Reporting of tax expenditures 2024
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the government's reporting of tax expenditures for 2024. S argues that the government is starving welfare and creating increased inequalities through tax cuts and raised ceilings for rot and rut, which benefits the wealthy 1 2 3. S advocates instead for redistribution, for example through a bank tax and extra child allowance 1 2. M defends the tax expenditures as necessary to facilitate for companies, stimulate growth and promote the work principle 4. M emphasizes that lowered taxes on gasoline, diesel and the corporate tax are important for competitiveness 4. M argues that the focus on work and growth is the best way to protect households and families with children 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! I am aware that the reporting of tax expenditures has not always generated any major debate in the chamber of the Riksdag. I think, however, that there is every reason to pause and reflect on the state of affairs. For an unfamiliar listener, the heading of the matter may sound as if we are here for the purpose of technicalities, but behind every item mentioned in the matter lie, usually, enormous amounts that are the fruit of – I hope at least – careful considerations and real choices.
Madam Speaker! It is often said that politics is about will. That is clearly the case. But politics is also certainly about choosing – choosing a path to get closer to the society one wants to live in.
I became politically engaged because I wanted to change society for the better, strengthen the welfare, and increase justice. In several areas, the balance of power in this chamber has resulted in development in the exact opposite direction. The SD government that is now at the helm has consistently put the welfare on a starvation diet. As soon as an opportunity is given, subsidies and tax cuts are introduced that make the rich richer and the poor even poorer.
As seen in the enumeration in the report, the government has, in addition to burning enormous sums in support for the most well-off households in the form of rot, rut, and job tax deduction, also changed the reduction obligation in a least-said radical way. That debate, Madam Speaker, I know another committee takes, but it is still worth mentioning in this context that the reduction of the reduction obligation risks putting Swedish households in an incredibly tricky position the day the government is reached by the insight that the climate goals must still be met and that the curve will become distressingly steep and costly for those who do not take responsibility for the emissions in the country they are elected to serve.
But enough about that, Madam Speaker. I would, in fact, like to talk a bit more about distribution policy and the choices we face politically.
It has been challenging to be Swedish in recent years. First, we got through the pandemic. It was an incredibly trying time, primarily for those who lost their loved ones, but also for companies and private individuals who were forced to get used to a radically different everyday life with completely new rules of the game. Swedish welfare was tested exceptionally hard, and many healthcare providers are still burdened with healthcare debts originating from the pandemic.
The Social Democratic-led governments that governed the country during the pandemic ensured that a policy was pursued that held the country together and that gave most to those who had received least. It was rental support, layoff support, and support for the welfare system. It was support so that Sweden would collectively overcome the crisis and so that we would emerge from it strengthened together. With the benefit of hindsight, I can state that was the case.
After the pandemic, another crisis of a different kind occurred. Russia's illegal and ruthless war against free Ukraine threw the world economy into turmoil, and energy prices skyrocketed. Inflation ate up numerous real wage increases, and many households saw the margins they had fought for go up in smoke. Representatives from the non-profit sector consistently warn that many households are finding it increasingly difficult to provide, above all for the children, with basic necessities such as clothes, shoes, and nutritious food.
But, Madam Speaker, this does not apply to everyone. The report shows that the 10 percent of households that already had the largest margins are the biggest winners even moving forward. We can read this from the matter we are debating today. Even if inflation has slowed down also for the richest, it happens from a very high level, and to console the households in question, the government has sprinkled with tax cuts and raised the ceiling for RUT and ROT. This government is tearing our country apart with its policy.
I signed up for this debate today, Madam Speaker, to remind the listener that there is another way to go, another way for Sweden. Instead of lowering the tax for those of us who already had it, it would have been entirely possible to introduce a bank tax and pay out extra child allowance. We could have had a stronger welfare instead of renovating more fully functioning kitchens and bathrooms. We could have had a state investment support for rental housing, and ROT could have been used for climate investments that would have lowered Swedish emissions.
Politics is about will, Madam Speaker, but it is also about choice. The pursued policy in the tax area leads to increased gaps and division. We Social Democrats choose cohesion and redistribution.
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Madam Speaker! This matter concerning tax expenditures is, as the previous speaker said, an account from the government regarding tax expenditures during 2023. It is a matter that can be seen as a bit dry and boring, but it is not at all for us who like taxes. For those of us who like and work for lower taxes, this is rather Christmas Eve. Here we see what tax expenditures we have had, but it also means that when we look at the other side of the coin, we can also see what tax reliefs have been made for individuals and for companies and legal entities. In this matter, we therefore receive an account of everything that the government has done in this area.
Madam Speaker! I intended to go through this matter a bit and point out several of the different changes that have occurred in the tax area. We have decided to lower the tax on gasoline and diesel. We have specifically decided on lowered taxes on diesel used in forestry and agriculture. We have also changed the reduction obligation.
These tax reliefs are good and clear examples of how we want to facilitate things for individuals who are dependent on the car to get to work and how we can facilitate things for companies within the agriculture and forestry sector. We have, of course, also improved the travel deduction to further stimulate work, not just in the home area but in the entire labor market region.
Madam Speaker! We prioritize the work line; that is what we heard, not least in the previous debate here in the chamber. Therefore, the government has lowered taxes and stimulated so that more people will get work. We Moderates also think it is important that it should pay to work. More people in Sweden must be able to support themselves, without subsidies from the state or municipality. We have introduced an additional job tax deduction, which is the single most important measure for more people to enter the workforce.
