2025-04-242024/25:SkU15 · p.7SkUTaxation
Tax on chemicals
Review of the tax on chemicals in electronics
What's at stake: The tax on chemicals in electronics is meant to reduce the presence of hazardous flame retardants in the home environment, but an evaluation has questioned whether it works as intended. The question is whether the rules should be reviewed again or whether recent simplifications are enough.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The motion called for a review of the design of the tax on chemicals in certain electronics, since an evaluation found the tax had not achieved its intended environmental effect or been cost-effective, while the committee held that changes already made to the tax make a new review unnecessary.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee rejects the motion, pointing out that the Tax Agency and the Chemicals Agency have already evaluated the effects of the tax on chemicals and that the Riksdag has recently decided on changes the committee supported, including a simpler deduction system and clearer rules for used goods; the committee is therefore not prepared to propose further evaluation or changes to the tax at this time.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 17 (S)
The reserving party (S) wants the tax on chemicals in certain electronics reviewed again, pointing out that an evaluation by the Tax Agency and the Chemicals Agency found the tax had not achieved its intended positive environmental effects and had not been cost-effective either, which in the reserving party's view justifies a redesign so the tax works as intended.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 17 by S.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The decision would have gone the other way
Explicit commitments that contradicted the vote: VVänsterpartiet
Ja 116–91Nej 97–110
Counterfactual: the parties above are moved to the position their own documents explicitly point at, carrying their whole contingent present. Every other party keeps its real figures, including dissenters and absentees.
How the AI parties would have voted
For each party: what its own plan – election manifesto and party programme – argues for in this case, next to how the party actually voted. The AI can only answer Yes or No; a party can also abstain.
| AI | Vote | Confidence | Evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | No | Yes 19/0/0/5 | differsagainst own programme | confidence: medium | explicit |
| S | No | No 0/91/0/15 | match | confidence: low | not addressed |
| MP | No | Yes 13/0/0/5 | differs | confidence: low | not addressed |
| C | No | Abstain 0/0/21/3 | differs | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| L | No | Yes 12/0/0/4 | differs | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| KD | No | Yes 14/0/0/5 | differs | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| M | No | Yes 58/0/0/10 | differs | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| SD | No | Abstain 0/0/63/9 | differs | confidence: medium | derived |
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects the motions 2024/25:14 by Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD), 2024/25:1112 by Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M), 2024/25:1123 by Lars Püss (M), 2024/25:1191 by Rickard Nordin and Niels Paarup-Petersen (both C) claim 13, 2024/25:1351 by Per Söderlund et al. (SD) claim 5, 2024/25:1394 by Martin Kinnunen et al. (SD) claim 5, 2024/25:1472 by Larry Söder (KD), 2024/25:2519 by Stina Larsson et al. (C) claim 11, 2024/25:2654 by Sten Bergheden (M) and 2024/25:3190 by Niklas Karlsson et al. (S) claim 24.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motionerna 2024/25:14 av Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD), 2024/25:1112 av Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M), 2024/25:1123 av Lars Püss (M), 2024/25:1191 av Rickard Nordin och Niels Paarup-Petersen (båda C) yrkande 13, 2024/25:1351 av Per Söderlund m.fl. (SD) yrkande 5, 2024/25:1394 av Martin Kinnunen m.fl. (SD) yrkande 5, 2024/25:1472 av Larry Söder (KD), 2024/25:2519 av Stina Larsson m.fl. (C) yrkande 11, 2024/25:2654 av Sten Bergheden (M) och 2024/25:3190 av Niklas Karlsson m.fl. (S) yrkande 24.
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag rejected approximately 80 proposals in motions on excise taxes. The majority of the proposals were submitted during the general motion period in 2024. However, two proposals are contained in follow-up motions raised in response to the bill 'The path to reliable transport infrastructure – for all of Sweden to function'. The Riksdag refers primarily to the fact that work is already underway in the areas covered by the proposals and to earlier policy positions.
Counter-proposals
- The counter-proposal wants to advocate for enabling differentiation of taxes on biofuels and fossil fuels at EU level. (S) — Reservation 17
Plan vs actual vote
Every party, in chamber order: what its own plan pointed to, how it voted, and the reasoning behind both. Highlighted rows are where the two differ — but a vote that follows the plan is a result too, so the reasoning is there for every party.
