Point tax and customs

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Taxation's report number 13 Excise Duty and Customs. I begin by moving for approval of the proposal in the report. We have no reservations. I still intended to devote a few words to how we view this matter of tax and customs. There are reasons to reflect on it for various reasons. The time we live in today is historically uncertain. We have an economic crisis. We have a cost crisis for households and welfare. We have an employment crisis and a healthcare crisis. Housing construction is being abruptly halted, unemployment is increasing, and growth is negative. Sweden and the Swedish people are becoming poorer. I will return to that expression later, Madam Speaker.

A policy for full employment has during the post-war period been an instrument to achieve a more equal and egalitarian society. This policy, together with the construction of the universal welfare state, has been one of the pillars of the Swedish folkhemmet model and remains so to this day. It is also a policy that has very strong support in large parts of the population, but unfortunately not in the government, for the government is today paralyzed in its actions. Its spring budget for 2024 will neither stop the cuts in healthcare nor increase housing construction. It will not help Swedish families with children out of the cost crisis or put a stop to the violence on the streets.

The economic policy that we Social Democrats would have implemented if we had led the government would have been to achieve full employment in order to finance our common welfare and important social investments and to invest in schools, healthcare, elderly care, and the justice system. This is where the tax policy comes in, Madam Speaker. That is why we pay taxes.

If we are to have a legitimate and fair tax system, it is important that the tax rules are general, with broad tax bases and tax rates that are well-balanced against the goals of the economic policy. In addition to this, the tax system shall contribute to redistribution, equality, and equity. If we are to achieve this, it is important with clear rules that contribute to understanding and legitimacy for the tax system and reduce the scope and risks for errors and fraud. This is something that we must guard against.

One can imagine that we make concessions from the principle of general tax rules, and we do. In some cases, we have justified this with explicit requirements for governance or socio-economic efficiency reasons. Through taxes, we can promote a strong welfare state and better public health as well as steer towards reduced environmental impact. But when we talk about this type of tax, it is also important to remember that an excessive focus on optimization and governance through the tax system risks making the tax system complicated and, in the long run, eroding the funding of the welfare state. There are therefore strong reasons for uniformity in the tax system. This is our fundamental view on taxes and our view on how excise taxes can be used.

When it comes to customs and the possibilities of stopping cross-border crime and the smuggling of weapons, drugs, and money into Sweden, Tullverket has a completely decisive operation for us to be able to carry out the fight against crime. One must also stop the export of stolen goods, break up organized crime, and increase safety in our country. To manage these different missions, the resources for Tullverket need to increase. Customs' powers must be reviewed and updated so that they can combat crime in the most expedient way.

Madam Speaker! Regarding these observations, it is concerning that the government, in its budget, does not allocate funds so that the customs service can manage this. We Social Democrats included in our budget proposal, which unfortunately lost here in the chamber last autumn, 100 million extra beyond the government's investments in Tullverket so that the agency would have greater opportunities to carry out these important societal missions.

Now, at least, comes the bill that will finally give the Customs the opportunity to carry out all the assignments that we politically are actually in agreement on, hopefully to pass through the Riksdag. But these are proposals that were essentially ready on the government's table when the Finance Minister and the rest of the government entered the Government Offices. The investigation that primarily forms the basis for the proposals was completed in September 2022.

We Social Democrats have several times in the chamber and via motions pointed out that it is time for the government to do something and to implement the proposals, so that the customs service receives these powers and can carry out its mission more effectively. But the government has stalled and stalled. We have set demands. We have had interpellation debates. The government has stalled. There have been words, but there has been no work.

One of the arguments the government has put forward for not implementing the already investigated proposals has been that they unfortunately held the presidency in the EU during part of the time. But that one is to have such a presidency is something that everyone knows, something that one knows many years in advance. Naturally, the Government Offices are staffed to manage this in addition to the ordinary operations.

Exactly why the government has messed up so much, we will never really find out. I have asked the Minister for Finance that question several times. But it certainly cannot be that one has any burning interest in strengthening the tariff.

It was promised that the bill would arrive in March - March 19, I believe it was - and be able to be processed during the spring. March 19 came and went, but no bill was submitted. Now the bill has finally reached the Riksdag, and we will hopefully be able to process it so that it can enter into force in the autumn of 2024.

It is therefore important to remember that the proposal in the investigation submitted to the government was that this should enter into force on 1 July 2023. For almost one and a half years, the government's dithering will have thus withheld from the customs these opportunities to strengthen their operations. This is, of course, a major problem.

When we eventually, hopefully, get these bills through and they can eventually, a year and a half too late, begin to take effect, that is good and well. Then we can hopefully see the results of the reinforced powers. But, Madam Speaker, then comes the next problem. It is also necessary that the government allocates funds for the customs, so that the customs receive the resources and strength to carry out the new assignments. It is something that we will monitor. We will pursue the government so that the new powers and the new tools are financed.

When I took part of the spring bill, which the government submitted the other day, I could not avoid looking at the government's presentation of its spring amendment budget. It is actually almost a bit cute, if one may use such an expression in the Riksdag's speaker's chair, Madam Speaker, that on the last page it is written: "Sweden shall become richer and safer." It is only to underline and agree as a Social Democrat.

It is clear that Sweden should become wealthier and safer, but it also means that the Finance Minister and the government acknowledge that Sweden has been poorer and more dangerous. That is what we Social Democrats have pointed out time and again here in various debates – that Sweden has become poorer and more dangerous during the time of the Moderate-led government.

