Value Added Tax

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Taxation's report 17 Value Added Tax. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report and the rejection of the motions.

The primary task of the tax system is to ensure stable tax revenues to finance our common welfare. To achieve this, clear and easy-to-understand rules are required. An understandable tax system strengthens legitimacy, reduces the administrative burden for both companies and private individuals, and reduces the risk of errors, negligence, and deliberate fraud.

In Sweden, we use both reduced value-added tax rates and full exemptions where VAT is not charged at all for certain goods and services. This arrangement is based on the EU's tax policy, which Sweden has chosen to adapt to. At the same time, it creates significant complications for both the business sector and the public sector. Investments and important welfare services risk not being realized, despite the ambition being there. The consequence could be a weaker economic development, lost jobs, and diminished international competitiveness.

If all exemptions were to disappear, the general VAT rate could be lowered to around 21 percent without reduced state revenues. Such a change, however, cannot be implemented quickly or without an overall reform of the entire tax system.

Madam Speaker! The system of differentiated VAT rates often leads to problems with boundaries and definitions, which can be perceived as both illogical and unfair. The tourism and visitor industry is a clear example. A ski lift ticket is taxed at 6 percent, but if one instead chooses to go up the hill by dog sled, the VAT becomes 25 percent for the same journey. If one needs to take a taxi to the swimming pool, the VAT is 6 percent, but – again – if one chooses to go there by dog sled, the VAT becomes 25 percent for the same transport distance. If the swimming pool only has lap swimming, the VAT on the entrance is 6 percent, but if there is also a water slide in the swimming pool, it is raised to 25 percent.

Even within the camping area, illogical differences prevail. Camping or staying in a simpler cabin or a caravan is taxed at 12 percent, but parking a motorhome at a pitch in a marina is taxed at 25 percent. When the camping season is over and one wants to winter-store their caravan or motorhome, 25 percent tax applies again. It is simply not reasonable that equivalent activities are taxed so differently.

Madam Speaker! There is a need for a review to create greater harmonization. The question of value-added tax is complex, and even in the future, there may be areas that need reduced VAT rates. One example in the near future is the food VAT, where a low level of VAT contributes to keeping food prices down. This is particularly significant in these times of economic uncertainty, when household purchasing power is being pressured. A continued low food VAT can provide both security and stability for Swedish families.

With the war in Iran, further cost increases are predicted given the rising fuel prices and everything that entails. There are also rumors of increasing inflation, which could lead to raised interest rates again. This means that the reduced food VAT is extra welcome in these times.

(Applause)

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

Marie Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 under point 1 in the Committee on Taxation's report. It concerns tax rates.

Today we are debating the Committee on Taxation's report on value-added tax. Value-added tax is the tax that we pay on almost all consumption of goods and services. The purpose of the value-added tax is fundamentally to generate revenue for the state.

During 2026, the state is expected to receive over 600 billion in revenue from the value-added tax. It is a significant portion of the state's revenue, approximately 42 percent. It is therefore no small area that we are debating today. Even if we perhaps do not debate value-added tax so often, it is an immensely important revenue.

We Social Democrats want to emphasize the importance of safeguarding the value-added tax as an effective source of revenue for the financing of our common welfare. To make the system transparent, efficient, and non-distorting, we believe that the value-added tax should primarily be uniform. It was positive to hear that even the member from Sverigedemokraterna from the rostrum advocated for a uniform value-added tax.

The value-added tax area is an area that today has several exceptions from the general principle. In order to safeguard the VAT as an effective source of revenue for the financing of the welfare system, a review is necessary. Therefore, it is also important to be cautious with further exceptions, even if these in themselves may have a positive purpose. Other measures than tax changes should be tested in the first instance.

While waiting for a review of the value-added tax, we Social Democrats believe that the government should act to counteract some of the distortions in the tax system. One such distortion is the so-called "dansband VAT," which means that access to dansband events is taxed more heavily than other cultural events. Therefore, we Social Democrats have demanded that the dansband VAT be lowered to 6 percent, which the government has complied with in a proposal that we will handle later here in the chamber.

It is the same thing with the VAT on food. Food prices have skyrocketed and are at very high levels. This led to us Social Democrats proposing a temporary reduction of the VAT on food. The Riksdag has already made a decision on it, and it will be implemented from April 1, even though we Social Democrats believe that the reform should have been combined with more reforms to strengthen household finances.

The major tax reform implemented in the early 90s was based on a number of distributive, sound, and economically rational principles to design a tax system that was both socio-economically and distributively efficient. One of the core principles was a more neutral and uniform taxation of different parts of private consumption. Since the reform was introduced in the early 90s, a number of years have passed, and a large number of deviations from the principles have been made. This concerns several exceptions and large tax cuts on income and wealth.