The party programme establishes that taxes can play an important complementary role in driving the transition but need to be designed wisely to have a real effect.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme establishes that taxes can play an important complementary role in driving the transition but need to be designed wisely to have a real effect. The counter-proposal's requirement for a new review of the chemical tax, after an evaluation has shown it has delivered neither the intended environmental effects nor been cost-effective, is precisely that examination. The plan also wants ambitious environmental targets followed up with sharp legislation and practical work, which presupposes that ineffective instruments are redesigned.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet slår fast att skatter kan spela en viktig kompletterande roll för att driva på omställningen men att de behöver utformas klokt för att få verklig effekt. Motförslagets krav på en ny översyn av kemikalieskatten, sedan en utvärdering visat att den varken gett de avsedda miljöeffekterna eller varit kostnadseffektiv, är precis den prövningen. Planen vill dessutom se ambitiösa miljömål som följs upp med skarp lagstiftning och praktiskt arbete, vilket förutsätter att verkningslösa styrmedel görs om.
- taxes should have a real effectdecisive»De behöver utformas klokt för att få verklig effekt och« (party programme ↗)“They need to be designed wisely to have a real effect and”
- taxes as environmental instruments»Skatter kan spela en viktig kompletterande roll för att driva på« (party programme ↗)“Taxes can play an important complementary role in driving”
- ambitious environmental targets»miljömål som följs upp med skarp lagstiftning och praktiskt arbete.« (party programme ↗)“environmental targets followed up with sharp legislation and practical work.”
- policy based on research»rörelse för ett bättre samhälle behöver bygga på stabil forskning och« (party programme ↗)“movement for a better society needs to be built on solid research and”
The stance rests on the quoted commitment in the party's own documents; the actual vote deviated. Click the quote to verify it in the document.
The party programme requires a strategic environmental policy where economic instruments are one of the most important tools and that all environmental impact in the form of emissions and waste be minimized.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme requires a strategic environmental policy where economic instruments are one of the most important tools and that all environmental impact in the form of emissions and waste be minimized. A tax that according to evaluation has not produced intended environmental effects does not meet this requirement, which is why a new review of the design is in line with the plan. The chemical tax is not mentioned in the documents, so the assessment is derived.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet kräver en strategisk miljöpolitik där ekonomiska styrmedel är ett av de viktigaste instrumenten och att all miljöpåverkan i form av utsläpp och avfall minimeras. En skatt som enligt utvärdering inte gett avsedda miljöeffekter uppfyller inte detta krav, varför en ny översyn av utformningen ligger i linje med planen. Kemikalieskatten nämns inte i dokumenten, så bedömningen är härledd.
- strategic environmental policydecisive»Detta kräver en strategisk miljöpolitik« (party programme ↗)“This requires a strategic environmental policy”
- minimized environmental impact»miljöpåverkan i form av utsläpp och avfallsprodukter ska minimeras« (party programme ↗)“environmental impact in the form of emissions and waste products shall be minimized”
- cost-effective regulations»Stärk de långsiktiga förutsättningarna för företagande och innovation« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strengthen the long-term conditions for business and innovation”
The plan requires that assessment and control within chemicals policy is sharp, that toxic substances are phased out immediately and that powerful economic instruments are used.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires that assessment and control within chemicals policy is sharp, that toxic substances are phased out immediately and that powerful economic instruments are used. If the evaluation shows that the chemical tax does not produce the intended environmental effects the plan's demands for effective instruments speak for a new review and changed design. The plan does not, however, address the tax directly, so the conclusion is derived.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver att prövningen och kontrollen inom kemikaliepolitiken är skarp, att giftiga ämnen fasas ut omgående och att kraftfulla ekonomiska styrmedel används. Om utvärderingen visar att kemikalieskatten inte ger de avsedda miljöeffekterna talar planens krav på verkningsfulla styrmedel för en ny översyn och en förändrad utformning. Planen behandlar dock inte skatten direkt, så slutsatsen är härledd.
- immediate phasing out of toxinsdecisive»fasa ut giftiga ämnen omgående, speciellt från produkter för barn.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“phase out toxic substances immediately, especially from products for children.”
