Response to interpellation 2022/23:306 on capital taxation upon relocation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns capital taxation upon relocation and the principle of taxation based on ability to pay. M argues that the ten-year rule is already a relocation tax and that the government is working to counter tax evasion and aggressive tax planning 1 2. M emphasizes the importance of rules not harming the business climate or the recruitment of expertise 1. S considers the current taxation insufficient and that a new exit tax is necessary to secure funds for welfare, defense, and climate initiatives 3 4 5. S criticizes M for not accelerating the introduction of a more comprehensive capital taxation upon relocation 4 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam President! Hanna Westerén has asked me whether I consider that tax should be paid according to ability to pay and how I intend to ensure that those who move out of Sweden are capital taxed according to ability to pay. Furthermore, Hanna Westerén wonders if I consider any of the existing models for exit taxation in the OECD countries listed in the question to be of interest also for the Swedish case and, if so, whether I intend to work for any such change.
As I mentioned in an interpellation debate in March this year, the question of a reform of the so-called ten-year rule is still being prepared within the Government Offices. The purpose of the ten-year rule is to make it possible to tax capital gains that have been accumulated here when a natural person moves abroad.
In this context, one must take into account that Sweden is a small, open economy that builds its prosperity on trade and export. Therefore, it is important that any new regulatory framework does not have negative effects on entrepreneurship and the business climate or complicates the recruitment of foreign expertise to Sweden in a way that is not justified. It is also important to have clear and distinct rules that do not create unnecessary complications for ordinary people and ordinary companies.
Aggressive tax planning and tax evasion are, in the long run, a threat to the legitimacy of the Swedish tax system. The Government is therefore working continuously both nationally and internationally to counter this.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! I am now participating in my third interpellation debate of the day with Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson. By this point, it has likely become clear that the principle of taxation according to ability to pay and a tax system with solid legitimacy is a priority for me as a Social Democrat. After the two previous interpellation debates, it is my opinion that the Finance Minister is not as keen on securing the principle of taxation according to ability to pay. Given the rather lukewarm answer regarding capital taxation upon relocation, so-called exit tax, I fear that a Swedish exit tax will be a long way off – despite the fact that Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson also said earlier today that no one should be able to withdraw.
At the same time, Madam Speaker, we live in an era where everything moves very quickly – people, capital, goods and services. This is, placed in the service of humanity, in many and much ways beneficial, as long as there is order and tidiness and taxes and fees are paid as required. That we have a purposeful taxation in step with the times is of utmost importance, and as I point out in my original interpellation, it is a number of countries that have seen that capital taxation upon relocation is necessary and have introduced it. They have done so to secure funds for common expenses but also to, once again, safeguard the principle of taxation according to ability to pay.
Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson concludes her answer by pointing out that she wants to make it more difficult for aggressive tax planning and tax evasion. Good so – that is what I want too, truly. But in the interest of honesty, at the current stage, this is not about fraud, not yet. At the current stage, it is about the fact that the freedom of movement for money from Sweden is great and about being able to tax funds that today are slipping through our fingers. This must not happen, I believe, given the challenges we face.
I therefore still wonder: Does Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson assess that changes regarding capital taxation upon moving abroad will become relevant during this mandate period? How is the preparation actually proceeding in the Government Offices? For every day that passes, we risk losing potential funds to meet, for example, the needs of the welfare system.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Hanna Westerén, for the question! This is a question that we have debated a few times in the chamber, and I intend therefore to be relatively brief.
The government truly sees a need for both companies and individuals to pay the tax they are supposed to pay. This is incredibly central, and it is also obviously central that tax is based on ability to pay. Everyone should contribute to the common good in a fair way.
I also just want to say that the vast majority of taxpayers, whether they are companies or individuals, are honest and want to do the right thing - and also do so. This is also shown by Skatteverket's recurring attitude surveys.
As I have also said before, this government is working with full force to counter tax evasion, tax avoidance, and aggressive tax planning. During the spring, we have acted very actively together with other EU countries and pushed through DAC 8, which I mentioned earlier, which is very central to ensuring that no one evades tax.