The large tax cuts for those who earn the most that the Sweden Democrats and the government have implemented are neither distributionally sound nor economically rational, but are merely about giving more money to those who already have a lot and less to those who have little. It is old classic right-wing politics for increased gaps and greater inequality that the Sweden Democrats and the government are driving.

Madam Speaker! All deviations in combination with other changes in tax policy after the reform's implementation have led to the fact that today's tax system is characterized by large and serious problems. This also applies to the value-added tax.

It is not only we Social Democrats who see the need for a review; a number of organizations have stated that a review is needed to simplify VAT management for companies and organizations. When it comes to companies, it is about the need for simplifications and uniformity. That is what they are requesting.

Svenskt Näringsliv describes the framework for VAT as a monster. It is the companies that have to bear the administrative burden of all the red tape that exists surrounding VAT. Svenskt Näringsliv has estimated the companies' VAT regulation costs to be as much as 17.5 billion kronor. That is not a small amount of money. Those costs must naturally be taken out somewhere in the chain, and probably quite a lot is taken from the consumers.

Companies testify that profitable investments in, for example, infrastructure, housing, reuse, export sales, and imports do not happen because the VAT rules counteract the transactions or are simply too complicated or uncertain. Here, Swedish jobs, growth, and climate investments are lost due to unnecessary complications.

The government usually talks about the importance of the business sector, but when it comes to a review of the value-added tax, it stops. Regulatory red tape is allowed to continue at the cost of high costs for companies, fewer jobs, and fewer investments.

When it comes to organizations, it concerns, among other things, the internal VAT that the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket) administers, which means that organizations that have several legal entities within the same organization shall pay when they try to streamline their operations in order to be able to spend as much money as possible on the activity itself.

In this case, the government has abstained from commenting to the Court of Justice of the EU when it had the opportunity to do so. Now we are waiting for the Court of Justice of the EU's ruling. Actually, we in this chamber are in complete agreement that there should be no internal VAT, so we really have to hope that the Court of Justice of the EU rules in accordance with the chamber's will.

In addition to all this, the complicated VAT rules we have are being exploited by criminals. Sweden has been hit hard by VAT carousel fraud, and the Swedish Tax Agency itself has admitted that the level of control has been far from sufficient. As you heard, serious companies spend 17.5 billion to do the right thing, and at the same time, fraudsters manage to exploit the complex rules, bypass the system, and defraud the state of many billions.

A proposal from the government will soon be handled in the chamber based on an investigation that the Social Democratic government commissioned in 2022. But according to that investigation, the measures being proposed will address approximately 10 percent of the VAT frauds. Therefore, it is extremely important that we continue the work with more tools and more methods to stop the frauds.

In previous debates here in the chamber, members from the government parties have argued that there is no need for a review of the tax system because instead there is a continuous ongoing work with changes to taxes. The problem with that view of the tax system is that there is never any review of the whole. It is neither hacked nor ground down, but instead there are changes here and there – and for the current government, above all, the prioritization of tax cuts for those who earn a lot.

Companies, private individuals and organisations all emphasize the importance of predictability in the tax system, and this also applies to value-added tax. With the government's current policy, which rejects a review of the tax system, that predictability will not materialize, and instead we will continue to have large and serious problems with complicated rules and more unstable tax bases.

We Social Democrats, like many others, see that the need for a new, comprehensive review of the tax system and the value-added tax is enormous. At this moment, we can only regret that the government does not share that view. Instead, it will have to wait until there is a Social Democratic government after the 2026 election.

(Applause)

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

Marie Nicholson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is not so often that VAT attracts great attention in the political debate. It is rarely seen in the headlines and is perhaps not discussed so often at the dinner table. But it is constantly present – it is in every grocery bag, in every ticket, and on every receipt. Precisely because of that, it is important that it functions well. A VAT system needs to be stable and understandable. When the rules are clear, the risk of errors decreases. When the exemptions are few, the boundaries become fewer, and when the system is predictable, companies can plan and the state can securely finance the welfare.

In the report we are now considering, there is a large number of proposals. Many of them are well-intentioned and formulated with good intentions. It is easy to sympathize with the ambition behind them, but every change of the VAT affects more than the individual issue it targets. More exceptions mean more boundary lines and a greater risk of absurdities with different VAT rates on similar products and services. This gives rise to differences that are sometimes difficult to explain to the public – sometimes perhaps even to ourselves. In addition, there is increased administration, increased costs, and greater uncertainty for the entrepreneur and for the state.