If we Social Democrats are given the opportunity to push through our proposals here in the Riksdag, for example, the customs authority investigation, Sweden might perhaps become a little less poor and a little less dangerous. But that remains to be seen.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! During the speech that Member Björck gave, there was one thing that I pondered a bit. I agreed with quite a lot regarding the starting points of the tax system, the income tax part and the excise taxes, but the reasoning faded after a while. The principles were there, but when one came to the individual parts of the excise taxes, the reasoning ended. Then one moved on to complaining about the government.

I feel prompted to ask some questions to Member Björck about how the Social Democrats view the excise taxes that perhaps are not working so exceptionally well.

Member of the Board Björck said that it was very important that there was good acceptance and good functionality and that there were broad and uniform parts in the tax system. If one looks at the chemical tax and the aviation tax, one sees that they have not become so accurate. They may not have achieved their purpose when it comes to steering. They may have achieved their purpose when it comes to the fiscal part, but the steering has not been so perfect.

Then I have a small, short question: Do the Social Democrats think we should abolish the aviation tax and the chemicals tax, or how do you actually view these two point taxes?

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the aviation tax, we believe it should remain as it is now. We have no proposals to abolish it. On the other hand, we believe it is important to consider whether, within the EU system, one can review if other ways to handle the taxation on aviation can be found. We have no proposals today to abolish the aviation tax, but as said, one could potentially, via European policy, find better ways to handle this.

We also have no proposals for phasing out the chemical tax - as a direct answer to the question.

When it comes to these different taxes, which in some sense violate the principle that it should be uniform and simple, there are, of course, also constantly other motives for taxing. In that case, one must, of course, constantly evaluate and review whether those motives are fully achieved.

Then we also have the problem that we are facing a situation today where we need revenues - let's just be honest about that. We have enormously large expenses ahead of us to repair the welfare system, and there will also be costs regarding defense in the future. We therefore need to review and be careful when we forgo revenues. We do not quite have a situation today where we can be irresponsible regarding revenues. It is rather the case that the needs ahead, in both welfare and defense, for example, will be very large.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! One can reflect, as Member Björck did in his opening statement, on how effective different taxes are. That is why I wanted to ask this question. I interpret it as that Member Björck and the Socialdemokrater think that even if the purpose has not been achieved with any of these taxes – the purpose to steer towards lower consumption, towards better environmental awareness, towards transition or towards alternative fuels or alternative functions – one should still keep a tax because it provides a fiscal revenue.

This is what did not quite add up in the first speech. It creates a system where one can erode the legitimacy of the tax system. I think, in itself, that it was a good answer from Member Björck, but I am still surprised. Now that we have this type of excise taxes which are intended to steer and whose main purpose is not fiscal, it still becomes a bit strange. Should we not take the initiative to abolish or change these two taxes?

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats have for a longer period presented the need for a comprehensive tax reform. The Social Democrats are completely convinced that, in order for us to be able to manage to carry out such a reform, it is important that we have a broad agreement in the Swedish Riksdag so that we get a tax system that holds over time, where one does not poke in a plastic bag tax one day and poke it out the next day, to take a well-known example.

We need a review of all excise taxes, capital taxes, and income taxes, of how we are to fundamentally handle the relationship between income tax and capital tax, how we redistribute in a way so that it becomes a fair tax system and, above all, how we get a tax system that in the long term pays for all the commitments that we have in common.

It is probably the answer to the member's question, Madam Speaker: a proper, comprehensive tax reform that reviews all parts of the tax system and corrects any inaccuracies and corrects that which may not be heading in the right direction, but which still ensures that the revenues are preserved.

It is clear that there can be different political views on the tax systems, but it is incredibly important that one does not neglect the revenue side. We all in this chamber, I believe, have an understanding that we face enormous challenges. We have an infrastructure that has a large maintenance need, we have, as mentioned, defense expenditures, and we have a healthcare crisis. We must, therefore, be careful about the revenues.

We are absolutely prepared to review the tax system and carry out a comprehensive tax reform that returns a tax system that today is patched and repaired to being more uniform and more general. It is our absolute ambition.

(Applause)

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! The imposition of excise duties must be done in a way that achieves the purpose of the tax, that is, to steer consumption or investments in a certain direction, with regard to the effects that one wishes to achieve. The excise duties are also an important source of income for the state.

The report deals with the motions that have been submitted during the general motion period. The Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind all their reservations in this report, but for the sake of time, I only request approval of reservation 15 under point 7.

Madam Speaker! The overall assessment of point taxation is that it often hits the business sector, not least when it comes to the chemicals tax. From the previous government, there also seemed to be no self-criticism when we look at the various point taxes that were simply pumped out.

The purpose of excise taxes is to steer consumption and investments in a justifiable direction with regard to public health, environmental benefits, or other effects one wishes to achieve. This should not hit Swedish companies or Swedish consumers in an unreasonable way.

The chemicals tax was introduced to reduce, among other things, the presence of flame retardants in electronics. The chemicals tax is difficult to justify from an environmental perspective, as it rather hinders development towards the desired goal and has functioned as a punitive tax on home electronics without contributing to any significant extent to reducing the presence of dangerous chemicals.

The Swedish market is, in a global perspective, a small market for the electronics giants, which means that an isolated Swedish punitive taxation on electronic products has a limited impact on their assortment. Since there is simultaneously global competition regarding pricing, it becomes natural that consumers choose to import their electronics rather than turn to their local electronics retailer, whereby jobs and VAT revenues are lost in Sweden.

