Response to interpellations 2023/24:88 and 103 on the consequences of increased tax on motorhomes
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I emphasize that the government has no proposal to increase the vehicle tax for motorhomes 1 2 3 and argue that reduced fuel taxes as well as changed reduction obligations will affect motorhome owners in a positive direction 1 2 3. S believes that the industry perceives that a proposal exists, which would lead to reduced production and ownership 4, and asks why Sweden has different rules than the rest of Europe 4. S wants to see more speed and argues that it is better to manufacture new, climate-smart motorhomes than to import old ones 5. SD argues that reduced fuel taxes do not compensate for the high annual tax 6, that Sweden has landed completely wrong in relation to the rest of Europe 6 7 and that high taxation with the climate as a basis is completely wrong 8. SD argues that the proposal has consequences for unemployment and the state finances 8.
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 Speaker! Gunilla Svantorp has asked me how I am working to reduce the risks that the motorhome industry will collapse as a result of changes to the vehicle tax for motorhomes.
Thomas Morell has asked me how I intend to act so that a changed vehicle tax for motorhomes does not have negative consequences for motorhome owners or for the companies and employees who build, sell, equip, and maintain motorhomes.
There is no proposal from the government to increase the vehicle tax for motorhomes. Instead, the government proposes reduced fuel taxes, which benefits all fuel consumers, including motorhome owners.
Skatteverket and Transportstyrelsen are working on updating how the regulations on vehicle tax based on reasonable grounds shall be applied. The regulations that vehicle tax in certain cases shall be calculated based on reasonable grounds have existed for a long time and mean that Skatteverket in some cases applies a form of discretionary taxation, that is, that Skatteverket, based on available information, calculates the tax if, for example, exact information about a vehicle is missing. The work is part of the agencies' task to apply the rules.
For the government, it is naturally important that the vehicle taxation does not lead to unwanted effects for any type of vehicle, nor for motorhomes. The government is therefore following the issue. The government has, however, already submitted proposals for reduced fuel taxes, which is significant not least for motorhome owners.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Madam Speaker! I say thank you for the answer to the Minister for Finance, but honestly, I do not think it was very much of an answer.
One can wonder how much the Minister for Finance actually knows about the motorhome industry. I therefore think it may be time to start this morning by educating the public a bit on what the motorhome industry looks like.
There are 140 companies around our country that employ 2,500 people and generate 14 billion in turnover in Sweden. Motorhome guests generate 2 billion on Swedish campsites every year. 4,000 new and 20,000 used motorhomes are sold per year. In Värmland, where I live, there are 23 companies with 90 employees. That is quite many for a small county like Värmland is. Their turnover is 1 billion. It is therefore an important industry for very many.
We also know that the tourism industry is one of the important industries we have in Sweden. This proposal will lead to both the production and ownership of motorhomes decreasing if it were to become a reality. Even though the Finance Minister claims that there is no proposal, the industry claims something else, namely that there is a proposal.
At present, we have 110,000 motorhomes registered in Sweden. This means that we are at the top of Europe. But the problem, and the reason why I submitted this interpellation, is that motorhomes do not have any own classification from a tax perspective. We in Sweden therefore do not have the same rules as one has in the rest of Europe. This fact that we interpret rules somewhat differently is something that we have also encountered previously within the infrastructure area.
I would like to know more about what it is that makes Sweden stand out and have different rules than everyone else, something that disadvantages a large industry. In our system, we have the same tax class for motorhomes as for other types of vehicles, even though there is a significant difference in the number of miles driven. A motorhome is driven, on average, 36.2 percent of the distance of another car within the same class. For example, a light truck is driven approximately 1,389 miles per year and a passenger car 1,490 miles per year. Nevertheless, these are equated for tax purposes.
Therefore, my question to the Minister for Finance is why one does not, as in many other countries, ensure that there is a separate classification for motorhomes, when they are so important for many industries.
Thomas Morell (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister for Finance! I cannot emphasize enough what Gunilla Svantorp said a short while ago about how many people are actually dependent on the caravan industry and the motorhomes and on camping in general. It is 140 companies with 2,300 employees. It is very many people who are dependent on an entire industry, and it risks disappearing if this proposal gains momentum.
It is a bit funny to be able to use figures in a debate with the Minister for Finance. In the answer, the Minister says that fuel taxes are being lowered. That does not compensate for what is going to happen in the long run. I am basing this on a vehicle for which I know the taxation at the current time: 16,817 kronor. The same vehicle would, according to these calculations, land at approximately 43,000 kronor in annual tax. That results in a difference of 26,183 kronor per year. Over three years, that is 78,549 kronor.
Can one in some way get these money back with the help of reduced fuel taxes? According to Trafikanalys, a motorhome is driven an average of 539 miles per year, according to 2021 calculations. If one starts from that and imagines a reduced tax of, for example, 4 kronor, it takes 36 years to get back the money that is only the difference between the current tax and this proposal. If one has a reduction in fuel prices of 5 kronor, it takes 29 years. Should fuel prices fall by 10 kronor, it takes 15 years before the money is back.