We need to be cautious, but we must not be so cautious that we are blinded. Sometimes there are reasons to make adjustments. Swedish households have recently lived through a period of high inflation and high fuel prices with rising food prices as a result. Household finances are strained. Last week, we therefore decided on a temporary change that will have a broad impact. On April 1, the food VAT will be halved. It will be noticed in the small family and in the large one, by the retiree, and perhaps a little extra in households with hungry teenagers.

It is a significant change but a measure to strengthen household economies and contribute to turning the economic cycle, so even though it involves an exception from the general VAT level, it is justifiable as a temporary measure in a special situation. It does not mean that we abandon the ambition for a clear system, but it shows that we are prepared to use the tools available when the situation so requires.

Madam Speaker! Within the VAT legislation, we often find ourselves in situations with unreasonable boundaries in the regulatory framework. The so-called "dansband VAT" is one such example. For many years, motions have been submitted on the issue from many Moderate members but also from other parties. This has been done precisely because the boundary has been so difficult to justify.

Today, an event is taxed at 6 percent if it is classified as a concert, but at 25 percent if it is classified as dance. One can, of course, stand up and spontaneously dance during a concert, but if the dance is at the center, it is no longer a concert. This has created an inconsistency that has been difficult to explain and has made the system more complicated than necessary.

Therefore, a bill regarding the "dansband tax" will be presented during the spring. The purpose is to create a more consistent and predictable taxation of cultural events so that similar arrangements are treated similarly. The VAT system should not decide whether the evening is called a concert or a dance. It is an injustice that we are now correcting.

In this context, I also think we should mention the cinema VAT. Even here, a discussion should be held on how cultural events should be defined.

It is regrettable that the Social Democrats in 2017 chose to raise the VAT on cinema tickets from 6 percent to 25 percent. Swedish cinemas are today in a very pressured position, and in many smaller towns, the cinema risks disappearing completely. It is very positive that the Social Democrats have now changed their opinion on the matter.

The question, however, is whether a reduced VAT alone is sufficient to reverse the development. The changes that have occurred in how film is consumed are significant. There is probably reason to follow the development closely. We will likely have to return to the question in the future, but then perhaps in a different committee.

Madam Speaker! The halving of the food VAT is a targeted measure to strengthen household finances in a pressured situation. The adjustment of the dance band VAT is about removing an unnecessary and difficult-to-explain distinction. These are two decisions that fall within one and the same direction: a stable and consistent VAT system that also functions when reality changes. The whole is crucial. We shall not introduce exceptions lightly, but when changes are made, they shall be justified and sustainable over time.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Marie Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is positive that the member from the Moderaterna also speaks about more uniform VAT rates. What I am wondering about is the discussion regarding the cinema VAT, where the member regrets that the Socialdemokrater increased it. My question to the member based on that is: Why don't you take the opportunity to lower it now? It is actually you who are in government now. It is you who have the majority.

When it comes to the VAT issues, one can say that they belong in another committee, as the member did. But the VAT belongs in the Committee on Taxation, not in the Committee on Culture, so my question to the member is: If it is so important, why have you not taken the opportunity to lower it now?

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

Marie Nicholson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

As I said in my speech, I still believe that the most important thing when talking about the VAT is that one should maintain a uniformity and have as few exemptions as possible.

The problem with the VAT is that we have been going in and tinkering and making these exemptions for all time, which has resulted in, for example, the VAT on books being very low and the VAT on cinema tickets being very low. When one then chooses to go in and raise the VAT, one easily pulls the rug out from under industries. One must keep that in mind in one's consideration of consequences when one chooses to raise certain VAT rates.

What happened with the cinemas was quite clear. I also know that it was presented that this would be decisive for many cinemas. A good number have closed, and especially in the countryside, it is extra tough times.

One can, of course, lower it anyway with reference to wanting to support a certain industry, but overall we should keep our fingers to ourselves and not be in there poking and creating unnecessary problems in our mom-legislation.

But as for the cinema industry specifically, I do not think, as I said, that it is enough. In the current situation, I do not think it would be enough to lower the VAT. I believe it is a larger question of whether the cinemas should remain, if it is worth it for us to step in and support them, and how one should view the cinema industry – whether it is a part of culture or whether we should let market forces rule. It is a broader question, and I do not think that specific one belongs in this debate.

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

Marie Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I find it even more remarkable that it is asserted here in the speaker's chair that the Social Democrats raised the cinema VAT when one is currently in power and actually has the opportunity to change it but does not do so. It is quite remarkable, I think.

In the Swedish Tax Agency's tax evasion report from 2025, which arrived quite recently, the Swedish Tax Agency reports that the tax evasion within the VAT area is the largest in absolute terms. It is a total of 29 billion kronor in tax evasion.

According to the Swedish Tax Agency, the high amount is partly due to the fact that many are covered by the VAT rules, and partly due to the fact that the regulatory framework is so complex. It is, in other words, too complicated. It is also, naturally, due to the VAT fraud.