The chemicals tax pays off, in other words, only on the margin for the state, and its effect on health and the environment is and remains uncertain. The chemicals tax therefore does not fulfill its purpose and is a burden for the business sector.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats were already opposed to the proposal before the chemical tax was introduced and have, since the previous Social Democratic government introduced it, worked to have it abolished.

The new government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has reversed the negative development of unjustifiable point taxes.

Among other things, the plastic bag tax is a point tax that we have been against and subsequently pushed to abolish, as it, like the chemicals tax, has not had the significant environmental effect that the previous Social Democratic government claimed it would have upon its introduction. Our fears turned out to be true after analysis, and we have now, together with the sitting government, decided to remove this flop of a point tax.

Together with the government, the Sweden Democrats have also agreed on the proposal that motorhomes shall no longer be covered by the malus tax. This is, of course, a welcome announcement within the motorhome industry, which has previously submitted complaints against the taxation since the motorhomes covered by it are only driven an average of 400 miles per year.

The proposal means that the increased vehicle tax on motorhomes next year can be abolished since it only hits the motorhome industry without any further environmental benefit. This is also an example of when the Sweden Democrats pursue a policy within the excise tax area where the impact on reality takes precedence over unjustifiable taxation.

It is also proposed that the excise tax on cigarettes and snus be changed. A reduction of the snus tax by 20 percent and an increase of the cigarette tax by 9 percent is in line with the health impact that each respective tobacco product entails for the Swedish people.

Madam Speaker! These are just a few of the many proposals that the Sweden Democrats have put forward which have proven to be better anchored in reality than the previous government's proposals. Therefore, I want to emphasize once again that the chemical tax, together with the rest of the Sweden Democrats' reservations in the report, has the same reality-based purpose, namely that the excise taxes shall be used as economic steering tools to guide Swedish interests in a desirable direction, not to hit the business community or the consumers with punitive taxation without desirable results.

Madam Speaker! Customs has also been included in the report, and I would like to say a few words about that as well.

The Swedish Customs' operations have for many years, largely since joining the EU in 1995, been underfunded. The customs staff has been expanded successively in recent years, which has resulted in more seizures of weapons and narcotics being made. This is not enough, however. Customs is often understaffed, and significantly more seizures and controls could be made if Tullverket receives more resources over time to be able to train and employ more customs officers.

Both the general public and customs personnel experience frustration as they do not have the authority to stop vehicles or persons leaving the country, as only the police have this authority. In order to grant authority to Customs' personnel to search vehicles about to leave the country, the transport of stolen goods needs to be classified as a smuggling offense.

The Sweden Democrats have since 2010 proposed significantly increased appropriations for the Swedish Customs, and in this report they also continue to present proposals that can strengthen the Swedish Customs' extremely important operations through increased powers.

When it comes to the financial conditions and the legal powers, it has shown that previous governments' proposals are far too poorly conceived to be anywhere near solving the problems, which the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are now turning in the right direction.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask two questions to the member from the Sweden Democrats.

More resources for the customs were a statement from the member. In the autumn it was a votering, and one could vote on different proposals. One could vote on the Sverigedemokraternas proposal or on the Socialdemokraternas proposal. The Socialdemokraterna had 100 million kronor more for the customs than the Sverigedemokraterna had. Then I wonder: How should one interpret this?

It does not seem that the Sweden Democrats were so very eager to truly give the customs more resources, because then the Sweden Democrats should have supported our proposal. Now they supported their own proposal. This is not entirely unusual – one can do that, for that matter. It was, however, a worse proposal, so the customs did not get more resources. It is important that people hear and understand this.

Then we have the plastic bag tax, which one can naturally reflect on a bit. The Sweden Democrats are making a choice anyway: They lower taxes and neglect healthcare. I wonder, Madam Speaker, what the Sweden Democrats' member thinks when he is out in the country meeting voters and has to explain that lower taxes, whether it concerns plastic bags or something else, are more important than getting one's hip surgery on time or getting treatment when a child becomes ill.

Healthcare does not function quite as one as a Swedish citizen is used to and as one actually, I think, could demand. It was more important for the Sweden Democrats to lower taxes – the plastic bag tax and other taxes – than for healthcare to function. Can one get a comment on this?

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member can absolutely have that. We can start with the tariff. Let us first state that the tariff is being strengthened, that we are adding more funds and that the tariff will be stronger now than it has been during the eight years when the Social Democrats held government power.

It is very interesting that the Social Democrats now seem to be in a great hurry to increase the tariff, but it raises a natural follow-up question: Why was there no such hurry during the eight years when they themselves were in power?

We in the Committee on Taxation visited the Swedish Customs Service not too long ago and shall remember what they told us, namely that they do not have the capacity to grow as much as they want within their current organization. They have a maximum limit for how many new customs officers they can train without it affecting ordinary operations.

Pouring massive amounts of money over them on a platter risks leading to money just lying there, and it is not a responsible way to manage tax funds. The customs shall grow, but it is better that they grow year by year. It would have been desirable that they had done so already during the years when the Social Democrats were in power.

Regarding the plastic bag tax versus healthcare, one can question whether it falls under this topic to talk about the funding of healthcare, but let us state that the main responsibility for healthcare lies with the regions. If the member wonders how the conversations go when I speak with voters in my home region, I can say that I have nothing to be ashamed of. I am from Halland and come from a right-led region that is ranked as one of the three best healthcare regions when it comes to practically all parameters.

