Surcharge for companies in large corporations
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I believe that Swedish companies are crucial for the economy and growth 1. The party emphasizes the importance of attractive taxes to secure capital and competitiveness 1 2 and argues that infrastructure and energy systems are central parts of a successful industrial policy 1 3. S believes that high taxes are a prerequisite for competitiveness because they finance infrastructure and education 4. The party argues that the government's tax cuts increase inequality and weaken the economy 4. S wants an effective and targeted supplementary tax that hits tax evasion 5 6. S believes that the proposal is reasonable as it ensures that large multinational corporations pay a fair tax 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.
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Mr. Speaker! This debate shall be about the supplementary tax for companies in large corporations. I intended to begin with a small reflection on the importance of the Swedish international and global companies.
Swedish companies are of great importance for the Swedish economy and for Swedish growth. It is important that we stand up for our Swedish companies and for their opportunity to compete on the global market. Swedish companies have a high reputation on the world market and are world leaders in many areas. They are often known for their precision and for the high quality of the services and products that are produced.
Swedish companies are also far ahead when it comes to the green transition and sustainability ambitions. Perhaps they stand out in particular in this way, as many Swedish companies work on reducing carbon emissions. Many have visions of being able to completely eliminate their carbon footprints. Many Swedish companies also work on strengthening the social dimension and ensuring good working conditions for their employees around the world.
Sweden's and the rest of Europe's competitiveness is, of course, in many ways crucial for us to succeed in increasing growth. Sweden has had a deplorable development over the last eight to ten years when it comes to economic growth, and we are now at the bottom of the league in the European Union. Here, there must be a significant tightening and significantly raised ambitions.
When it comes to corporate tax, the introduction of a so-called global minimum tax is naturally good in principle, as it creates a certainty that global companies can compete on equal terms. It also creates an opportunity for the different countries to ensure that no tax evasion occurs. Competitive taxes and regulations are naturally important to provide companies with the best possible conditions to grow and create more jobs in Sweden and globally.
The minimum tax has been decided at 15 percent. What is then the right level—the best level—when it comes to the corporate tax in Sweden? It is naturally not a simple question, and there is no simple answer to it. However, I think it is an important debate that should be conducted in Sweden. Sweden is, after all, a relatively small country with an open economy, and we are constantly exposed to global competition. Many other global companies have a much larger home market than our Swedish global companies, especially the American, German, French, British, and Chinese companies. This makes Sweden more vulnerable than many other countries.
Sweden has over the last approximately 30 years continuously and successfully lowered its corporate tax to today's 20.6 percent. This has provided a good investment climate for Swedish companies and given them a great opportunity to compete on the global market.
As I mentioned earlier, we face the challenge of creating more growth in Sweden, both in the coming years and, above all, in the long term. We must find ways to get the Swedish economy to start growing. If the economy grows, we get the opportunity to make more investments in both the private and public sectors. That gives us the opportunity to continue strengthening the justice system and the defense and to manage the green transition. It is, after all, in the companies that everything begins - if we do not have successful companies, which provide growth and profits, we have nothing to distribute. Then the economy must start growing again.
Personally, I believe that this needs to be reviewed further regarding the corporate tax in order for Sweden to continue to be an attractive country to invest in and a country where it is possible to attract competence to. Our economy is relatively small, and we need to have an attractive tax system for our companies.
Mr. Speaker! The supplementary tax that we are debating today is based on the proposal for a global minimum tax and the directives that the Council has developed and which we have decided upon. These directives are based on the so-called model rules that have been developed within the framework of the cooperation in the OECD.
The idea is that we start from the global minimum tax, which is to be 15 percent for national and international companies that have an annual revenue of at least 750 million euro. We are now introducing a national supplementary tax for those groups that do not succeed in paying an effective tax of 15 percent; it is, so to speak, our national part in this. The supplementary tax shall be paid in Sweden by those groups that cannot show that they have paid an effective tax of 15 percent.
To simplify for the companies, a simplification rule is proposed that we think is very good. It means that the groups, during a transition period of three years, can use the existing data that they already report today. This will mean that they do not need to start up a new administrative system from day one. This has been a strong request from the global companies and not least from Swedish business, and I think it is pleasing that we have been able to accommodate this.
Mr. Speaker! I support the committee's proposal for a new law and the changes proposed regarding generally accepted accounting standards.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. We are completely in agreement in the sense that we both think growth policy is extremely important. A good growth policy builds our welfare, raises our productivity, and ensures that we actually get better off. So far we are in agreement, but on the other hand, I believe we disagree on certain parts regarding how growth is created.
During the previous parliamentary term, I was a member of the Committee on Industry, and I have written the book *Världens mest framgångsrika land - 100 år av socialdemokratisk näringspolitik*. I wrote that because I perceive that members, often moderate ones, sometimes have convinced themselves that tax policy is the most central issue when it comes to our competitiveness. But individual tax rates are rarely the most important issue when it comes to competitiveness.
