Response to interpellation 2024/25:491 on tax cuts for venture capitalists

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Niklas Karlsson has asked me on what basis I consider a tax cut for venture capitalists to be a priority measure in the current economic situation, if I consider it reasonable that some of the country's wealthiest individuals should pay less tax on their income than ordinary wage earners, and what consequences the government sees that this could have for the legitimacy of the tax system. He has also asked if I have initiated an analysis of which donors could benefit from the proposal and what measures I and the government take to ensure that political decisions are not made based on favoring economic interests.

The tax system must be predictable. Otherwise, it is difficult for individuals and companies to know how much tax they are to pay. In the case of the taxation of so-called special profit share, the taxation is not predictable. The Government therefore appointed an inquiry that reviewed how the taxation of so-called special profit share could be made more predictable (Fi 2024:E). The investigator's report has been on consultation, and now the report, together with the consultation responses, will be further processed in the Government Offices. After that, the Government will return to the issue.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer.

There were two concrete questions that the Minister for Finance chose not to answer. We will return to them in the debate.

What the Minister for Finance is talking about, and which there is a broad political consensus on, is the importance of predictability and simplicity in the tax system, not least in order to create legal certainty. If this is the case, there is no conflict. When unpredictability prevails, it is the task of politics to try to rectify this. This can be done in different ways – broadly or by writing clear directives on how one wants it to look from the very beginning.

We live in a time when unemployment is at a record high. Sweden's growth is among the worst in Europe, and food prices are high. Healthcare is in crisis, the maintenance debt is growing, and the need for climate transition is acute. Inequality and exclusion are growing. The construction sector is in free fall, and gang crime is eating its way into society and threatening the safety of Swedish families in their everyday lives.

In this situation, it is about how we are to manage to maintain and strengthen our common welfare and how we are to ensure that every human being is given the opportunity to give life to their innermost dreams and longings.

The government's answer regarding these challenges has shown itself during the years they have governed Sweden. They represent interests with a focus on a policy where those who already have are to get a little better off. They have lowered taxes by up to 40 billion, and the reduction has been directed primarily towards people with high incomes and large assets.

When we talk about venture capitalists, they are the next group in line. It is not about the concern for the ordinary wage earner, for welfare and healthcare, or about whether we should have a legally secure and predictable tax system that this investigation has received directives where it lands on the proposals that have been put forward. This is a commission. The proposal is very clearly directed at the venture capitalists. They have annual incomes that ordinary wage earners cannot even dream of, and now they are not to follow the principle that everyone should contribute according to their ability.

In our Sweden, with a bourgeois government and a Moderate Finance Minister, the principle prevails that the more you have, the less you contribute. The more you have, the more important you are.

The question is what this does for social cohesion and for the community. How does this strengthen our society, reduce exclusion and unemployment, strengthen growth, and make people look forward to tomorrow and give life to their innermost dreams and longings?

Beyond the veil of predictability and simplicity, the question still remains and lingers. Why is it reasonable, Finance Minister, that some of the country's wealthiest individuals should pay less tax on their income than ordinary wage earners?

(Applause)

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is our 2025, and we are discussing tax reliefs for venture capitalists. To even say such a sentence feels bizarre, to say the least. One cannot help but wonder about the government's timing in this matter.

Food prices are skyrocketing, unemployment is at record levels, and we are about to finance a massive upgrade of the defense because Russia threatens peace in Europe. At that time, the government prepares to lower taxes for some of society's most privileged. These are individuals who can declare incomes of several hundred million. But they shall, according to the government's investigation proposal, pay lower tax than a construction worker or a nursing assistant does.

Many of us reacted already when the government announced that from the turn of the year there would be a significant tax cut for high-income earners who earn between 100,000 and 150,000 kronor per month. But the government's prompt action now, after the venture capitalists' emergency, is nevertheless to take this to a new level.

There are no demonstrations outside the Riksdag because the country's venture capitalists are having a hard time. The letters to the editor in my local newspapers are not about the harsh conditions for the financial elite. Instead, pensioners are standing and demonstrating here outside the Riksdag against the government raising the costs for medicines. People are organizing protests against it having become so expensive to go to the grocery store. People are also genuinely worried about the security situation. Then, precisely then, the government comes with its investigation on alleviating the burdens for the guys within venture capital.

Mr. Speaker! One wonders if it is possible to be more out of step than this government is. One wonders how they can present policies that, to the slightest degree, challenge the general perception of what is right and reasonable in these difficult times.