If all the members think that money is lacking in many places, perhaps the funding in the Social Democratic-led regions should be reviewed regarding what is prioritized and invested in, because it seems to be primarily Social Democratic regions rather than right-wing-led ones that are complaining about deficits.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! It was important that those listening to this debate now heard that it is not so important to pour money over the Swedish Customs. In his speech from the rostrum, the member from the Sweden Democrats said that the customs needs more resources. These are two statements that stand a bit against each other, I might think.

During the Social Democratic government's tenure, money was invested in and the customs service was built up. In the latest budget, which was presented and debated here in the chamber, we also had 100 million kronor more. This is a fact.

It is obvious that the customs, if they had had access to these funds, could have kick-started the implementation and planning of all the new tasks that we will hopefully pass here in the chamber. If the customs had had access to these resources, they would have had the opportunity to, for example, if they are now given new powers, new weaponry and other things, ensure that these issues begin to be handled.

That the customs service in some way would not be able to use resources when they know they are facing an expanded mandate is a strange description. I do not think the customs officers would recognize it if it were described in that way.

Whether healthcare funding belongs here or not is something one can always reflect upon. In the previous exchange of remarks with the Moderate member, we were quite in agreement that the tax also has a revenue function. If one reduces the revenue, it is clear that one must save on something. In this budget, it was healthcare.

What we can look forward to the Sweden Democrats saving in the next budget is the sickness insurance and the unemployment insurance. Then, they will lower the tax for some high-income earner, and they will pass on the cost to the unemployed or the sick, for example, those construction workers who are now affected by the construction crisis.

(Applause)

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say that I do not quite recognize myself in that description of reality. In the supplementary budget, more money is added to welfare in the regions, so that we would deprioritize it—I do not buy that in any way or sense.

Then I can only repeat what I have said about the customs: The customs' resources are being strengthened. The budget is growing, and it will continue to grow. Furthermore, one gets better powers and better equipment. We are strengthening the customs, and I wish you had done that already when you had the power, Patrik Björck.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing excise taxes and customs duties.

Excise taxes can be effective instruments for promoting one good over another. An excise tax should, however, have a clear purpose if a certain good is to have a specific taxation. I think that is an important principle when we talk about excise taxes. We can, however, observe that several excise taxes today have entirely or partially received only fiscal purposes. We Moderates do not believe that is good.

It is naturally very important to safeguard the revenue base, but at the same time, the purpose of the excise taxes must be clear. We have today taxes that no longer steer towards the originally defined purpose. Many of the excise taxes that have diverged in that way thus lack legitimacy today, and it is one of the most dangerous things that can happen in the tax system – that the taxes are not perceived as legitimate.

Madam Speaker! Today we have an aviation tax that burdens every flight depending on where you are flying. You have to pay 76 SEK, 315 SEK, or 504 SEK on top of the ticket price regardless of what fuel consumption or what emissions the plane has. This punitive tax on aviation is unreasonable. It is a punitive tax for everyone who flies and not a tax that favors the transition in the aviation industry.

The right way should instead be to phase out our aviation tax and use the systems that we have agreed upon within the European Union. We should give room for the airlines to transition here and now, which perhaps is particularly important this year and in the coming years because the aviation industry has also experienced sharp cost increases. It does not look any better in the coming years either.

Madam Speaker! On the same theme: We have a chemical tax on flame retardants in electronics and household appliances which, due to its design, rather resembles a product tax. The deduction possibilities are near zero for most consumer products as there are few products that are manufactured and adapted for the Swedish market. Furthermore, this leads to a large administrative burden, and it has received criticism from the Swedish Chemicals Agency for not being adapted to the challenges that exist today.

The Swedish Chemicals Agency and the Swedish Tax Agency have been clear that the tax has not reduced the occurrence of flame retardants. The purpose of the chemical tax has largely ceased, and almost only the fiscal part remains.

Madam Speaker! From the Moderates' side, we are clear: We want to abolish both the aviation tax and the chemicals tax. We believe that they have played out their role, especially with the design they have today. As several previous speakers have pointed out, Sweden is currently in a tough economic situation, but when the economy improves – when interest rates go down and inflation falls – there is opportunity and room to carry out these urgent tax reforms.

Several of the motions treated in this committee report concern precisely increases and the introduction of new excise taxes that would probably be ineffective. These are excise taxes in the style of what is proposed in the Left Party's committee and party motions, namely an introduction of distance-based and geographically diversified road taxes and vehicle taxes, as well as progressive aviation taxes. The Social Democrats have a proposal to introduce a sugar tax, and the Centre Party has a proposal for new tax subsidies for biofuels, for example.

I believe it is a dangerous path to take not to have a clear purpose and that the fiscal part takes precedence over the purpose of the excise tax itself. Excise taxes should have a clear purpose to steer correctly; they should not have solely fiscal purposes.

Madam Speaker! I will also say a few words about the customs. The customs are also affected by a number of harmful proposals in various motions being treated in the report. I will give a few examples.

Gang crime and the violence it breeds is growing ever stronger in Sweden, and a large part of the activity revolves around smuggling of illegal goods such as drugs and weapons. Despite this, Miljöpartiet wants to place additional burdens on the already far too few customs officers, with further bureaucracy in the form of justifications and documentation at all interventions. Furthermore, Miljöpartiet wants to give Tullverket greater powers regarding endangered species, not only at our border but also inside Sweden.

