on whether four or six new nuclear power plants should be built, for example. It is possible to compromise on that; one can settle on building five. But if some parties want to raise taxes and one party wants to lower not only the income tax but also employer contributions – you also mentioned something else – I do not see that a compromise is possible. In some way, you have therefore ended up in the wrong company. It is of course clear that taxes and the economy are a very important issue if one is to form a government together.

You are, however, very welcome to our group. My grandfather sat in the municipal council for Centerpartiet, so I know you quite well. That is to say: Welcome to another group!

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We in the Center Party have a very clear profile for reduced tax on work, Member of Parliament Ekegren. But we want to do it in a fair way, and it is possible that we differ slightly from other parties regarding what the tax cut should look like and what such a tax scale should look like.

For us, it is important that the entry point should be low. One should have a low taxation at the beginning of the tax scale. Then we have removed the completely extreme tax models that applied in the 80s and 90s – known from the Pomperiposs debate, which Astrid Lindgren started – where the capital tax was placed over the service income and there were marginal tax effects on this. The big pieces are done, but we also have a large part remaining.

We often look at the level that Sweden has right now, but we must also compare with other, competing, countries. We must also see what damaging effect increased tax on labor has, given the large unemployment that your government has contributed to here. It is 500,000 who do not have a job to go to. There are better ways.

Regarding what the member did not perceive, it was about the self-employment contributions for entrepreneurs. That question is very important for us to get more companies and more people into work.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

We are almost at the end of the parliamentary term, but in all humility, I remind you that we do not address each other directly in the chamber. All members speak instead through the Speaker, and we use first and last names.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Anders Karlsson for his contribution.

In my contribution, Anders Karlsson mentioned the taxation of sexual services. After hearing his and the other opposition parties' contributions, I can state that no one moved for approval of our joint reservation. Therefore, I simply take the opportunity to move for approval of reservation 16.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I did not move for approval because I had moved for approval of another reservation, and according to the rules we have agreed upon between the parties, one should not move for approval of more than one. I therefore abstain from that, but I believe the member is entirely correct. We agree that there must be a change in that matter.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I have full respect for the agreement we have to move for approval only to a reservation. I note, however, that one of the parties that are reservationists in the matter is not participating in the debate and therefore does not have the opportunity to move. Therefore, I move instead.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing one of the upcoming election campaign's most important issues, namely taxes – and specifically income taxes.

The last time I stood here in the speaker's chair, I missed that it was exactly 50 years ago that Astrid Lindgren published her article about Pomperipossa in Monismanien because she had to pay 102 percent in tax. We hope that we will not have to read such an article again.

In Swedish politics, this is a dividing line between on one hand the Tidö parties and on the other side the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party – and the Centre Party is like a free bird far out on the right wing.

The Tidö parties have lowered a number of taxes during this mandate period, everything from income taxes to various excise taxes, and implemented a number of other changes to make the tax system more efficient. This applies, for example, to the tonnage tax.

The previous government handed over runaway inflation of over 10 percent and a high interest rate level, which eroded the population's economy and caused everyone to fare worse. The Tidö parties have significantly lowered inflation and implemented a number of different tax cuts that have ensured everyone has fared better. An average middle-income family keeps 5,000 kronor more every month. This benefits the electrician, the nurse, the police officer, and many other professional groups, and they would never have received that reduction with a left-wing government.

When the opposition speaks, one hears the rehearsed talking points about Sweden falling apart and that only the rich are getting better off. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yesterday, Statistics Sweden, which is a state agency, presented a survey showing that child poverty is at its lowest level since 2014. The number of children living on a low income standard has gone from 10 percent to 6 percent. The Social Democrats governed, either alone or together with the Green Party, for eight years. What did they do during that time? The Tidö parties have now reversed the trend, but obviously, there is more to do before we are satisfied.

Madam Speaker! Should there be a change of power in the Swedish Riksdag, we can expect significantly increased taxes, not always because the tax increases are needed but more for principled reasons: the rich should pay more. But they actually do that already. If you earn over a certain level – a little over 50,000 a month – you pay 20 percent extra in state tax. And we all remember the "puppy tax" introduced in 1987. It was a turnover tax on securities trading that provided no income to the state but caused stock trades to move abroad – all to satisfy the left wing within the Social Democratic Party.