That is why the second question in this interpellation is particularly interesting. I pose it again. Does the Minister consider it reasonable that some of the country's wealthiest individuals should pay less tax on their income than a bus driver does? What consequences does the government see that this could have for the legitimacy of the tax system?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the interpellor, for raising these questions!

When one listens to these statements, which often come in these types of chamber debates from both the interpellator and his party colleagues, one needs to remember that the Social Democrats are a fundamentally rather principled-less party. They can be very against something, with emphasis. But then it happens quite quickly, Mr. Speaker, that they can welcome it.

They were against, for example, visitation zones, which this government introduced to combat crime and gang crime, which the citizens in the country want to get order and clarity on. It was appalling. There were no limits to the orders that rained down from the Social Democrats. But when it was then introduced and turned out to work quite well, Mr. Speaker, they accepted it and actually wanted to make all of southern Stockholm a visitation zone.

That lack of principle also has advantages, namely that one can change one's mind.

Let me start somewhere else in the debate. Sweden is one of the world's richest countries, Mr. Speaker. It is not only the Moderaterna and this Finance Minister who we have to thank for that, but also previous Social Democratic governments.

One of the most fundamental things that has built the prosperity is the people in this country, but also wise politicians who, not always through conscious political decisions, have created what is usually called a well-functioning capital market. It gives ordinary citizens the opportunity to save, initially in mutual funds and now in investment savings accounts, ISK. Furthermore, at the turn of the year, the government made the first 150,000 kronor on ISK tax-free, and more will come.

This has created a symbiosis where individual people, in a very good way with their own savings and their pension money, have been able to put money into venture capital for companies and business ideas. That symbiosis has been incredibly successful, one of the most successful in the world. It has created companies and well-paid jobs in the country and ensured that ordinary citizens get good pensions and growth on small amounts of money that one saved early in life. This, Mr. Speaker, we can thank both Moderate and actually also Social Democratic governments for. It is in that light that this debate and these motions need to be seen, Mr. Speaker.

The Social Democrats are now trying to create a debate. In the best-case scenario, Niklas Karlsson and his party colleagues will muddy the debate a little bit on the theme: Moderates are evil and only want the rich to have more. In the worst-case scenario, Niklas Karlsson will be responsible for venture capital and venture capitalists leaving this country. In the worst case, it will mean less money for new ideas and for that which creates well-paid jobs for most of us in this country. That would be very unfortunate.

I hope that Niklas Karlsson and the Social Democrats in this chamber do as they do in many other political issues, that they set aside their prejudices and adopt good ideas. I hope that they ensure that we can together review how we can improve the various environments so that Sweden can continue to be a successful country.

This government has now looked at the possibility of creating simplicity in something that is very complicated today. Niklas Karlsson knows that too. He is, in fact, a wise person, Mr. Speaker. He knows that all the hours that the Swedish Tax Agency now spends on this uncertainty are truly unnecessary time.

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

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, it is important to have two thoughts in mind at the same time: duty and right, justice and growth.

Simplicity and predictability are a virtue. But it does not mean that this issue needs to be solved in exactly the way the government now intends to do. Growth and simplicity can be created without getting on the knees of Swedish venture capitalists.

As a Stockholmer, I am proud that Stockholm is a large and successful capital market. It is often considered to be the largest per capita after Silicon Valley. But here, it is a matter of having two thoughts in mind at the same time. We can both see the importance of having a functioning capital market and at the same time think that right must be right, that one should actually pay a reasonable share of tax.

In September last year, I asked a question to the Prime Minister here in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag. The starting point was that I had noted that the government during the summer of 2024, last summer, in all silence had appointed an inquiry, which was presented without a press release. The purpose of the inquiry was to investigate a tax reduction for a number of the private equity firms' executives, just after the Swedish Tax Agency's review.

Mats Tjernberg, who is a professor of tax law, called the investigation a commission from the venture capital industry. In the media last summer, it also emerged that one of the executives who is obviously benefited by the investigation is the Moderaternas largest private donor.

I asked the Prime Minister if he saw any problem in this. Did the Prime Minister see a clusterfuck? Did the Prime Minister see a conflict of interest in that one of the largest private donors to Moderata samlingspartiet was clearly benefited by this investigation and by the directives from the government in this investigation?