We are doing everything we can to train more customs officers, but it takes time. We have seen and heard that when we have visited the different customs stations. While we wait for more customs officers, one also needs to prioritize within the customs, and it may not be the time to introduce too many new tasks. We cannot introduce new tasks that take focus away from the work of stopping serious gang crime, because that is where the customs has a very important task.

Centerpartiet continues on the same out-of-touch line. They want, for example, to abolish the requirement for ports in Sweden to check the contents of containers that arrive, leave customs warehouses, or use facilities for temporary storage. This requirement exists so that no goods can disappear during arrival or storage. It ensures for the customer, and not least for the customs authorities, that no goods have been brought into the country illegally and without the goods having been taxed. To abolish this system without thoroughly evaluating the consequences would not be responsible.

Madam Speaker! Continued expansion and investment in the Customs Service is important and necessary for us to succeed in working against organized crime. We Moderates will continue to push for this, and therefore the government is increasing the appropriations to the Customs Service by 15 million kronor in our government bill.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the motion report.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! I just thought, for the sake of safety, so that those listening get a correct understanding of what it is we are doing in the chamber now as we debate SkU13 Point tax and customs, to remind that I began my speech by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report. I and member Ahlstedt are therefore in agreement on this issue, Madam Speaker.

There is no proposal from us to introduce a sugar tax, I want to say because the member raised it. It is still important that we stick to what is actually on the table. Then one can consider whether it would have been a good tax to introduce or not, and we can well do that in connection with the major tax reform that we will hopefully sit down and discuss eventually - what do I know. But there is no such proposal from us Social Democrats here today.

In the previous exchange, taxes and the removal of revenue when one is in a difficult economic situation were discussed. This has consequences for which expenses one can incur.

Madam Speaker! As I understood, Member Ahlstedt intends for a reform space – as soon as such exists – to be used for tax cuts. This could concern the aviation tax or the chemicals tax. There are surely also many other taxes that Member Ahlstedt can imagine cutting. This is important information for the voters. It is not healthcare, defense, the police, or customs that are primarily desired when Fredrik Ahlstedt gets a reform space, but all reform space shall be used to reduce revenues, that is, to lower the tax.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is very important to see that tax policy has an important purpose. Every tax that is lowered means that every individual citizen, every employee, every entrepreneur, and every pensioner in Sweden gets the opportunity to decide over their own money and resources.

That is why it is important to find a good balance in the tax burden to finance the common commitments. The common commitments must be well-financed. Defense must be financed. The police must be financed. Customs must be financed. Roads must be financed. There are many things that must be financed jointly, and it must be done in a responsible manner.

When one is given a room for reform, one should however consider what can be done to ensure that citizens get more in their wallets. The citizens have had it very tough over the recent years. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the citizens get more resources.

It is also important with responsible financing, especially in the areas where we need to expand. This applies primarily to the justice system but also to defense. Defense will take an ever larger share of the reform space in the coming years; we know that. In that regard, Member Björck is completely right.

It is a matter of finding the balance. Households should be given the opportunity to improve their situation through tax cuts, but we must also finance our common commitments.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Ahlstedt and I probably agree that we hold completely different views on society and that we have different ideas about how society should be organized. That is to be expected; it is reasonable that a Moderate has one view and that I, as a Social Democrat, have another. I just wanted to point out to those listening to this that lowered taxes are the first thing the Moderates think of when there is room for reform.

I do not distrust Member Ahlstedt or the Moderaterna to the extent that I believe they will dismantle Swedish healthcare or the Swedish defense, but this is not the first thing they will think of when there is room for reform. It is still important to taste that difference, I think. Nor is it anything strange, Madam Speaker. There must be differences in politics so that people have something to choose between. If you want healthcare, you vote for us. If you want lower aviation tax, you vote for Fredrik Ahlstedt's party.

We can be in complete agreement that it is important for citizens to have control over their resources. However, there are many ways for citizens to lose power over their resources. If, for example, one lives in a country that has much higher inflation than all other countries in the surrounding area with similar economies and conditions, or if one lives in a country where food price increases are much larger than in countries in the surrounding area with similar conditions, one does not get to decide over one's resources.

Those who are responsible for Sweden performing worse than other countries are those who govern the country. It so happens that it is Fredrik Ahlstedt's party that leads the government. They are doing so under the Sverigedemokraterna's whip, but it is still Fredrik Ahlstedt's party that holds the Prime Minister's post and the Finance Minister's post. There, the citizens are not allowed to decide over their resources.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is important to keep in mind that the cost crisis, inflation crisis, and interest rate crisis that we are going through now – hopefully we are on our way out of it – has been created over a long period. We have had very weak, if not non-existent, growth in the Swedish economy, which has been very worrying over the last eight ten years.

If we do not have growth in the economy, we will also not get more resources to distribute. That is why this government, together with the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna, must now both bring down inflation and ensure that interest rates fall, and also ensure that growth increases. Without increased growth, we will not get more resources to distribute. Then we cannot invest in defense, invest in healthcare, or lower taxes. Therefore, the growth measures are incredibly important. There are also harmful taxes that must be lowered so that we can ensure that growth gets started.

It is such, Member Björck, we will get a both wealthier and safer Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Fredrik Ahlstedt mentioned excise duty on fuel and, as I interpreted him, that the Center Party has gone too far when it comes to the reduction obligation. I want to assert that excise duties can be of great use in improving the environment.

