Response to interpellation 2023/24:43 on excise duties in the budget bill for 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 excise taxes in the budget bill for 2024. M argues that the government is conducting a responsible fiscal policy through careful balancing 1. M argues that the reduced tax on fuels facilitates things for households 2, that the tax on snus is lowered in a tax swap to make cigarettes more expensive since smoking is a greater health risk 2, and that the plastic bag tax is no longer needed as it created complications 2. S argues that excise taxes are important for steering behaviors and contributing to tax collection 3. S argues that the abolition of the plastic bag tax could cost billions in lost tax revenue 3. S argues that the tax reduction on snus is an expensive prioritization that risks favoring the tobacco industry rather than consumers 3 4. S argues that the government is prioritizing incorrectly as resources are lacking for healthcare and for stopping gang crime 4. S argues that S prioritizes taxing the banks' excess profits and putting more money into healthcare and preventive work against crime 4.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Sofia Amloh has asked me how I intend to act so that the excise duty changes in the budget bill for 2024 do not lead to undesirable effects regarding consumption's impact on both health and the environment, and so that they do not have negative effects on tax collection or public costs in the long term.
The government conducts a responsible fiscal policy. As part of this, the government has presented a restrained budget to combat inflation and makes careful trade-offs before every proposal. This is also the case regarding excise duty changes. Before every proposal for a change, careful consideration is given to how an adjustment would affect the purpose of the tax and what public finance effects it would have.
Regarding the tax changes mentioned by the interpellor, their effects have been reported in different ways. For the tax on snus, the Ministry of Finance submitted a memorandum on 16 October 2023. The reduced tax on certain fuels is addressed in a bill decided on 19 October 2023. The abolition of the tax on plastic carrier bags is included as a proposal in the budget bill itself. For these products, there are consequence analyses containing assessments of the effects of the tax changes, including public finance effects and impacts on health and the environment. The Government will also continue to report such assessments in any future proposals on tax changes.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Excise taxes are an important part of our tax system that affects both the economy and society as a whole. Excise taxes are used to guide people's behaviors. The purpose is to support people in making, for example, healthier and environmentally correct life choices. But excise taxes also, of course, contribute to the tax revenue and to the financing of the public sector. That people make healthier and environmentally more sustainable life choices also reduces the costs for the public sector in the long run.
The government has pointed out a number of excise duty changes in the budget communication. They make the government's overall goals somewhat unclear. I submit this interpellation to get clarity on the government's position and plans regarding excise duties for the reduced tax on snus and the abolition of the plastic bag tax. In what way do these changes get people to make better, healthier, and environmentally more sustainable life choices?
In the budget for next year, the government wants to spend over 500 million kronor to abolish the tax on plastic bags. We can certainly have a discussion here about what significance the tax on plastic bags has had since it was introduced, but I am completely convinced that it has made a big difference. People make much more conscious choices. Today, it is pretty much self-evident to bring a bag from home when one goes shopping. I want to assert that the tax has changed people's behavioral patterns.
We must also remember that the reason the tax was introduced was also the new EU directive that came into force. It is about member states having to pay higher membership fees depending on how many plastic bags are sold. The greater the sale of plastic bags, the higher the fee to the EU. Without being overly cautious, the abolition of the plastic bag tax could cost us over 1 billion in lost tax revenue. I wonder if that is the most important priority for the government to make right now.
I still don't understand how the government intends to handle the tax cut on snus of 3 kronor per tin. Will it actually happen? I see a rather large risk that consumers will not notice any particular price reduction, but instead, the tobacco industry will see its chance to increase profit margins. We have seen that in the recent past, and it is something the government has had to experience. I am primarily thinking of the fuel prices. To then say that the snus tin will become 3 kronor cheaper is a rather difficult promise.
Furthermore, these 3 kronor per can cost the state 800 million kronor. I think it is an expensive prioritization that the government is making when the state's finances are tight and when the government, according to the Finance Minister himself, is setting a very tight budget: 800 million kronor to lower the tax on snus when Sweden and the world face great trials that require collective solutions! These are trials that we need to focus our efforts on, and they are trials that require solutions where we invest. Why were these specific priorities important for the government in relation to everything else in a difficult economic situation?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Sofia Amloh for the interpellation! I intended to be very brief. I have been asked how I see the three different point taxes that the interpellator mentions will affect.
The first is the tax on gasoline and diesel. It is simply lowered to make things easier for households that are struggling. The previous government essentially crushed ordinary people's finances with very high taxes and a record-high reduction obligation. All around the country, people are struggling right now with high prices. Some of all those high prices and costs are precisely those concerning fuels. We are changing that. It is not harder than that.