That it results in lower tax on fuel is not a sufficient reason for this taxation. Just as the Finance Minister says, there is no political proposal, but two agencies are working on this. One has this with reasonable grounds as a starting point. But no other country in Europe makes the same interpretation. We have landed completely wrong in relation to the rest of Europe. Then one must ask the question why we end up so wrong in the calculation in Sweden and why no other country in Europe makes the same interpretation of the regulatory framework. It is a bit exciting.
I mentioned earlier the example of 43,000 kronor in annual tax on a vehicle that drives 539 miles. It is not a reasonable basis. What a heavy truck has to pay in tax is also too much considering the competitive situation in the rest of Europe.
It is a bit interesting to compare the figures. I checked this morning, and the annual tax for a full-sized truck is 14,142 kronor. That alone is a lot and exposes an entire industry to skewed competition. But if one compares that figure with the proposal of 43,000 kronor for a motorhome, whose primary purpose is to be a residence, one sees that it becomes completely crazy.
I assume that the government will have a conversation with the two authorities. A new calculation must be made here, because this will not be good.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank both the interpellants both for the questions in the interpellation and for the description of this industry, which is important for many.
As the interpellants were in, it is about both jobs and an entire industry. It is also about the fact that owning a motorhome is associated with much joy for very many people all around Sweden.
I first and foremost have great understanding that many motorhome owners generally are having a tough time right now depending on high inflation and much that is pressing on in the economy. It is extra important for me to point out and emphasize what Thomas Morell was touching upon, namely that there are no proposals from the government to change the vehicle tax for motorhomes.
I want to remind [everyone] of what we are doing. We are lowering the fuel tax both this year and next year, and we will also change the reduction obligation, which will play a major role for the affected group. This is important because it will, of course, also continue to be possible to be a motorhome owner in Sweden.
We are now on the work of the authorities, and as Minister for Finance, I cannot interfere with what the Transport Agency or the Swedish Tax Agency does in accordance with their instructions. I still want to be clear: For the government, it is important that the vehicle taxation for motorhomes does not have unwanted effects in any way. Therefore, I and we intend to follow the issue very closely going forward.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the clear answers!
Something I am reflecting on is what the Finance Minister said about it being important that it should be possible to be a motorhome owner in Sweden. We can certainly agree with that, but it is also important that the motorhomes that one owns in Sweden, as far as possible, are manufactured in Sweden.
If the proposal becomes a reality, we know that the production of motorhomes will decrease, and then a number of jobs will disappear from Sweden. Instead, we will get imported motorhomes. This is not good, and we really do not want to see that. Therefore, it is important that the proposal does not become a reality.
Both the Minister for Finance and I know that the government governs the authorities, for example through regulatory letters, and in that case, it is important to speak about what one considers important.
We also know that at some point this spring – I don't remember which month – the entire motorhome industry made a petition to the Minister for Finance where they asked to receive a fair, predictable and long-term sustainable taxation for motorhomes so that they know what applies moving forward and know whether they dare to invest or not. I do not know if they have received any answer to this petition, but it would be interesting if the Minister for Finance could say something about how it is being handled.
It is quite interesting that we get the answer that one should not do anything, but that one lowers the tax on fuels. It is about as stupid as when the climate minister stands and says that one is removing the bonus for electric cars while at the same time investing a huge amount of money so that we should have charging infrastructure throughout Sweden. Who is it that is going to charge through this charging infrastructure? We see that electric car sales are only falling.
It is clear that it is very good if the fuel tax is lowered, but if the proposal at the same time leads to people not having any motorhomes, it doesn't matter if one lowers that tax. The important thing is that we have an industry that knows what is long-term sustainable moving forward.
One of the absolutely most important things is the long-term perspective, because it concerns a very large and heavy investment. It is ordinary people who buy motorhomes today. It is very often those who sell their houses and who, instead of buying a summer cottage or something else, buy a motorhome. These are people who have been out and worked and who are, so to speak, ordinary Swedes. They need to know that the investment they make is long-term sustainable and will not destroy their entire economy, which the current proposal could lead to.
In a written response to a similar question last spring, the Minister for Finance answered that it is important that the vehicle taxation is fair and does not lead to unwanted effects for any type of vehicle. That is approximately what the Minister for Finance said now. It is therefore important that the Minister for Finance is clear today and gives the industry the message that there will not be such a proposal as they are talking about. I think this is very important. I want to know, Minister for Finance: Is that the answer to the motorhome industry today?
Thomas Morell (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.
The motorhome industry, or the camping industry perhaps one should say to be more accurate, is a people's movement.
The camping movement is also the first contact that very many young people have with the working life. I have camped since 1980, so I believe I have some experience from that activity. One often sees young people working at campsites, receiving the guests, helping out and serving, and ensuring that it is clean and tidy there. This is a very important part in young people getting out into the working life. When proposals risk undermining this type of activity, one must react.
Furthermore, as we have highlighted during the debate, there are many people who derive their livelihood from building motorhomes. Then we have the entire service organization and everything surrounding it. It is clear that these people are worried about their jobs.