Do the Speaker and the Minister for Finance know what the answer was? The answer was no, no, and again no. No conflict of interest or conflict of interest existed.

Now we stand here near the goal. The investigation has submitted its report. Slowly but surely, the tax will now be lowered for these venture capitalists in exactly the way that was desired. Then the question remains for the Minister for Finance: Why should venture capitalists pay less in tax than ordinary wage earners?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the interpellation. It is quite nice when one knows why an investigation has been commissioned. I know that in this case, because it was I who commissioned it.

It is about exactly what Niklas Karlsson and the others here in the chamber are now highlighting. It is about predictability. It is completely obvious to everyone who has followed this issue that the system we have today regarding current legislation is not predictable. And if a tax system is not predictable, Mr. Speaker, Skatteverket risks having to spend a very large amount of unnecessary time and bureaucracy on administration, which drains the agency of resources that could have been used for other things, for example, to combat tax evasion.

What we are talking about today is the taxation of carried interest. It is not predictable. I think it is significant for the Chamber. Skatteverket has spent over 30,000 working days handling this issue. I would believe that the costs for that are greater than what any potential legislation would lead to. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that it is completely unreasonable that 30,000 working days are spent on an issue that concerns unpredictability. That was also why it was important for me to appoint this investigation.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to tell the interpellor that the government has not decided whether we will proceed with these proposals. We have now received the proposals from the investigator, and the referral bodies have just had their say. It seems that the members here in the chamber already know what a piece of legislation should look like. But if it becomes a piece of legislation, we will return to how it should look.

But fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, this is about predictability. For me, it is quite simple. Whether one works as a payroll administrator in the Riksdag, works at a hot dog stand somewhere, or has money to invest in companies in Sweden, the tax system must be predictable. One must know what applies. I consider that a fundamental prerequisite. That is also why, Mr. Speaker, we have appointed this inquiry. Now we continue to work with the views of the referral bodies. Then we will see if and, in that case, when we return to the Riksdag on this issue.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that one can hang the entire issue on talking about predictability and simplicity. Regarding this, there is no disagreement whatsoever – everyone is in complete agreement that predictability is necessary in a tax system that is to be legally secure. But it is a matter of not mixing up the cards. If it had only been about predictability, the government would have formulated its directives in such a way that one would account for how this predictability can be created in more than one way. But what the government does in its directives is to state what result it wants. This is smuggled out at a time when many are not so attentive. They try to hide it. When we ask questions, they do not really want to talk about it. They talk about other things.

Even the academy has criticized this. It is not only the political opponents who are now saying that this is a commissioned work. Even Professor Tjernberg at Lund University and others say that it cannot be perceived as anything other than a commissioned work. When the referral responses to the investigation come in, the tone is the same. It is several referral bodies that say: Why has the government not chosen to investigate all possible alternatives to create predictability?

It is not so difficult to still suspect that it is something else that lies behind. But the Finance Minister and the Chairman of the Committee on Finance do not want to talk about that in the chamber today. The Finance Minister talks about predictability. The Chairman of the Committee on Finance goes on the counter-attack and says that we are using superlatives.

No, it is not about [the] excess. It is not about hunting a sector or jobs from Sweden. It is about the principle of how we should contribute to our society, strengthen the sense of community and create trust in one another and in our common welfare state. If one is to do that, I think one should have the principle that each person should contribute according to their ability. This means that those who sit in Sweden's government or have received the privilege of representing parts of Sweden's population in Sweden's Riksdag – and who have decent salaries – are prepared to give up a little more. That one contributes according to their ability is, for me, an important principle.

But in today's Sweden and in what the bourgeois government and the Sweden Democrats are now presenting, it is the opposite principle: The more you have, the less you should contribute. From this comes my question and my reflection. We have people with annual incomes of 200–300 million kronor, sums that we can hardly even dream of. Then the government comes forward with tax cut proposals for them and hides it behind an argument about predictability.

I think it is better to be honest. If you now represent these interests and think that this principle is good – then say so! Do not come with anything else!

The questions remain: Why should different taxes be paid? Why should those who are slightly better off pay less than ordinary wage earners?

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! As Niklas Karlsson said: The more you have, the less you shall contribute. Elisabeth Svantesson does not go any closer into how she assesses that the trust in the legitimacy of the tax system is affected when the financial elite is favored in such an uninhibited way. I believe that the government's policy to favor the country's venture capitalists in a time when ordinary people, let's say, are struggling will be perceived as a mockery and reinforce that feeling that we know exists out there: The elite always manages. These individuals always land on their feet, regardless of what challenges and obstacles they are faced with. It ultimately just comes down to how many lawyers one can afford to hire and how good contacts one has.