A complete review of the entire value-added tax area is clearly needed, a review that entails greater uniformity and significant simplifications. It must be easy for companies to do the right thing.

My question to the member based on this is then: Why do the member, the government, and the Sweden Democrats, who are actually a supporting party to the government, not want to contribute to a review that leads to simplifications and which at the same time ensures that the holes for further VAT fraud are closed?

(Applause)

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

Marie Nicholson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe we need to have a reform for the sake of reform. On the other hand, one needs to review the purpose.

What is the purpose of carrying out a review of some kind? Yes, to achieve proper regulatory simplifications for our companies and reduce their administrative burden. This is work that is ongoing in the government and has been ongoing throughout the entire mandate period, and proposals are submitted continuously.

Furthermore, there is a proper amount of work ongoing within the EU. We are very bound by the EU's VAT directive. Here, we have pushed through that there should be one rule in and one rule out, which is commendable. Ideally, we would like to have one rule in and two rules out. This does not only concern the VAT legislation – the taxes also receive a proper review through the European Parliament's Omnibus.

We will, of course, continue to work on the issues. But to initiate a major reform effort solely for the sake of reform, I believe is to waste energy that we could spend on other things to ensure that we get the best possible regulatory framework for our entrepreneurs.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! The tax system should be simple and fair. For the tax system to be perceived as legitimate, it is important that the tax rules are general and simple and have broad tax bases. That was also the starting point for the major tax reform in the early 90s.

Since then, many deviations from these principles have been made. The tax system has become a hodgepodge of deductions, reductions, and abatements of various taxes. This is noticeable, not least in the area of value-added tax.

The value-added tax rates have been lowered but also raised based on political priorities. In many cases, a lowered value-added tax has only resulted in increased profits for the one who sells the good or service. In some cases, it has also been the purpose to save a struggling industry. But in other cases, the purpose has been to make the good or service cheaper for the buyer, not to increase the seller's profit.

The general rule for value-added tax should be that it is uniform with few exceptions. In this report, there are many different proposals regarding exemptions from ordinary VAT. These are proposals for reduced VAT on private music lessons, reduced VAT on pleasure boats in guest harbors and reduced VAT on amusement parks, to name a few, but also reduced VAT on secondhand goods and repairs.

Madam Speaker! I stand behind all my reservations in the report but move for approval only to reservation 11, which concerns the hidden value-added tax.

According to the Act on Compensation for Certain Value Added Tax for Municipalities, Regions, Municipal Associations and Coordination Associations, municipalities and regions have the right to compensation for included tax that cannot be deducted. The municipality also has the right to compensation for the increased costs that arise when procuring activities within healthcare, dental care, social care and education, as well as when renting premises for such housing forms. The municipality also has the right to compensation when it provides grants to a business operator for their activities within the aforementioned areas.

The size of these compensations is calculated according to a standard formula. The formula has been calculated to 6 percent of the total cost for the private contractor, and it was set in 1991 based on the VAT rate of 25 percent and the assumption that 30 percent of the costs arise due to the purchase of value-added tax-liable goods and services. Compensation can also be given with 18 percent for local costs plus 5 percent of the remaining costs.

Since the flat-rate was introduced, for example, the VAT on food has been lowered to 12 percent, and it is now being lowered further. Private business is, however, still compensated with a flat-rate based on 25 percent VAT on all goods and services.

In 2014, an inquiry was appointed with the task of reviewing the compensation for hidden value-added tax in procurement of or grant funding for activities within healthcare, dental care, social care, and education, and in the rental of premises for certain forms of housing. The starting point was that proposals for changes to the regulatory framework would aim for competition neutrality in the choice between municipal and private management for the activities being conducted.

The investigation concluded that the flat-rate amount was higher than the municipalities' cost for the hidden value-added tax. The investigation proposed that the flat-rate amount should be lowered, but since the investigation's proposal was never implemented – there was never any government bill – the compensation is still higher than the actual costs. When a municipality receives compensation according to the flat-rate amount but has a lower cost, the private operation becomes de facto cheaper than an operation conducted in-house.

A good example of the latter is Uppsala municipality, which in its referral response stated that the municipality would lose 30 million kronor per year if the flat rate were lowered. The red-green majority in Uppsala, which I was a part of from 2014–2018, decided to take back outsourced activities into own management when the contracts expired. It turned out to be more expensive than we expected because we lost revenue from the flat rate system. Having activities in private hands instead of in own management thus generates revenue for the municipality and benefits municipalities with a lot of outsourced activity.