What happens when you do what the Moderaterna did last time they were in power and what they have started doing now – you implement gigantic tax cuts, mainly for those who are richest – is that you increase inequality. You increase the savings rate in the economy, which weakens the economy. It also risks pushing up interest rates, and it creates an uncertainty in the economy.
I want to assert that Sweden is at the forefront when it comes to competitiveness not despite the fact that we have high taxes, but actually because we have high taxes, since the taxes finance things such as infrastructure, education, research, labor market policy, and transition policy.
Right now, we have a government that is slaughtering the innovation policy and removing the support for Vinnova, and that means that Sweden has low growth. Sweden has not had low growth during the last eight to ten years but has it right now. It is a big problem.
What is important is that one has taxes that function effectively. Therefore, I wonder why the Moderaterna do not want to approve our reservation. It is about reviewing the legislation so that we get an effective tax when it comes to precisely the supplementary tax.
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Mr. Speaker! Member Tegnér is still trying in some way to make it seem as if it is not only attractive taxes that create prosperity. That is, of course, correct.
There may have occurred changes over the years regarding what is most important for different companies and the corporate sector. But today, there are actually three main ingredients that make it so that we should get the Swedish economy to grow and get Swedish companies to grow.
Firstly, one needs competence. One needs to have competence that can work in the companies. The second is that one needs capital. These two parts are important. But the third part is that one needs to have ideas, innovative power, and entrepreneurial power. When these three interact – the capital, the competence, and the ideas or the innovative power – one creates successful companies.
To ensure capital, one also needs to have attractive taxes. During the last 30 years, perhaps even slightly more than that, Sweden has made a journey where the corporate tax has been lowered, which we are debating today. I believe that it has been very important for Swedish competitiveness. This is also strengthened and reinforced in several different independent reports that have been produced in that area.
It is naturally not only taxes that create a good business climate. It is a lot of other different components. But when one competes on a global market, corporate tax is still very important in that context.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! I could not have said it better myself. That is certainly the case. Competence, capital and a good industrial policy lead to growth. The challenge is that the Moderaterna have convinced themselves that broad tax cuts combined with the slaughter of industrial policy leads to growth. My absolute conviction is that is not the case.
However, we need to have reasonable taxes and reasonable taxes that are collected in an efficient way. Then we come back to the question that I tried to ask a little late a short while ago.
We now have legislation on a new tax aimed at companies that do not behave correctly. It is therefore important that it is designed in a good way so that it does not hit the companies that actually do behave correctly.
We know that the legislation is rushed. I think the government could have been a bit faster, even though it has been a challenge with time from the commission. Then the question is: Why do you Moderates not want to agree to us doing a review of the legislation immediately when it is passed?
We know that there are actually deficiencies in the legislation. Would it then not have been reasonable for the member to have been loyal to the companies and the taxpayers instead of being loyal to the government?
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Mr. Speaker! I want to add one thing that I believe is very important and that we sometimes forget.
Over the last ten years, growth has fallen. It is at one of the lowest levels in many years. Member Tegnér was pointing out that infrastructure is important and must be financed. In that regard, we have actually had a failure in recent years. This concerns the infrastructure investments in the country with roads, railways, airports, and ports. We have also had a major failure for the energy systems.
The phasing out of nuclear power has resulted in us ending up in a position where Sweden is not as attractive as it has been previously. That is actually the real industrial policy. It is a matter of ensuring that we have a well-functioning infrastructure where one can invest in and develop all types of transport and that we have an energy system that can supply Sweden with low and attractive energy prices.
It creates the foundation for an attractive business climate. This, together with the capital, the expertise, and the incredibly many great ideas that exist in Sweden, creates space for us to have a better and more successful business policy and successful companies in Sweden.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! This speech shall concern the Committee on Taxation's report 6. I was somewhat tempted to continue the debate on industrial policy and energy policy. But I waive that and urge the member to initiate a reply exchange after what I have said, so that we can continue to deliberate on energy policy.
The Committee on Taxation's Report 6 is in many respects both complicated and multifaceted. As we see it, it is fundamentally a question of justice. It is an attempt to make the world a little more just by ensuring that all large companies pay tax. The proposal for a supplementary tax for large corporations shall therefore ensure that multinational companies pay a reasonable share of tax regardless of where they operate.
The basic principle is very good in that respect. But just as so often within the tax area, the devil is in the details. The bill takes its starting point in the many-year work that has been and continues to be ongoing internationally, among other places within the OECD, to counter tax evasion and the shifting of profits to tax havens. The basic principle is, of course, that profits are taxed where they arise and where value is created.
As a basic principle, we Social Democrats believe that the work against tax evasion is right and proper. On the other hand, the rules must be well-balanced and accurate so that it is tax evaders who bear the costs and not well-functioning companies that already do the right thing today, pay tax and create jobs and thereby contribute to the Swedish prosperity.
The work led to an agreement within the OECD. It led to the EU Commission presenting a directive at the end of 2021 on a global minimum tax of 15 percent for multinational companies.
First, it concerns the principles. OECD's work against tax evasion and aggressive tax planning is extremely important. It is important work so that right shall be right, and that all citizens and companies shall do the right thing. This is extremely important for the cohesion in our country, the cohesion in Europe, and actually for cohesion globally.