I can also mention, Mr. Speaker, that the National Institute of Economic Research recently released a report showing that a previous tax cut on fuels had a full impact on the price.
The second is the tax on snus. But the tax on snus is lowered in a tax shift. Next year, we simply make it more expensive to buy cigarettes and somewhat cheaper to buy snus. Why are we doing this? As I write in the memorandum and the budget, we do it because smoking is a greater health risk than snus. It is something that I have understood the Social Democrats obviously agree with, since you also lower the tax on snus, as I understand, in your budget motion.
The third tax, Mr. Speaker, is the plastic bag tax. One can certainly have different opinions and discuss for a long time whether the plastic bags found at Ica, Coop, or any other store – I will not advertise any particular one and we will not go into that at all – are extremely dangerous for the environment. There are many opinions on that, of course, also considering that many now, for example, use other types of bags to throw away their trash. But regardless of this, we see that the tax is no longer needed. It created hassle, and no one became happier because of it. Sweden is far below the EU's consumption targets when it comes to plastic bags. Therefore, we in our four parties believe that we cannot justify a tax that actually only makes things difficult for people.
Overall, these three reforms fit well into the overall policy. We have talked about the budget as a whole earlier here, Mr. Speaker. We are laying a well-balanced budget where we primarily prioritize defense, the justice system and welfare, and support households in various ways.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Absolutely - the total revenue is the same when you raise the tax on cigarettes but lower it on snus. It is a zero-sum game. But it is still a choice to lower the tax and to spend almost 1 billion so that snus becomes cheaper without any guarantees that there isn't a tobacco industry that will enrich itself.
Mr. Speaker! The Minister has said on countless occasions that these are bitter economic times and that tough priorities need to be made. Not everyone can get everything. But excise taxes, to return to them, also contribute to the tax collection and to the financing of the public sector. The economy is not just difficult for the state; we have many households that are completely on their knees economically. We see that food prices are still rising. We see how our healthcare regions are running with gigantic deficits and are in such a tough economic position that they are driven to lay off staff. We see high unemployment and an increase in strike actions all around. We also see that many municipalities are struggling with the economy to get the most basic things to function, such as elderly care and school.
In the budget for both 2023 and 2024, the state leaves both municipalities and regions behind. These do not receive anywhere near the money they need to carry out the activities they are to conduct.
Mr. Speaker! Then I have not even mentioned one of the biggest and most acute social problems: the gang crime that is tearing Sweden apart. Drug deals are driving children to murder each other. Safe residential areas are being put into terror.
Yes, we need to strengthen the justice system, yes, we need to toughen the sentences and yes, we need to give more tools to the police and the customs to stop the violence and the drugs. But we also need to stop the new recruitments to the gangs. We need to put a stop to all the children who are standing in line, children who have not yet committed any crime. We need to join forces together to put a stop to the violence.
The practical, hands-on work is done out in our municipalities. Our municipalities need to be provided with the resources and tools they need to do the job. But what I cannot understand is how the government, in this situation, is unable to consolidate efforts better and not prioritize this higher in the budget. 290 municipalities are to share 80 million kronor to stop new children from being recruited into crime and for the preventive work. 80 million kronor – was that all you could give?
The government can afford to spend billions to remove the plastic bag tax and lower the tax on snus so that the price, at best, becomes a few kronor lower. Does the Minister still think these are the right priorities to make? You spend billions to lower the tax on snus and remove the tax on plastic bags but cannot even find 100 million to give to municipalities to stop the recruitment to gang crime.
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Finance waived his contribution, but I do not intend to waive mine. I will therefore conclude this part for my part.
As I have mentioned several times, billions are being spent on removing the tax on plastic bags and lowering the price of snus. These are completely obvious priorities that the government wants to make at a time when healthcare is on its knees, when many households make priorities every month to make ends meet for food costs, when people are losing their jobs, when municipalities do not know how to manage the challenges in schools and elderly care, when the skills shortage creates large black holes in the labor market, and when children are standing in line to become criminals.
We need to invest large resources now and in the future to build up society's resilience to save children from becoming criminals and to stop the flow into the gangs. We Social Democrats do not prioritize removing the plastic bag tax but choose instead to tax the banks and their excess profits. We Social Democrats choose to spend twice as much money on healthcare as the government does. We Social Democrats choose to allocate 250 million to the municipalities' preventative work to stop more children from ending up in crime instead of the government's 80 million kronor.
Other priorities can be made. I urge the Minister for Finance to try to address this in some way and show a better ability to make the priorities that are required in the difficult economic times we have.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude the debate for my part. I also thank you for the debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.