Another problem that has arisen in recent years is that several municipalities have chosen to corporatize their own care activities. With different arrangements, one can obtain extra VAT compensation for the properties where the activities are located. For the municipalities, the extra millions they receive are important because they can be allocated to the activities or perhaps to lowering taxes. This means that municipal activities are corporatized or outsourced to finance operations, which is a kind of tax planning for the municipalities.

Madam Speaker! Compensation for hidden value-added tax was introduced to achieve cost neutrality between own and outsourced operations, but is in fact a compensation that favors outsourced or corporatized operations. It therefore does not contribute to the cost neutrality that was intended. To get an overview of the current actual cost of the hidden value-added tax, a new investigation should be commissioned. The starting point for such an investigation should be to ensure that the system neither favors private operation nor encourages the corporatization of municipal activities or municipal assets.

A tax system that favors private operation and incorporation is not a good tax system. I would gladly see a system that favors self-management, but the proposal that I and the Vänsterpartiet now move for approval is a system that is neutral regarding the form of operation. It is something that all parties should be able to stand behind.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! The value-added tax is one of the most important sources of revenue for the state and a central part of our tax system. It finances the welfare and our common commitments. At the same time, the VAT system must be simple, transparent, and fair both for companies and for consumers.

At its core, the VAT system is based on a simple principle: the tax is collected at every stage but is ultimately borne by the consumer. For the system to function well, it is required that the rules are clear and that the tax is as neutral as possible, but the reality is unfortunately more complicated. For many years, the VAT system has been filled with exceptions, special rules, and different tax rates, which has led to boundary-setting problems and a regulatory framework that sometimes appears incomprehensible.

The Christian Democrats want to see a VAT system that is more transparent and more consistent. At the same time, the policy must be sensitive to people's everyday lives and to the costs that households face. A clear example is food prices. Many households, not least families with children and elderly people with small margins, notice that food has become increasingly expensive. Food is not a luxury consumption but a basic necessity.

The Christian Democrats view the reduction of the VAT on food positively, which we have pushed for previously. It contributes to alleviating the cost pressure on households and makes it easier for people to make their everyday finances work. When prices rise rapidly, it is reasonable for politics to use the tools available to dampen the effects.

Madam Speaker! Another concrete example comes from the cultural area, and many have spoken about it before. It concerns the so-called dance band VAT, which applies to arrangements where people gather to dance to music. Today, the entrance is taxed at 25 percent, which is significantly higher than for other cultural arrangements, such as concerts and theater. There, a 6 percent VAT applies. This has long been perceived as unfair because the experience in many cases is similar regardless of whether one stands still or dances to the music.

The government is now changing this so that the VAT on admission to dance events is lowered from 25 to 6 percent from July 1 this year. The proposal covers admission to dance events, and it does not matter what type of dance or music it is – whether it is a dance band, nightclub or similar arrangements, visitors are given the opportunity to dance to music at 6 percent instead of 25 percent VAT.

Madam Speaker! This is an important recognition that culture is something that enriches society. That dance band music events are taxed in the same way as concerts and theater is a matter of both justice and cultural policy. At the same time, it is a reminder that tax policy must be responsive to reality and see the actors and organizers who build meeting places and social community out in our country.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats also appreciate the proposal for simpler VAT rules for gifts and used goods. The regulatory framework is simplified for companies that sell used goods and for companies that want to donate goods to charity. The purpose is to reduce the administrative burden and increase predictability.

The rules on simplified profit margin taxation shall be expanded so that they can be applied when the price of the item is not known but is below 10,000 kronor. This makes it easier for companies to sell used goods without getting caught in complicated administration.

It is also pointed out that donations of food to approved non-profit organizations should be able to be made without triggering VAT. VAT would risk extinguishing the incentives to donate food that would otherwise risk going to waste. This is an important step to facilitate for companies to contribute to civil society and reduce food waste.

Madam Speaker! It is positive that it is now being decided to simplify and modernize the VAT system to respond to both sustainability and reuse and social responsibility. At the same time, we must continue to monitor that these changes do not create new difficult and tangled rules but truly simplify for companies and organizations in practice.

The government is tightening measures against VAT fraud, including by giving the Swedish Tax Agency greater opportunities to control registrations, deny tax liability, and handle input VAT in cases of suspected tax evasion. It is important to protect the public sector's revenues while simultaneously preserving the openness and legal certainty that exists in the business sector.

In conclusion, our starting point is that VAT shall be an effective and stable tax base, but it must also be a tool that does not stand in the way of a sustainable society, a strong civil society, or small-scale entrepreneurship. We want a system where the good forces are given space to operate, where the regulatory framework is understandable, and where policy shall not occur at the expense of those who create jobs, commitment, and social cohesion.