Madam Speaker! During recent years, households have had to bear a heavy burden as we have had high inflation and high interest rates. In order to nevertheless stimulate and protect households, the government has pursued a tight economic policy, which is intended to bring down inflation and thus also the interest rates. We now see that inflation is falling and that interest rates are on their way down, which is pleasing, not least for households. In this context, the interest tax deductions are not an insignificant tax expenditure. It is a very important part for households to manage the economy for their housing, even if it takes up a large part of the state's budget space.
Madam Speaker! Companies and the conditions for entrepreneurship are important for Sweden's prosperity and growth. It is therefore important for Sweden, which is in a global market with competition, that the conditions are good. The corporate tax has been lowered so that it is now 20.6 percent, which in an international perspective is good. It is now important to follow that so that we remain competitive over time.
When it comes to further stimulating companies, we can see in the report that the deduction for research and development, the so-called R&D deduction, is also an important matter for increasing and stimulating growth and ensuring that research and development stays in Sweden. This, together with the experts' tax, means that we can attract further talents from all over the world.
Even ROT and RUT have important functions to encourage more people to start companies, not least within traditionally important women's occupations when it comes to RUT. Housing construction has faced great challenges, not least due to the prevailing interest rate situation, and therefore the ROT deduction also plays a major role in ensuring that parts of the industry are kept running until interest rates fall. This applies not least to the smallest companies.
In this context, I would like to take the opportunity to mention that the government has just received the investigation report Simplify and improve! - it concerns the so-called 3:12 rules and improvements for innovation and entrepreneurship. The purpose is to be able to stimulate more people to start companies and ensure that our innovations and our entrepreneurs stay in Sweden. It will be exciting to follow this until a good proposition is produced.
Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in SkU29 to submit the government's communication to the records.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! We find ourselves in the midst of the lovely summer time. For us Members of Parliament, there will gradually be fewer votings, emails, and meetings. For many around Sweden, it becomes vacation and summer break. It may become time for swimming, ice cream, cozy moments, and perhaps a long-awaited trip.
But the summer time is, as I hinted in my speech, not pleasant for everyone. The gaps are increasing in Sweden today. The person who owns their home is, for example, a clear winner. Fredrik Ahlstedt himself raised the interest deductions, which actually make us who own our home eternal winners.
Those who already have get even more with this government. Inequality is harmful and tears our country apart. I want to say that inequality is expensive and bad. We risk having a growing generation where many children get poorer school results and poorer conditions to become those hardworking adults that Fredrik Ahlstedt, and also I, would gladly see on the future labor market.
But I heard nothing about the children and the families with children in Fredrik Ahlstedt's speech. What is Fredrik Ahlstedt's answer to the families with children who would have been helped by an extra child allowance or by a government that saw them at all?
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! I believe that a perspective is important to have. There are many important perspectives in this, but the most important of all is still to have a job to go to. For the vast majority of households, earned income is the absolute most important income. The more people who can work and support themselves, the better it becomes for all households, including the families with children in Sweden. I believe that is the most important perspective we must have.
I have full understanding that there are families and households that are having a hard time in today's Sweden. We have had sky-high inflation, high interest rates, and great challenges in the Swedish economy. The most important thing is that we hold on and ensure that we get down the inflation, that we get lowered interest rates, and that as many as possible have a job to go to. These are the absolutely most important conditions for households, including families with children, to have it better in Sweden.
With this said, the member also knows that it is incredibly important that we create growth in Sweden, that we get the companies to grow, that more jobs come and that tax revenues increase. The growth policy that we have seen over the last eight ten twelve years has not benefited Sweden. Sweden has had a very weak development when it comes to growth in the economy.
I would therefore like to ask the member: What additional measures does the member from the Social Democrats propose in order for growth to increase in Sweden?
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! To begin with, to exemplify, there is something that I believe would make a big difference for Sweden: an investment support for more rental housing. We have a construction crisis in Sweden. We have a construction industry that is truly crying out for a different type of assignment and a different type of policy, which is not just about decks, bathrooms, and kitchens for those of us who already have it all too good. I believe that would make a big difference for Sweden when it comes to both housing and jobs.
When it comes to the matter we are discussing today – our tax expenditures – it is completely obvious that it would be possible to do things differently. It is possible to distribute wealth and resources in a different way.
Fredrik Ahlstedt says that it is the jobs that are in focus. Then I wonder how one thinks about the jobs when it concerns, for example, the expansion of rot, where the National Audit Office has clearly stated that it entails large risks for more undeclared work and that it does not increase the labor supply. Who is the reform for in that case? I do not understand.
We have for a number of years had tax cuts and job tax credits that have provided us who already have jobs and who are doing very well with more resources, while those who have it the worst have had it increasingly worse. It is obvious that it is becoming more and more for those of us who already have. It tears our country apart and increases inequality. Inequality is harmful and dangerous, and it tears our country apart.
I am completely convinced that it is possible to use the resources in a different way, and I look forward to the day when the Social Democrats can ensure that the tax expenditures are distributed completely differently.
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Madam Speaker and members of the House! The government's policy, which we naturally stand behind, is about ensuring that we get down inflation and interest rates. This will protect wage earners in the best way. It will also ensure that we still have a high labor force participation and that we have few people in unemployment. The most important thing to protect households and to ensure that families with children get it better is still that people have a job to go to every day.
After that, we must ensure that we get growth moving in Sweden, and our government has presented a number of different proposals to ensure that it increases. We also need to ensure that more companies are started and that more jobs are created. In that way, growth increases, and there will be more jobs in Sweden.
We do not believe that increased taxes - more and higher taxes - lead to more growth or more jobs. Then it will be exactly as it was during the eight years with Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna - that growth falls and the economy becomes worse. This is the problem, and it is what we must reverse to ensure that Sweden becomes a growth nation again. It will pay off for the households and the families with children.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.