You have lowered the reduction obligation, Fredrik Ahlstedt. However, it is not just about having balance in the economy, one must also have balance in the environment. You have received harsh criticism for not achieving the environmental goals. Point taxes are an excellent way to succeed with that. We have not seen much of this, Madam Speaker, but lowering the reduction obligation went well.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! If one has correctly designed excise taxes with the right purpose and the right objective - and if one tones down the fiscal part of the excise taxes, which is not the important part - I believe that one can obtain excise taxes that are very effective.

The challenge – or the problem, if you will – is that today it is precisely the opposite with many of our excise taxes. I took up some examples earlier. The aviation tax was one of them. We have ended up in a situation where it is counterproductive. It is growth-inhibiting and does not live up to its purpose but is almost exclusively fiscal. I believe that is a very bad excise tax. If an excise tax is to be good, it must have a clear purpose and be well-thought-out. It must be possible to explain it in order to create legitimacy. It should not primarily be fiscal, because then you immediately get a problem.

The second thing I raised was the chemicals tax. I do not think there is anyone who thinks that the current design of the chemicals tax is good. I also believe that there are many who think that the entire excise tax system surrounding the chemicals tax has become completely wrong and that one actually has to start over from the beginning. Perhaps it must be done at the EU level or on a global level in order for it to become competition-neutral in a completely different way.

These types of point taxes are naturally very harmful. That is why we believe they should be removed as soon as possible.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I hear that Member Fredrik Ahlstedt is dodging the environmental effects when the reduction obligation is no longer handled as the previous government did. You have an environmental burden, and you have a problem. But you also have an opportunity to achieve an effect with a point tax.

Madam Speaker! It is concerning that we do not receive a statement on how to achieve an environment in balance. It lies within this area, and I believe that Member Fredrik Ahlstedt must answer this.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Our taxes on petrol and diesel are among the highest. We have a very high excise tax on these goods. I believe that this excise tax is among the highest if we were to compare it with the value of the goods in relation to what the percentage tax looks like. The tax naturally serves a purpose. The tax is quite clear, it is quite simple, it is broad and it has a purpose to ensure that consumption is limited. I would say that this excise tax works perfectly well today. Then one can discuss whether it is too low or too high.

But we rather think that we also must ensure that those people who need to use the car can also do so. That is why we cannot have too high excise taxes on petrol and diesel.

In this reasoning about which excise taxes work or do not work, we have not, for example, proposed that the excise tax should be removed. We believe that it fulfills its purpose and that it has a function. The petrol tax has also partially become fiscal, and we receive very large revenues in this area. But it functions as an excise tax in this context. I believe everyone can agree on this in this context.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Excise duties and customs are important areas, and excise duties are important as instruments of policy. Vänsterpartiet has not submitted any motion concerning customs during the motion period because we will soon be taking a position on the Customs Authority Act. But we have submitted motions on several excise duties from a climate and environmental perspective.

Sweden cannot meet the EU's emission targets. This is shown by a completely new review from Naturvårdsverket. Among other things, emissions from transport must decrease. It is something that the government has so far refused to address, despite the fact that there are many ways to do so. For example, the taxation of fuels is an important tool to reduce the transport sector's climate impact. But it is also an example of a blunt tool that does not make a difference between a high-income earner with good access to public transport and a low-income earner in rural areas without an alternative to a car.

It is important that steering measures are designed to reduce gaps between urban and rural areas and that, where necessary, compensatory measures are taken to consider the perspective of fairness when, for example, taxes have negative distribution effects.

To meet an increased electrification of road traffic with strengthened regional justice, it is necessary to initiate work on a reform of road traffic taxation. A differentiated road taxation provides the conditions for a low or abolished road tax in rural areas where alternatives to cars are lacking and a high road tax in large cities with access to public transport. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet argues that the conditions for a geographically adapted road tax for passenger cars should be investigated.

Heavy truck traffic does not pay today for the impact it has on the environment and climate and for the wear and tear on the roads. Several investigations advocate for a distance-based system with a geographical differentiation for a more equitable pricing. Such a system must take into account the conditions of rural areas, where certain industries have long transport distances and where alternatives are lacking.

In addition to the climate benefits that such a taxation could bring, there are great gains in having Swedish and foreign trucks taxed on equal terms and in giving authorities better opportunities to detect illegal truck traffic. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that a distance-based road wear tax for heavy truck traffic should be introduced.

Madam Speaker! We all know that air travel needs to be significantly reduced for us to meet the climate goals. Only climate deniers believe otherwise. One way to reduce aviation's climate impact is to introduce a progressive aviation tax, which means that travelers pay more tax the more they fly. A progressive aviation tax needs to meet high requirements for personal privacy as well as be designed in a way that means it effectively serves its purpose of reducing flying. It is something that we in Vänsterpartiet believe needs to be introduced.

It is also important that Sweden, until we completely succeed in phasing out chemical pesticides, receives a better taxation of pesticides as today's taxation has a small environmental effect. For example, Denmark, Norway and France have significantly stronger legislation where the tax increases with the agent's toxicity, which has led to farmers switching to less toxic agents. There is a great need to introduce a differentiated taxation of plant protection products. Vänsterpartiet therefore believes that a new tax on pesticides should be differentiated based on the different environmental and health risks of the pesticides and that the revenues from the tax are returned to agriculture to develop sustainable plant protection methods.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Left Party's reservations, but I would like to move for approval of reservation 9 here.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are dealing with excise taxes and customs. But to make the whole thing a bit more interesting, I shall begin today with the customs issues.

The Swedish Customs Service has a major mandate to determine and collect customs duties. It must also monitor that regulations regarding the import and export of goods are followed. Furthermore, the authority shall prevent and counteract crime in connection with the import and export of goods. This mandate requires the authority to conduct extensive control activities.