Madam Speaker! We look forward to continued dialogue and political governance in these matters.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

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

It is a bit fun to debate tax issues and VAT issues. In a way, we are very much in agreement. I am quite sure that the person listening to this from the outside without knowing who is speaking would think it could be anyone of us. We all have opinions and want to do something about the different strange VAT rates. It is probably difficult to figure out who represents the majority and the opposition. It is not strange. I am not saying this to mock, but to highlight that this is a bit tricky.

I still want to ask questions about how the government actually views this. It was not the member, but a member who spoke earlier, who said that one should not make a reform for the sake of the reform. But I was not as quick, as Marie was, in requesting a reply then.

Everyone wants to do something about this. But what is the government actually doing about these strange VAT rates? Is one paying off a VAT rate for a VAT rate in strange areas, as has been profitably done with, for example, the dansband VAT? Or does one have a long-term plan for how to do it? Is there a thought about reviewing at least the VAT system, or perhaps the entire tax system, in the long term? During the previous parliamentary term, with the January agreement, one actually got quite far in setting up directives for that, but it did not happen.

What are the thoughts in the Government Offices regarding exactly the VAT policy? Are there thoughts on a comprehensive reform?

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Helena Vilhelmsson!

We all see that the VAT often becomes a major problem, especially for small businesses. There, the boundary-setting problems become even greater. But I believe there is a will to do the right thing.

The government does what it can within the system we have today. For a larger overhaul of the VAT system, I believe a larger tax reform is needed where all parts are reviewed. There is, after all, always a risk that someone will be unfairly affected during a change.

As a Christian Democrat, I have long thought that we should actually have one and the same VAT, and then it does not need to be at 25 percent, as it is today. If we were to have the same VAT on everything, we could lower the general VAT. But that is not where we are today, and we have to take one step at a time.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Then we must continue to work towards a larger reform where we move towards a uniform VAT. I completely agree with the member that that is what is needed. But I do not see that those initiatives have been taken by the current government. It remains to be done in the future.

I intend to shift focus and ask a question that is not directly related to the VAT clause itself, but rather to the policy on how the VAT is collected. It concerns what is commonly called "travmoms" (travel VAT). It does not lie with the member's ministry, but with another ministry. However, it affects an industry that we both are very enthusiastic about, and it is the member's party colleague who is the Minister for Rural Affairs.

Horse activities are extremely important. Therefore, it is very unfortunate that it is still highly unclear how VAT is to be levied on horse businesses within harness racing. It is being decided in court and in HFD. Still, we may say, the Swedish Tax Agency does not care that much about it. The member shall, of course, not be held responsible for what the Swedish Tax Agency does and does not do. But it is distressing to see that the pursued policy goes against what everyone here in the chamber has actually established and how we want it to look.

It is still unclear whether harness racing companies are entitled to deduct VAT or not and how the Swedish Tax Agency decides when it is not exactly such a situation that has been decided in HFD. At exactly that many horses and exactly that much turnover, one is entitled to do so, but not otherwise. That is how it looks in reality.

Have there been any discussions within the government? If the member has the opportunity to say something about this, I would be extremely grateful.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! There is, of course, a commitment to these issues also within our party. The Christian Democrats champion rural issues and truly see that there is a need here as well. At the same time, we perhaps cannot step in and direct what the Swedish Tax Agency does and does not do. Court processes are ongoing. We find it difficult to step in and direct how they should be interpreted and what they do. As long as not all outcomes are clear, it is difficult to say what we would change.

We are changing the VAT rates that we can change. Food is important for people, and we have the opportunity to lower that VAT. Likewise, it is the case regarding the dansband VAT. We see that it is important for people who live in the countryside.

We are trying to take them gradually. But unfortunately, I cannot say that we will do anything about this. Skatteverket has the tasks they have and runs the processes they do. We cannot step in and direct them in a more concrete way.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker, listeners and members! Today we are therefore debating value-added tax. It is a tax that for many is a line on a receipt, which we have heard about here today. But it is in fact one of our most powerful instruments. VAT can be a bureaucratic burden that stifles entrepreneurship and complicates things for non-profit forces. But it can also be a lever to strengthen Sweden's self-sufficiency, accelerate the climate transition, and safeguard a vibrant association life.

Centerpartiet sees the opportunities. We see how a smarter and more logical VAT and tax policy could make Sweden stronger. The government, on the other hand, seems mostly to see a reason to wait and refers to processes.

Madam Speaker! There is a broad consensus in the chamber that today's VAT system is a patchwork. We have heard this pointed out many times, and everyone agrees. It is filled with incomprehensible boundaries. A dansband evening is taxed more heavily than a concert. There is lower VAT on a horse ride on an Icelandic horse than on a more adventurous ride in the mountains. There is a different VAT rate on takeaway than on food you stand and eat. It is almost provocative.