- sharp chemicals policy»kontrollen, såväl nationellt som inom EU:s kemikaliepolitik, måste vara skarp.« (party programme ↗)“assessment and control, both nationally and within the EU's chemicals policy, must be sharp.”
- effective instruments»Kraftfulla ekonomiska styrmedel är nödvändiga.« (party programme ↗)“Powerful economic instruments are necessary.”
- environmental toxins as serious threat»Miljögifter är i dag ett allvarligt hot mot såväl« (party programme ↗)“Environmental toxins are today a serious threat to both”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan requires leadership that prioritizes effective measures over symbolic politics and steering instruments that make it profitable to be environmentally responsible and unprofitable to destroy the environment.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires leadership that prioritizes effective measures over symbolic politics and steering instruments that make it profitable to be environmentally responsible and unprofitable to destroy the environment. A tax that according to evaluation has delivered neither intended environmental effect nor been cost-effective does not meet that requirement, which speaks for a new review and changed design. The plan's goal of lowered tax burden points in the same direction.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver ett ledarskap som prioriterar effektiva åtgärder framför symbolpolitik och att styrmedel gör det lönsamt att vara miljövårdande och olönsamt att förstöra miljön. En skatt som enligt utvärdering varken gett avsedd miljöeffekt eller varit kostnadseffektiv uppfyller inte det, vilket talar för en ny översyn och en förändrad utformning. Planens mål om sänkt skattetryck pekar åt samma håll.
- effective measures over symbolic politicsdecisive»Ett ledarskap som prioriterar effektiva åtgärder framför symbolpolitik eller passivitet.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Leadership that prioritizes effective measures over symbolic politics or passivity.”
- steering instruments that steer right»Det ska alltid vara lönsamt att vara miljövårdande och olönsamt att agera miljöförstörande.« (party programme ↗)“It should always be profitable to be environmentally responsible and unprofitable to act in an environmentally destructive way.”
- resource efficiency and reuse»Sverige ska bli världens mest resurseffektiva land och ekonomin mer cirkulär. Med rätt stöd och regelförenklingar kan vi återvinna och återbruka allt från kläder till mineral och metaller.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Sweden should become the world's most resource-efficient country and the economy more circular. With the right support and regulatory simplifications we can recycle and reuse everything from clothing to minerals and metals.”
- lowered tax burden»Det totala skattetrycket måste ner nästa mandatperiod.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The total tax burden must come down next term.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan explicitly distances itself from symbolic politics and instead wants general and technology-neutral economic instruments that actually reduce environmental impact.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan explicitly distances itself from symbolic politics and instead wants general and technology-neutral economic instruments that actually reduce environmental impact. A chemical tax that according to evaluation has neither delivered intended environmental effects nor been cost-effective is exactly such a tax that the plan wants to change. Simultaneously, the plan maintains the precautionary principle and stricter oversight, so the review is to improve and not weaken chemical policy.
Original (Swedish)
Planen tar uttryckligen avstånd från symbolpolitik och vill i stället ha generella och teknikneutrala ekonomiska styrmedel som faktiskt minskar miljöpåverkan. En kemikalieskatt som enligt utvärdering varken gett avsedda miljöeffekter eller varit kostnadseffektiv är just en sådan skatt som planen vill göra om. Samtidigt håller planen fast vid försiktighetsprincipen och skärpt tillsyn, så översynen ska förbättra och inte försvaga kemikaliepolitiken.
- no to symbolic politicsdecisive»Liberal miljöpolitik tar avstånd från symbolpolitik« (party programme ↗)“Liberal environmental policy distances itself from symbolic politics”
- general technology-neutral instruments»Generella och teknikneutrala ekonomiska styrmedel« (party programme ↗)“General and technology-neutral economic instruments”
- real taxes, not symbolic taxes»Därför är vi för riktiga klimatskatter i stället för att göra klimatpolitiken till en tävling i högst bidrag och flest symbolskatter.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Therefore we are for real climate taxes instead of making climate policy into a competition in highest subsidies and most symbolic taxes.”