The simple urge to the Minister for Finance, Mr. Speaker, would be to now throw this investigation in the wastebasket, forget about it and move on, so that we can pretend as if this never happened. But that is probably not going to happen, and the risk is great that we will see yet another reform from this government that reinforces the gaps in a Sweden where we already have an inequality that belongs to the fastest increasing in the Western world and which reinforces the image that the elite always manages and gets what it wants – with the willing assistance of the Moderaterna.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! My grandfather was one of those who went on class trips in this country. He was a convinced social democrat and union active throughout his entire life. I will in no way comment on what he would have thought about the debate on capital markets and so on, Mr. Speaker. But one thing he said and was very careful about was that it must go well for Swedish companies and that there must be good conditions for the companies in this country, because that is what provides room for welfare development and wage increases for Swedish employees. He and many like him were involved for a long time and made it so that this country grew and that prosperity increased.

We now have a situation where the Swedish Tax Agency has had to spend 30,000 workdays figuring out how to tax a part of a segment that is quite important for risk capital to be created in this country and for us to get more and more well-paid jobs.

Then one might wonder: How does it land in the normal case? The lower taxation is what the vast majority get to benefit from. With the regulatory framework that the Social Democrats have been involved in creating – despite the overrides in this chamber, Mr. Speaker – the venture capitalists pay the lowest tax in the vast majority of cases.

Then a question arises. The government has not presented any proposal. Is it of the opinion that it is good that there is uncertainty? I know that Niklas Karlsson and his Social Democrats do not think so. Do you want them to be taxed with the higher tax, which the vast majority do not have? Do you want them to have the lower tax, or do you want to maintain the uncertainty?

It would have been interesting to know where the Social Democrats stand on that issue. It is not that the Social Democrats stand for the higher tax, but for the uncertainty. It would have been interesting to know that.

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

Mathias Tegnér (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Niklas Karlsson has already answered the question that Edward Riedl is asking.

What do the Social Democrats think? We think that something should have been done about the uncertainty that prevailed, but that the investigation directive should not have specified how it was to be solved. Then a real investigation could have looked at how these problems can be solved. Instead, the path of a commissioned job was chosen where only one way was possible. On this, we are deeply in disagreement.

However, we agree on a few things. Growth is important for Sweden. In several international surveys, it is shown that companies in Sweden have good conditions. We often land in the top ten in various rankings of competitiveness. What is the reason for that? Yes, it is that Sweden has a good infrastructure, good health, a high level of education, higher education, and an innovative power.

What is important for being able to create what has made Sweden successful is that we have a policy for the society to hang together. When research looks at the deep determinants of growth, it is about issues such as education, infrastructure, trust, low corruption, but also equality.

That is the problem with this. If we truly want to continue to have good growth in Sweden, we also need to have a country that holds together. With this type of proposal where one creates fast lanes for small groups in Swedish society, it breaks apart. It will over time affect trust in society, and it will also lead to lower growth.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the members for the debate!

Mr. Speaker! When I go to work in the morning, there is one thing I have in mind. It is that Sweden shall become wealthier and safer, and above all, that the Swedish people shall become so.

In order for Sweden to become wealthier and for us to be able to build a safer society, we need increased growth. But we also need to give people who today do not have a job to go to better conditions and also some requirements to work and support themselves.

Mr. Speaker! My goal is that Sweden shall continue to be a country where we have world-class public finances. While many other countries struggle to be able to finance their defense buildup, Sweden, with the defense decision in December, has a unanimous Riksdag behind it but also a large and broad consensus on financing.

Mr. Speaker! What is my point in all of this, and what do I want to get to? Sweden is a wealthy country. We have had strong growth in very many ways, as previous speakers have also pointed out. One reason for that is that we work together and have good institutions. We have also encouraged innovation and entrepreneurship, which leads to more jobs and to more people being able to support themselves.

When I got this job, we inherited high inflation, high unemployment, and low growth. The high inflation has been fought. It can absolutely come back, but it is fought. Now it is the Riksbank that has to adjust and manage this.