We will see more of those types of tax increases. The Social Democrats are unclear about who will be covered by the tax increases, but my tip is that it will be everyone. After today's debate and Member Ekeroth Claussons' contribution, it is well enough clear that we can expect very much.

Those who wish to see which different tax proposals the opposition presents can read each party's shadow budget.

The Social Democrats want to introduce a temporary bank tax that is intended to yield 12 billion kronor per year. They want to reintroduce the wealth tax, which is sometimes called the readiness tax, in several different stages. Who will be covered by it? They also want progressive taxation of ISK and other tax increases on capital income.

Miljöpartiet is actually the party that wants to raise taxes the most. They want to raise the carbon tax on gasoline and diesel. They want to reintroduce the aviation tax and the bank tax. They also want a reduced job tax deduction, which means an indirect tax increase on work.

What does the Left Party want then? Well, they want a higher tax for people who earn over 50,000 kronor per month. They want a bank tax. They want to abolish both the rut deduction and the rot deduction, which would mean that people have to pay more. They want a higher tax on ISK. They also open up for a reintroduced state property tax.

The Center Party, which will be part of a left-wing government if one is to believe Birgitta Ohlsson, wants something completely different. They want to lower income taxes and employer contributions, which perhaps is not wrong in itself.

As I have previously raised in various debates in the chamber, Sweden needs a tax reform. The principles behind the 1991 tax reform are still guiding for today's system, but through various decisions, the tax system has been made more complicated and less transparent. Municipal tax at 30 percent, state income tax at 20 percent, and uniform VAT no longer apply.

Reality has also changed through internationalization, digitalization, and the transition from industrial companies to the increasingly important service sector, and AI will mean that the labor market will change.

All the tax experts I have spoken with over the past year have said that the most important thing is to review the income taxes. Sweden cannot have overly divergent taxes on income in a world where one can work in one country and live in another. Therefore, we need to take a holistic approach to the tax system so that at least a majority of the Riksdag can stand behind a tax reform, or at least the principles, even if we do not reach a consensus on the levels.

With this, Madam Speaker, I wish to vote in favor of the proposal in the Committee on Taxation's report.

(Applause)

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! I would like to highlight four of the motions that are addressed in the report.

On the building of the American Internal Revenue Service in Washington DC, the following words are engraved: Tax is the price we pay for a civilized society. They remind us of a fundamental truth: Without a fair distribution of resources, we cannot build a society where everyone is given the opportunity to live a good life.

Our path forward is clear. I believe in a regulated market economy where the state sets the framework, protects the weak, and at the same time creates space for more innovation. The state cannot abdicate before market forces – it must steer them. To leave the climate, welfare, and justice to an unregulated market is to betray both today's and tomorrow's generations.

To manage the climate transition and strengthen our welfare, courageous investments are required. Companies that contribute to the transition shall be rewarded, while activities that harm people or the environment shall bear their true costs.

Taxes should not only finance the welfare state but also shape the future. Through progressive taxes and fair distribution policies, we can reduce unemployment and combat child poverty. An equal society is not only more humane but also more stable and sustainable.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has one of the world's strongest trade union movements. This has served us well. In cooperation with responsible employers, the trade unions have contributed to high productivity and a functioning welfare state. The Swedish model is based on the labor market parties taking responsibility for wage formation, and therefore a mutual deduction right is reasonable. Trade union membership should be deductible, just as the employers' fees already are. It strengthens the balance and the entire labor market.

We must also look forward, Madam Speaker. The current tax system is about 40 years old. It has been patched and repaired, but it is no longer sufficient. We cannot solve today's problems with yesterday's system.

The tax ratio was around 50 percent in the 80s. Today it is around 42 percent. We face the challenges of the 2020s – more elderly people, a growing population and increased demands on welfare – with a tax take that has practically stood still for over 40 years. We already see the consequences in the form of increased inequalities, pressured municipalities, cuts in schools and a healthcare system that is on its knees. We cannot meet tomorrow's needs with yesterday's tax levels. Something must be done.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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