The Swedish Customs Administration contributes to a well-functioning society and shall perform its tasks in a manner that is legally secure, cost-effective, and easy for the public and companies to follow. The Swedish Customs Administration also has the authority to conduct crime-fighting activities when it comes to customs crimes, smuggling crimes, drug smuggling, weapons smuggling, and smuggling of explosives.

The government has great ambitions in the crime-fighting part, where it primarily wants to tackle organized crime. We take smuggling and other crime in connection with the import and export of goods seriously. Therefore, we are now granting Tullverket expanded powers within the control activities and the crime-fighting activities. Among other things, Tullverket will receive expanded rights to stop vehicles, body-search persons, and open more shipments than they are allowed to do today. Additionally, uniformed personnel in outer service will, under certain circumstances, be allowed to be armed with a service pistol.

Madam Speaker! Now I shall move on to the excise taxes. We are dealing with the excise taxes on electricity, fuel, vehicles, chemicals, alcohol, tobacco, and air travel. There are very many different taxes on a multitude of different areas. Common to many of them is that they aim to steer our behaviors. We are to drink less, smoke less, gamble less, and fly less.

In some cases, the tax may also be the right tool. In other cases, it is more questionable. We can question whether the purpose is correct, whether a tax is the right tool, and whether the tax is designed in the right way. For us Christian Democrats, it is important that the excise taxes that exist fulfill their purpose and do not have unreasonable consequences.

Madam Speaker! I shall mention something about the different taxes. The energy tax on electricity is partly a so-called fiscal tax. At the same time, it is a steering instrument to achieve the goal of more efficient energy use. The tax can also be used to favor fossil-free energy. We have a lower energy tax to favor the manufacturing process in industrial activities as well as agriculture, forestry, and water management activities, while the service sector pays the same energy tax as households.

Madam Speaker! In recent years, particularly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, oil prices and thus fuel prices have risen. The reduction of the energy tax on gasoline and diesel has been needed to counteract increased pump prices and mitigate the consequences of inflation, as well as not least so that the competitiveness within Swedish food production can be improved. This has also justified the reduction of the tax on agricultural diesel that the government has implemented.

Madam Speaker! The excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco have an effect. A higher price has lowered consumption, especially among young people. We can state that all tobacco use is unhealthy. For the Christian Democrats, it is important to improve public health by preventing people from starting to smoke and making it easier for smokers to quit. But a balance was needed between the need to minimize the negative harmful effects and the risk that high tax rates lead to increased smuggling, illegal trade, and other crime.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against the reservations.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate customs duties and excise taxes, SkU13.

The purpose of the excise duties is obviously to collect tax and cover our common costs, but an important part is also to steer in the direction one wants. In order to achieve this steering, it is important that the tax is reasonable so that one gains understanding and acceptance from the consumers.

When one uses the instrument of excise duty, it is very important that one does not go wrong. We have, for example, been into this with the pesticide tax. From the introduction until today, it has increased by approximately 750 percent, from 4 to 34 kronor. The effect of that tax on the management side is largely zero. I share the view of the member who expressed that one should also look at the danger, which could mean that one should have different types of taxation. But today we have no effect from that tax at all. On the other hand, we get more expensive food, so it is actually on the consumer that it has an effect.

We have also looked into the bonus-malus system. To steer with a point tax to achieve an environmental benefit is, as I see it, an excellent way to achieve just that effect. I heard Member Erik Hellsborn bring up the malus part for motorhomes. Yes, that part had a strong effect that needed to be regulated. But the bonus part perhaps should have remained to steer towards more electric motorhomes. These are quite large and heavy vehicles, which affect the environment.

Overall, Madam Speaker, the reduction of the bonus part in the bonus-malus system was a problem and has resulted in us having a significantly larger environmental impact today. We received a dip in the curve for electric car sales. Money is being invested in the expansion of the charging infrastructure system, but it is not being made possible to get larger volumes of electric cars onto the market quickly enough.

I wish to move for approval of reservation 4 under point 2, Tax on fuels etc. I naturally also stand behind the other reservations.

When it comes to the climate benefit, it is about large sums of money on the fuel side. It is important that one achieves an effect when it comes to the climate benefit. A clear part for achieving this is the excise taxes. There are surely other ways to move forward, but here we had a functioning system.

We also had a domestic production of biofuels. Today we have an ethanol production that would cover the entire need in Sweden. Of the ethanol from the same factory, 5 percent goes to Sweden today; the rest goes out to Europe. The factory would have been scaled up maximally for the needs that existed in Sweden. This inconsistency is not good for credibility or for future initiatives to achieve climate benefits.

When it comes to the Customs Service, the increased powers that we will decide on a bit further ahead are outstanding. It is a good tool that the Customs Service will receive. I see this as a good way to get order and clarity in Sweden when it comes to insecurity and the problem picture we have with criminals who bring in both weapons, drugs, and illegal money into the system.

When customs have now received these tools, it is also required that they receive more personnel resources to be able to tackle just these problems. They are needed now – it is now that we have the problems. It is not just about personnel. Other resources are also needed, for example narcotics dogs that could be out at the terminals, not least mail terminals, in order to curb the drug smuggling.

