DN Debate. Lower taxes on work, and raise kapitalskatterna

In januariavtalet between the social democrats, the green Party, the Centre party and the Liberals, it is mentioned that it should be implemented a tax reform. How to go to and what it will include is not clear. But it is probably inevitable that it must be preceded by a skatteutredning. It is a welcome news, even if it is regrettable that it has taken so long before the possibility is now opened.

But it also announces a series of specific tax changes. Many of these means, lower taxes, among them the abolition of war to be implemented on 1 January 2020. The only tax increase that is mentioned is the increase in environmental taxes of sek 15 billion, which, however, should be balanced by equal reductions in tax on earned income.

tax reform should be based on roughly the same principles as were applied for the Century tax reform, which was implemented from 1990 to 1991. A simple, uniform, and transparent tax system with such broad tax bases and low tax rates as possible.

Since the tax reform was implemented, there have been hundreds of changes. Some are harmless, but several have implied that the tax system has krånglats with lots of exceptions and special provisions. The principles have been eroded substantially.

the Problem is that many of the changes now proposed in the agreement would complicate the tax system further and make it even more difficult to understand. As an example, the tax rules proposed to be amended to facilitate cykelpendling. My recommendation is that the tax system should not be used for targeted support for a variety of purposes. Such efforts should preferably be made on the government expenditure side of the budget.

the Discussion should more focus on what spending we want, not least in order to maintain a general and generous welfare. Then the tax rate should be adapted to this.

behind the agreement so far as possible try to avoid all sorts of one-off projects in the field of taxation and are concentrating instead on a broad tax reform. Such a can not solve all the problems in the society. Several problems should be handled in a different way.

But there are several difficulties. A tax reform should not increase income inequality in the society. The opposite – to reduce the gaps – would be more desirable. Therefore, to start with removing the värnskatten – which clearly favors high-income households – would be unfortunate. Also I think that värnskatten should be abolished. It was introduced in 1995 as a four-year temporary measure but are still to be seen. Removing the must be balanced by other measures, which makes the overall fördelningsprofilen will be acceptable.

with the current tax system is the large gap between low taxes on income from capital and high taxes on earned income. The gap was already there from the beginning when the end of the Century tax reform was launched and led the so-called 3:12 rules. They aimed to counteract the labour was converted to capital in order to bring down the tax.

since Then, the gap has widened significantly, by the tax on capital income has been lowered at the same time as the tax on earned income has been raised. This has led to efforts in various ways to achieve a skatteomvandling has increased drastically. This means a large loss of tax revenue and, secondly, that income inequalities have increased. It is due to low taxed capital income, to a large extent is concentrated to the people with the very highest incomes. Much talk in addition to differences in the taxation of labor and capital leads to an inefficient use of resources.

Therefore, in my view, a tax reform mean increased kapitalinkomstskatter and reduced arbetsinkomstskatter. If it even is going to exist no difference, it should be as small as possible.

commitments to be funded. The budget for 2019 as the Moderates, the Christian democrats and The sweden democrats voted in december last year, spent a large part of the scope for reform that existed. The proposals in the fyrpartiavtalet is true to a large extent not very precise but it is still difficult to avoid the impression that they involve an additional fiscal burden on the basis of a series of tax cuts and spending increases.

The four parties say they want to maintain the fiscal framework – in simple terms to the public finances over time should show a slight surplus. I welcome this but foresee great difficulties to get the equation.

But it is more difficult than that. We have an ageing population. It means that there will be great demands on spending increases for health care and care of the elderly, and other just to maintain today's standard. Than tougher the task becomes for the elderly to keep up with the standardökning as the active generations are likely to have in the future.

To this the demands from almost all political parties in the parliament to allocate greater resources for schools, for pensions, for police, defense, infrastructure and much else.

it should be able to be combined with requirements for a reduced tax levy in the future, that in every case, some parties advocate. In fact, it speaks a lot to the tax ratio (taxes / GDP) needs to be increased. Perhaps not up to the level that it had for about 20 years ago, but in any case, a bit up from the current level.

the Tax rate is not an end in itself. Taxes main purpose is to finance public spending. The discussion should more focus on what spending we want, not least in order to maintain a general and generous welfare. Then the tax rate should be adapted to this.

A reform aimed at a simple, uniform, and transparent tax system will face a cavalcade of special interests, who all want to have an exception or a special provision to the benefit of its own industry, region, occupation, or own the company. It applies to reformatörerna to resist these demands.