We also see that sales have already dropped because people do not know how it will turn out or what the tax will look like once we have passed New Year's Eve. In the worst case, it lands at 43,000 kronor in annual tax for vehicles that travel just over 500 miles a year. Then perhaps many will say that it is possible to decommission them. Yes, perhaps that can be done, but it is not all insurance companies that accept it, and one is forced to have the vehicle registered in order for it to be able to be insured. This is also a concern.
It becomes very wrong considering the level of the tax levy for just this vehicle type compared to other vehicles that are taxed in Sweden. If you look out across Europe, you see that it lands completely wrong here compared to other European countries. No other country can compare with us. This has the effect that sales decrease, and it has already done so.
Instead, we will receive imports of three-year-olds, i.e., motorhomes that have passed three years from the date of first registration, which can hardly be desirable. At the same time, we have cut the legs out from under our manufacturers here in the country, and instead, older vehicles manufactured somewhere else are being imported.
There is every reason for the government to act and to tell the authorities that this will not be right and that a review must be conducted. One does not need to go in and point out exactly in detail, but one can still be clear when giving instructions about which effects must not occur.
A heavy truck that can travel 30,000 miles in a year has an annual tax of 14,000, while a motorhome that travels 539 miles has 43,000. Right there, one can see that the scales are tipping completely the wrong way.
I assume that the government will take action on the issue. It is important for those who work in the industry, it is important for the entire camping organization, and it is important for those young people who enter their first job within the camping industry that one does not pull the rug out from under all these people. They are 1 million in number - that's all!
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I would like to once again thank you for these two important interpellations. They affect many people. In addition to general cost increases due to inflation and the fact that it is tough for very many, this also creates very great uncertainty.
I want to emphasize a few things. First and foremost, as I said in my previous post, there is no proposal from the government to change the vehicle tax. What I can see in the Social Democrats' motion, there is no proposal about that either. We therefore think alike.
What is happening is that the authorities are currently reviewing this, and this work is not finished. When it comes to this work, I as Finance Minister cannot interfere in the review itself, as it is ongoing. Then the authorities will have to come back, so we will see what the outcome becomes. And I am following this issue very closely, as I said earlier, and the government does not want the vehicle tax on motorhomes to have unwanted effects. On that, we all agree.
In conclusion in this round, I want to say that it is of course important for motorhome owners to know that there are differences between our parties. It matters whether one lowers the fuel tax, and it matters whether one, as we are now doing, also changes the reduction obligation. This will affect motorhome owners in a positive direction. Many motorhome owners are probably fundamentally happy about these two specific proposals, and this will begin to apply from January 1, 2024. I will, of course, return to the issue of tax on motorhomes when we see the outcome from the authorities.
Gunilla Svantorp (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance once again for this.
The S-government nevertheless made an important change regarding this issue when they shortened the time for being able to set off a house car. It is important.
But it is about the fact that one should have to park the motorhome at all just to reduce the tax. I don't have a motorhome, but when I have spoken with people who have motorhomes, I have heard that the whole point of it is precisely the spontaneity, that you can head off somewhere over the weekend or when you are off for a few days. But then you have to plan this and not have the car parked and so on. The whole point of having a motorhome disappears if you have to fiddle with the tax. And you shouldn't have to fiddle with the tax in Sweden. It is very strange.
One needs, therefore, to reflect on what I have touched upon several times, namely the long-term perspective.
The Minister for Finance says that one should follow the issue. But it is still the government that points with the whole hand when it comes to issues that one considers important. I also realize that as a minister, one cannot step in and tinker with certain details. One is not allowed to do that. But one certainly can point with the whole hand and say that this is a very important issue, not least for the tourism industry in our country, and then one cannot land on a proposal for which there is now a huge concern and which makes people actually not buy motorhomes. They don't dare. It is as in many other issues in Sweden today, where people do not have the means, that they do not dare. They refrain, and that leads to no jobs being created, that things are not manufactured, and so on. I would therefore wish for a bit more speed.
Since the climate challenge is very important. Then it must be better that we manufacture new and climate-smart motorhomes than that we import old ones that actually contribute to increased emissions.
Thomas Morell (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer. I intend to hook on a bit of the last thing that was raised regarding the environment. There is a Norwegian study which shows that the absolute best thing, besides staying at home, is actually to camp. It is the most climate-smart way to celebrate a holiday. Then there is a rising scale, and in the end, we have cruise ships which are not particularly good.
Using a high taxation with the climate as a basis is completely wrong. Then you bite your own tail.
We now see the effect that sales have decreased simply because people feel anxiety, and this anxiety also spreads to those who work in the industry. How will it go? Will we have any jobs in the future?
I know that the government has a commitment that everyone should have jobs. It is important that people are out in the workforce. But then the government must also create conditions so that people do not lose their jobs. And precisely this proposal that two agencies are sitting and polishing will have this effect. Then one should react from the spine and give clear instructions that it must not have these consequences. One lands completely wrong with this taxation in all respects. It has the consequence that people go into unemployment, and the Finance Minister loses a lot of money. It is extremely serious for our state finances. There is every reason to take a second look here.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.