So, a lot of positive things are happening, but if we do not get the resources that are needed but which are not included in the government's budgets right now, this will, as I see it, unfortunately be a bit of a shot in the dark. But if we do the right things with customs and work with these matters, it could mean that we get a safer and more secure Sweden. This is a piece of the puzzle that is important.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! As several speakers before me have pointed out here in the rostrum, we use excise taxes partly to steer consumption and behaviors. We have, for example, an excise tax on carbon emissions to achieve fewer of these emissions and instead get companies and private individuals to invest in fossil-free and environmentally friendly alternatives.

We have an excise tax on alcohol which is intended to lead to people drinking less and thus also counteract abuse in the long run. Another example of an excise tax is the one we have on electricity. The Liberals, however, believe that this should be reconsidered in light of the rapid change currently taking place with the green transition here in Sweden and in large parts of the rest of the world. It is needed now as companies and private individuals transition from fossil fuels to clean electricity.

The motives for having a tax on electricity have shifted over the years. It has been about everything from oil crises to energy efficiency. None of this is particularly good if it risks a poorer supply of electricity, which then also becomes more expensive due to, for example, the decommissioning of nuclear power or other reasons. In that case, the problem does not become smaller if one has a specific tax on electricity, which makes it more expensive. The negative environmental impact that electricity brings with it is best solved through a tax on emissions or similar.

Today we face a necessary and urgent electrification of society and industry to meet the climate crisis and phase out emissions. The transition taking place within the transport sector, including from fossil fuels to electricity, is crucial here. Therefore, the electricity tax should be lowered, as it counteracts this electrification of our Swedish society.

Madam Speaker! We heard earlier that the aviation tax was mentioned as a bad tax. Here, I and the Liberals can only join the chorus of complaints. Having taxation of aviation at the Swedish level is quite bad, and the tax is currently designed so that it occurs on the basis of the number of passengers and not on the emissions themselves. It becomes quite toothless in the long run.

Taxing aviation at a national level is complicated, and in the long run, it risks becoming nothing more than symbolic politics. But aviation must, of course, like other modes of transport, account for its climate costs. Therefore, I want to agree with the one who pointed out that the solution is that we should push for a European aviation tax so that aviation pays for its climate costs internationally. In that way, we will address the problem that aviation moves across borders, just as emissions do. One can no longer escape one's responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Let me be serious for a moment. We find ourselves in a very difficult and turbulent time. Much is happening, both in our global environment and here at home. The war in Ukraine continues with full force without any signs whatsoever of easing. There is a war ongoing between Israel and Hamas, and on the night towards Sunday, Iran carried out an attack with drones and missiles against the aforementioned Israel. The rest of the world is holding its breath to see what the response from Israel's side will be and what it will result in.

On our own home turf, we have gang crime and the horrific violence, which was previously seen as a big city problem but has now spread to all parts of our country. Organized crime and the violence it brings with it is a parasite on our social body. Gangs strike fear into entire residential areas and turn honest people into prisoners in their own homes. People feel that they cannot go out after a certain time, and especially not when it is dark.

It is also important to be extra vigilant if you are a parent. The ruthless gangsters completely lack empathy and do not hesitate to either recruit or force children and teenagers to commit crimes in the name of these organizations.

My birthplace, Norrköping, has for some time now been hit hard by several serious acts of violence. It concerns several explosions, shootings, and murders. As recently as Sunday evening, a 16-year-old boy was cold-bloodedly executed right between two residential buildings. On a normal Monday morning, he would actually, in the usual order, get up in the morning, eat breakfast, brush his teeth, put on clothes, and go to school. He had big plans for the future. He had already started thinking that he would become an electrician or an engineer, but first he would finish high school, which he was going to start in the autumn. For him, however, the brightening future turned into eternal darkness. It is unimaginably difficult to take in, but we must never start getting used to situations like this.

Madam Speaker! This development is frightening but also possible to reverse. A number of crime-prevention measures are currently being implemented or proposed by the government. Investments in schools and social services to reduce recruitment to the gangs are important, as are increased resources to the police, our justice system and correctional services, as well as stricter penalties.

It is also of the utmost importance that we succeed in reducing the availability of narcotics and weapons in our society. It is no secret that a majority of all these settlements between different criminal gangs have their starting point in the drug trade, which is enormously lucrative and a major source of income for the gangs and finances their activities.

Here is the Swedish Customs, which can be seen as Sweden's shield in the defense against this organized crime, very effectively and during the previous year struck out 22 criminal networks and seized over 11 tons of narcotics, a doubling compared to the previous year. The Swedish Customs shall be given better conditions to improve these figures and increase the seizures.

Part of the work to defeat organized crime involves striking hard against the gangs' organization and strangling their economy. Here, as mentioned, Tullverket is a key player. Its resources have been strengthened in recent years, which has made it possible for the rebuilding of the customs to proceed and for the recruitment of more customs officers to begin. But more has been requested for the customs to be able to conduct its operations, and therefore, improved conditions must continue to be provided.

Here we have a broad consensus from both the government base and from the opposition. We seem to be in agreement on proposals to increase the safety of customs officers and strengthen their control and crime-fighting activities. Overall, this is important to provide a coherent strategy that contributes to a safer border and, in the long run, increased security in Swedish society.

Point tax and tariff

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! This report concerns, among other things, point taxes. An important point tax that Miljöpartiet has promoted for a long time is the congestion tax, which facilitates traffic. However, it still has certain problems, and that is because the municipalities do not have sufficient disposal of the congestion tax. Had the municipalities had it, they could use the congestion tax in a significantly more constructive way, among other things to steer traffic towards other modes of transport.

Madam Speaker! I naturally support all of the Green Party's motions, but I move for approval of reservation 12.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 April.)

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