It is not just absurdities and funny anecdotes, however. It also creates an administrative burden that steals time and energy from our entrepreneurs. It is time that they should spend on developing their businesses and hiring more people.

I cannot interpret it in any other way than that the government has had as a strategy to make the VAT more reasonable VAT rate for VAT rate. That is very good. We are grateful for that. But the whole is missing.

Today I want to focus on four areas where the government, according to the Center Party, has extra much to do and where our proposals would make a real difference.

Firstly, it is about the food on our tables. We have talked about it today. We have discussed reduced food VAT. It is still the case, Madam Speaker, that almost every other bite we eat in Sweden is imported. In an increasingly uncertain global situation, this represents a vulnerability we cannot accept. Swedish farmers produce world-class food with high requirements for animal welfare and low climate impact. But they compete in a global market, where they all too often struggle uphill, weighed down by Swedish taxes and fees.

That is why we have, in our motions, demanded an immediate audit of the food chain's total costs from farm to fork. We must identify and lower the taxes and fees that make Swedish food unnecessarily expensive and which erode the profitability for our farmers. We propose, among other things, a permanent agricultural deduction. It was initially a proposal for a committee initiative in the Committee on Taxation. The Government has, however, said no to the proposal. The motions are rejected.

We think it would be better to invest fundamentally in ensuring that we have Swedish food on the table in a crisis and that the farmers in our country shall be able to live on their work. The majority's stance is worrying, especially considering today's unrest in the world.

Lowered food VAT, some think. Yes, but the reduction is temporary, like so much else that the government has done. Lowered employer contributions for youth is another example. It is an election year, after all.

Secondly, it is about the climate transition and our energy security, Madam Speaker. While the government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has dismantled the reduction obligation and made Sweden more dependent on fossil oil from authoritarian states, we in the Center Party have proposed a different path. We call it a smart Swedish policy. All around our country, in the forests and on the fields, there are the raw materials for the future's green fuels. By lowering the VAT on biofuels, biogas, and hydrogen to the EU's lowest permitted level, we can make the Swedish sustainable alternative competitive at the pump.

This is a policy that reduces emissions, creates jobs, primarily in rural areas, and strengthens our national preparedness. It is a policy for Sweden, which we do not think the government's policy is, especially not in a situation where there is a crisis.

For the third point, it concerns our invaluable association life, which I touched upon slightly earlier as well, Madam Speaker. Voluntary commitment is the glue in our society. But instead of facilitating for sports clubs and study associations, today's VAT rules put spokes in the wheels.

We have the absurd problem with the internal VAT. State grants that are supposed to go to operations are instead forced to be paid back to the state as VAT. As I have mentioned in previous debates, one of our largest study associations is now fighting in the EU Court to avoid an annual VAT bill of 4.5 million kronor. These are funds that should have gone to adult education.

We are now waiting for an opinion from the EU. The government can comfortably lean back and do nothing while waiting for it. Someone said earlier that we all agree that we do not want it this way. I am actually a bit unsure about that, because the government chose not to submit any opinion to the European Court of Justice.

For the fourth, it is about legal certainty, Madam Speaker. I want to conclude by speaking a bit more about the so-called "travmoms" (travel VAT). This is about something much larger: legal certainty and predictability for our entrepreneurs.

We have a situation where the Swedish Tax Agency, with a foolhardy persistence, if I may express it that way, refuses to follow the ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court. Court after court in lower instances has established that prize money from trotting and galloping competitions constitutes income from economic activity. Therefore, there should be no doubt that one should have the right to deduct VAT. Still, the Swedish Tax Agency continues to assert the opposite, which creates enormous uncertainty for thousands of entrepreneurs within the horse industry, an industry that is invaluable for our countryside.

We believe that the government must do something about this and have expressed this in a motion. It is clear that the government cannot micro-manage an agency, but one must be able to initiate a discussion and start an investigation into why it has become this way. Why is it that the agencies do not do what we all want in this assembly?

Madam Speaker! We have presented concrete proposals to strengthen Swedish food production, accelerate the climate transition, facilitate life in associations, and guarantee legal certainty for our entrepreneurs. The Government has said no to all of it. It is a passivity that we cannot afford.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 9.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! This debate in the Committee on Taxation is supposed to be about value-added tax. Sometimes I think we in the Committee on Taxation tend to "run off" and talk about all sorts of things. But today, I actually think we have really talked about just value-added tax. That this interests the members of the Riksdag is shown by the many motions that have been raised – a total of 42, if I have counted correctly. Curiously, it is exactly as many as last spring. But they are not exactly the same motions.