One must remember that even the ten-year rule is a kind of exit tax. It is not that Sweden does not have an exit tax. What the Social Democrats previously so eagerly wanted to push through in this chamber, without succeeding, is another proposal for legislation, which therefore has not gained favor in the chamber. One must remember that, of course, there is not just one solution when it comes to exit tax. Other countries do it in different ways, because one has partially different tax systems, naturally, but also different conditions.
The question of which OECD country's model I would find interesting is perhaps better suited for a seminar – I would be happy to attend and participate in such a seminar and give my view on how different countries do it. I see the chairman of the Committee on Taxation nodding.
As I have said, now in the third debate, this is a matter that is being prepared at the Government Offices, and I have no new information to give on this matter today.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! I am not entirely sure. I heard Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson say that she safeguards the principle of taxation according to ability to pay, but I believe the answer to my question was actually no – there probably will not be any new exit tax. It is a bit unclear to me why, given that so many countries, as Elisabeth Svantesson herself points out, have introduced such a tax without, as far as I know, having any adverse impact on trade and competitiveness. If the answer is now no, I want to emphasize what I believe this entails.
Capital taxation upon relocation should be considered and eventually introduced because it generates resources for the welfare system and strengthens the principle of taxation according to ability to pay. But in the event that taxation according to ability to pay and also a new exit tax do not attract the Finance Minister, I would like to take the opportunity to remind her what she could get for the money.
There is a relatively large and in some respects fluffy consensus in Sweden's Riksdag regarding some really big challenges in our time, such as the expansion of the defense, gang violence, climate change and a welfare state with incredibly large needs.
When Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson says no to capital taxation upon relocation and to the potential that exists in this, I believe it is also a no to more climate investments. It is a no to more cannons, constables, and forensic technicians. Unless there is some other, hidden from me, source of revenue—in which case Elisabeth Svantesson is welcome to inform me—it is completely incomprehensible to me that one does not more clearly accelerate capital taxation upon relocation and the potential revenue that is contained therein.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam President! We do, in fact, have an exit taxation. That is what we call the ten-year rule. I can also state that during the last decade, the cheating, the errors, and the fraud have become incredibly extensive in many of our systems, especially in the welfare systems. Partly, it is about people using companies as tools for crime, but it is also many people who, in different ways, defraud our systems. There are very many billions to be recovered here that instead can and should go to what is important, i.e., core activities such as welfare, defense, police, and the justice system.
We have a great focus on this, and we also have a great focus in our cooperation with other EU countries on making things better together, so that companies cannot engage in tax planning and evade taxation. It has been a focus for me during these months. I have put a lot of effort into exactly this.
Again: I have nothing new to say regarding the question of the Social Democrats' favorite, namely exit taxation, which has not received support here in the chamber. But we have an emigration tax, and regarding how it could be changed, work is currently underway in the Government Offices.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam President! I gladly concede that this is somewhat of a favorite for us Social Democrats precisely because we consider the current taxation to be insufficient. More measures are needed, and more revenue is needed.
With some things, there is a hurry for the government, while others obviously have to wait a bit. In a time when the challenges are so enormous and tax revenues by and large must increase in a fair way, I believe that a capital taxation upon relocation that is better than the one we have today would be well worth considering. Every day that the Finance Minister, deliberately or unconsciously, postpones this, it also becomes more difficult to find the funds for the investments we need to make to break criminal gangs, buy cannons for the defense, and promote a less overheated climate. For me, it is an incredibly tricky prioritization and a costly wait.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to all the interpellators and participants in the debate for many good discussions! We will return.
I see a great consensus in very much in Sweden's Riksdag, and that is good. We want to go after the money. One should pay the right tax regardless of whether one is a business owner or a private individual. There is much more to do.
The government's major focus is truly to crack down on serious crime, to go after the money, to ensure that more people get into work and to ensure that more people are involved in paying taxes. It is also, for example, about ensuring that the Payment Authority is now established as quickly as possible, on January 1, and can work so that we can prevent fraud in very many different ways.
Thank you for this debate, and have a nice weekend!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.