Then we in fiscal policy can ensure, as we are doing right now, to invest in Sweden's future, in infrastructure, in energy systems and in better tax systems, so that it always pays to get an education and to work. It is about making significant efforts and investments so that Sweden can grow and the Swedish economy can grow. That is my starting point for what I do in this job, in small and large matters, here and now and in the future.

It may be good for those listening to know that it is not a problem for me, as it seems to be for the Social Democrats, that we have wealthy people in Sweden. It is good, because they can invest and they do.

The wonderful thing about Sweden is what Edward Riedl also touched upon earlier. We have a strong capital market because so many people, regardless of whether they vote right or vote left, save and invest in shares and funds. We even call it ISK, investeringssparkonto.

While in other countries people would only speak of investments, many Swedes see their savings as investments. It yields a return, and it contributes to innovation and to companies in Sweden. It is a reason why Sweden has so many successful companies.

Mr. Speaker! Why do I tell all this then? Yes, because I will work to ensure that Sweden gets growth started here and now. It looks like we will have better growth this year than in many other EU countries. There are, as you know, many uncertainties. But growth also needs to be strengthened in the long term. That is my basic attitude towards taxes.

Those who listen should know that it is not the case that everyone pays the same amount of tax in Sweden. If you earn more, you pay significantly more in percentage. The person who earns 125,000 kronor a month pays eleven times as much in tax as the person who earns 25,000 kronor. We have a progressive taxation. There is a fairly large and broad consensus on that.

Mr. Speaker! This is a description of what I want to do for Sweden. However, this question is about predictability. It is completely unreasonable that 30,000 working days should be spent at the Swedish Tax Agency because a piece of legislation is not predictable. Talk about a waste of taxpayers' money!

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! When one stands on the shoreline in my home municipality Landskrona and looks slightly north, one sees the Danish coastline and the Danish town of Helsingør where Kronborg Castle is located.

Shakespeare's Hamlet took place here many years ago. Hamlet's friend Marcellus says at one point: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. It is an expression that concerns an anxiety about the political and moral order in Denmark. It is a moment of unease and a suspicion that something is deeply wrong and that there is moral decadence and abuse of power. One wonders how Shakespeare would have chosen to portray and write Hamlet in 2025.

When one reads Konjunkturinstitutet's referral response to the investigation that the government has commissioned, one sees that Konjunkturinstitutet writes: "The authority had, however, wished that the investigation had presented alternatives to the main proposal and more clearly demonstrated why the proposal being presented is to be preferred. – – – Konjunkturinstitutet therefore finds it difficult to assess whether the investigation's proposal is the most effective way to achieve the objective of increased predictability."

When one simultaneously knows that one of those who are now covered by a potential tax cut is also the Moderaternas largest donor, it is not difficult to wonder how Shakespeare in his chamber would have chosen to formulate how a modern Hamlet would have looked in 2025. What about the moral decadence? What about the abuse of power? Is there reason to feel a moment of concern in Sweden today?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Moral decay – those words can certainly be used here in the chamber if one means that is the case.

Let me tell you what I am proud of. It has been 19 years since I entered the Swedish Parliament. The Alliance had taken office. Since then, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in lowering taxes many times – both in opposition and now in a government position. The decisions that I and many others have been involved in making have meant, and continue to mean, that a nurse in Sweden has approximately 4,000 kronor more in their wallet per month. That is what our tax cuts have led to.

The Social Democrats have, despite everything, gladly talked about those who have a lot of money over the years. But they never seem to ever want to invest in hard-working people so that these people get to keep more money in their pockets.

We have prioritized, and continue to prioritize, households. We have lowered taxes during these years for both low- and middle-income earners. We have lowered the tax on fuels and changed the reduction obligation so that diesel is now, among other things due to our decisions, approximately 10 kronor cheaper.

We have extended the supplementary housing allowance several times during the period when it has been tough for very many. We have lowered and are lowering the tax on savings in the form of ISK, investment savings account. We do this so that people, regardless of what one votes for and where one lives, shall have the opportunity to share in the returns from companies. There are few countries that have such a strong investment culture as Sweden.

Not least, Mr. Speaker, we have pursued a responsible economic policy that contributes to bringing down inflation.

My point in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the building of a strong defense and a strong welfare requires that we continue to build a strong economy with both strong public finances and a growing economy. We shall have growth, and this shall occur both by more people having a job to go to and by capital being present in Sweden.

With that said: The investigation is primarily about predictability. We will have to see if and how the government proceeds with it.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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