VAT is an important source of income for the state and needs to be protected. VAT has existed since 1969 and has changed a few times, most recently on July 1, 2023. The state's revenues from value-added tax are one of its largest sources of income and amounted to over 600 billion kronor in the budget forecasts for 2026. According to the EU's value-added tax directive, member states shall have a standard tax rate, which may not be lower than 15 percent. Member states may also apply a maximum of two reduced tax rates, which may not be lower than 5 percent.

What do the proposers want then? Yes, the proposers want to change the VAT rate in a number of completely different areas that they see as very pressing. No one wants to raise the VAT rate to 25 percent, but everyone wants to lower it to 6 or 12 percent. Some motions are very detailed. There is, for example, a motion from Miljöpartiet where they want to lower the VAT on organic food.

Another slightly interesting motion has been raised by Amanda Lind with several other Green Party members, who want to lower the VAT on cinema performances. The interesting thing is that the VAT on cinema tickets was raised from 6 to 25 percent in 2017 by the then red-green government, in which the Green Party was included. The Culture Minister was then Alice Bah Kuhnke, Green Party. The increase led, just as Marie Nicholson said earlier, to more expensive tickets and a reduced number of cinema visits. Smaller cinemas, which are often located in smaller towns, were hit hardest.

There is an investigation on new film policy, "Audience in focus – reforms for a stronger film industry," where it is proposed to lower the VAT on cinema screenings from 25 to 6 percent. This investigation report is being prepared within the Government Offices, and we simply have to see what the proposal becomes.

Madam Speaker! When the then Folkpartiet and the Socialdemokrater agreed on a tax reform in 1991, the idea was that everyone should pay a municipal tax of maximum 30 percent and that high-income earners should pay maximum 50 percent. A slogan for many was "half left over." To keep it simple, the VAT was to be uniform. That is still the basic principle. The starting point should therefore be a uniform value-added tax and the application of the normal tax rate. The committee expressed this most recently in the report on the budget bill for 2026. This applies all the time. That is how it is in theory, but not always in practice.

Already after a few years, this changed. The municipal tax rates have skyrocketed. Today, there are only about ten municipalities that have a tax rate below 30 kronor, including my own home municipality Solna. There are several municipalities that are above 35 kronor.

When the government moves the breaking point for those who are to pay state tax, the Social Democrats and the Left say that the government only wants to favor the rich. The truth is that the government only wants to remain at the principle of half remaining, the exact same thought that the Social Democrats embraced in 1991.

Already at an income of 53,300, one starts to pay state tax. In the municipalities that have very high municipal taxes, one can actually pay 55 percent in tax.

Successively, the VAT rates have also been changed. The purpose has been good, and even the Liberals may have sinned at some point and lowered the VAT on some product group.

There are oddities in the system, which some have pointed out previously. A clear example is the dance band VAT, which the government now proposes should be lowered from 25 percent to 6 percent.

Today, the VAT is 6 percent on cultural performances. Here, there has been a difference depending on whether you sit still or dance. If you sit still and listen, it is 6 percent; if you dance, it becomes 25 percent. What happens if someone goes to a concert where one first sits and then starts dancing during the concert? It would be interesting to see.

Sometimes, however, reduced VAT can be used to stimulate the economy. Therefore, the government proposes a reduced VAT on food, from 12 percent to 6 percent, from 1 April 2026 to 31 December 2027 to ease household finances. The decision is very timely given what is happening in the Middle East and the risk of increased prices due to the war.

It must however be taken into account that different VAT rates lead to many different boundary problems and difficulties for individual entrepreneurs. It is not uncommon that entrepreneurs must apply three different VAT rates, and it can be difficult to see why different rules should be applied. The dance band VAT is an example of this.

Timbro has conducted an investigation on what consequences a differentiated VAT would have. They say that it entails increased bureaucracy for companies and the authorities and very unclear boundaries between different products. One also does not always get the distribution policy effects one wants.

I myself sit on the board of a small cultural foundation with a turnover of 3 million kronor. I took this example last spring as well, but I have done it a bit differently now. We must take into account three VAT rates: books 6 percent, café 12 percent and other 25 percent. But if we sell guiding, 25 percent, and fika in the café, 12 percent, as a product, our accounting consultant says we must charge 25 percent in VAT.

Just as Jimmy Ståhl from Sverigedemokraterna said, it creates strange effects. If you buy liver paste for your cat, the VAT rate is 25 percent. If you buy liver paste for yourself, the VAT rate is 12 percent today, but it is going to become 6 percent.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals believe that tax policy has become more and more impenetrable. We would need to take a holistic approach to income taxes, excise taxes, other taxes, and VAT. Every time we make a much-needed change, we risk triggering a domino effect. It is better to take a holistic approach. We need to carry out a review of the entire tax system – a tax reform, quite simply.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of the Committee on Taxation's proposal for a decision in the report.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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