It is simply to maintain trust between us humans, the trust between one another. That this works is central to the legitimacy of a globalized world and central for us to be able to have a rules-based trading system.
Faith in international trade and openness depends on everyone doing their part and contributing to the cake. It is about states being able to stop companies that completely or partially evade paying tax through tax evasion or tax avoidance and thus do not do what they should do.
This is also not a question that is completely unimportant when we talk about finances. The OECD estimates that somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of global tax revenues are lost in advanced tax planning. In that context, the work is important. The purpose of the proposal is reasonable. It is to ensure that the large multinational corporations pay a fair share of their profits in tax regardless of where they operate. Therefore, one can also see it as the rules having a positive effect on global competition because you set a lower limit for tax competition.
It is the principles, which in some ways are a bit simpler. The practice is more complicated.
This is, therefore, a legislative product concerning the taxation of the difference up to a minimum level of 15 percent if the effective tax rate in a company is lower than 15 percent. The proposal shall only apply to groups that have an annual revenue of at least 750 million euro. It is, therefore, about a few companies, and it is not small companies that it is about.
To zoom out, we know that the previous S-led government over eight years has prioritized the work against tax evasion, tax avoidance, aggressive tax planning, and unfair tax competition. Already in 2016, a decision was made on a ten-point program against tax evasion, and the S-led government worked effectively and intensively with these issues.
Unfortunately, the right-conservative and SD-led government has not shown the same will to combat tax evasion. I am thinking of the discontinuation of the exit tax investigation, the handling of the new coupon tax, and why not the Skatteverket's reduced framework for the work against tax evasion. In addition, they have with surgical precision lowered the tax for the richest and discontinued other investigations that could have made Sweden more just.
Therefore, it is perhaps not strange that we sometimes have to remind the current government that the work against tax evasion is important. Possibly that is why this proposal comes late, and possibly that is why it is not fully adapted to Swedish tax legislation – because the government does not prioritize this type of issue.
That is why there are special reasons why this legislation should be evaluated immediately and in a special order. The proposal is not in line with practice within Swedish tax law precisely because it has been rushed and because the government has not really prioritized this work.
Even though we Social Democrats are positive towards the purpose of the directive proposal and the bill, we can therefore feel concern about how the rules will be implemented and how they will function.
Here, it is a matter of having two thoughts in your head at the same time, i.e., that the benefit of harmonized rules must be weighed against an EU member state's possibilities to introduce and have its own national rules. We, as Swedish legislators, must ensure that these rules help rather than hinder fair competition.
Just as Member Ahlstedt and I noted in our exchange of remarks, Sweden usually ranks at the top or at least among the top ten in the world when it comes to business climate and competitiveness. This is due to a number of different factors, which we spoke about: high education level, infrastructure, low level of corruption, high trust and active industrial policy but also - and this is important - reasonable, predictable and legally secure taxes.
That is why this question becomes so important. It is important that the legislation works as intended, and therefore we have requested approval for a reservation to conduct a review of the tax legislation so that the proposal does not miss the mark.
Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats know that for fair competition, it is important that all companies act correctly and that the conditions are equal. It must never be a competitive advantage to place a headquarters in a tax haven. Therefore, there is fundamentally no contradiction between the fight against tax evasion and the fight or the work for growth and new jobs.
In that context, it is therefore important to ensure that this law does not become a burden for the companies that behave themselves, the Swedish companies that actually pay tax, but instead means that it increases the tax payments for those companies that are tax evaders today.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we Social Democrats are pleased that the committee, in broad agreement through a parliamentary motion, has been able to clarify some of the ambiguities and some of the inaccuracies present in the bill submitted by the government, in this case regarding accounting standards. This has ensured that the legislative proposal is actually better now than it was when the government submitted it.
With that in mind, we Social Democrats are also positive towards introducing a temporary simplification rule which means that the companies in question can, during a transition period, use their existing data from the country-by-country reporting instead of having to make new complete calculations.
We also think it is good that it is possible to apply for a preliminary decision in precisely these issues regarding supplementary tax.
Here, we Social Democrats have two reservations, Mr. Speaker. I have mentioned one of them. We mean, as said, that the legislative product has been produced in all haste and that it is therefore important with an immediate review of this product. In that work, we also think that the representative responsibility needs to be reviewed and that one needs to consider whether the representative responsibility should be included for this tax.
Mr. Speaker! I see that time is running out, but I want to conclude by saying that the work against tax evasion becomes extra important when one looks out over the world - a world where inequality is increasing rapidly and has done so for decades. A busload of the world's richest people own as much as half of the earth's population. In our own country, 5 people own more than 5 million Swedes.
For the cohesion of Sweden, Europe, and the world, right must be right, and here the work against tax evasion is immensely important. It is important, it is right, and it is necessary with a powerful work against tax evasion.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we Social Democrats move for approval of the proposal in report 6 but also for approval of the two reservations. Thank you for the floor and happy Lucia!
Additional tax for companies in large groups
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.