- the precautionary principle»Kemikalielagstiftningen ska utgå från försiktighetsprincipen.« (party programme ↗)“Chemical legislation shall be based on the precautionary principle.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan establishes that taxation shall be designed so that environmentally harmful activity is actually countered, and that evaluation and cost monitoring is an important political task.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan establishes that taxation shall be designed so that environmentally harmful activity is actually countered, and that evaluation and cost monitoring is an important political task. When an evaluation shows that the chemical tax has neither produced the intended environmental effect nor been cost-effective, it follows from the plan's demand for a transparent and simple tax system that the tax is reviewed anew. The counter-proposal's demands thereby lie in line with the plan.
Original (Swedish)
Planen slår fast att beskattningen ska utformas så att miljöskadlig verksamhet faktiskt motverkas, och att utvärdering och kostnadsuppföljning är en viktig politisk uppgift. När en utvärdering visar att kemikalieskatten varken gett avsedd miljöeffekt eller varit kostnadseffektiv följer det av planens krav på ett transparent och enkelt skattesystem att skatten ses över på nytt. Motförslagets krav ligger därmed i linje med planen.
- tax shall counter environmental damagedecisive»påverkande utsläpp och annan miljöskadlig verksamhet motverkas.« (party programme ↗)“reducing emissions and other environmentally harmful activity is countered.”
- evaluation as political task»Utvärdering, kostnadsuppföljning och kvalitetskontroll« (party programme ↗)“Evaluation, cost monitoring and quality control”
- simple tax rules»skattereglerna utformas så enkelt som möjligt« (party programme ↗)“tax rules are designed as simply as possible”
- transparent and legitimate tax»Strävan måste därför vara att skattesystemet är transparent« (party programme ↗)“The aim must therefore be that the tax system is transparent”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The party programme requires that science and facts guide environmental policy and that it is never reduced to expensive symbolic politics.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme requires that science and facts guide environmental policy and that it is never reduced to expensive symbolic politics. The counter-proposal's reasoning is that an evaluation has shown that the chemical tax has neither produced the intended environmental effects nor been cost-effective, which is precisely the kind of tax the plan does not want. The election manifesto furthermore directs criticism at tax increases that complicate and raise the cost of everyday life and establishes that more tax is no solution.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet kräver att vetenskap och fakta styr miljöpolitiken och att den aldrig reduceras till dyrbar symbolpolitik. Motförslagets skäl är att en utvärdering visat att kemikalieskatten varken gett avsedda miljöeffekter eller varit kostnadseffektiv, vilket är precis en sådan skatt planen inte vill ha. Valmanifestet riktar dessutom kritik mot skattehöjningar som krånglar till och fördyrar vardagen och slår fast att mer skatt inte är någon lösning.
- evidence-based environmental policyweak support»Vetenskap och fakta ska vara ledande i klimat- och miljöpolitiken.« (party programme ↗)“Science and facts shall be guiding in climate and environmental policy.”
- no symbolic environmental policydecisive»Klimatpolitiken får aldrig reduceras till dyrbar symbolpolitik eller snäv klimatnationalism.« (party programme ↗)“Climate policy must never be reduced to expensive symbolic politics or narrow climate nationalism.”
- criticism of complicated taxes»Under de senaste åtta åren har regeringen höjt 46 skatter, som krånglar till och fördyrar vardagen för både företagare och konsumenter.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Over the past eight years, the government has raised 46 taxes, which complicate and raise the cost of everyday life for both entrepreneurs and consumers.”
- lower tax burden(2022 manifesto)
flags: citat_svagt, citat_ej_verifierat
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan requires that environmental policy be attuned to research and based on facts, and that measures be chosen that provide most environment per spent krona.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires that environmental policy be attuned to research and based on facts, and that measures be chosen that provide most environment per spent krona. A tax that according to evaluation has neither produced intended environmental effect nor been cost-effective should therefore be reformed. The plan moreover wishes that taxes do not hamper Swedish companies in competition.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver att miljöpolitiken stäms av mot forskningen och bygger på fakta, och att åtgärder väljs som ger mest miljö per satsad krona. En skatt som enligt utvärdering varken gett avsedd miljöeffekt eller varit kostnadseffektiv bör därför göras om. Planen vill dessutom att skatter inte ska hämma svenska företag i konkurrensen.
- most environment per kronadecisive»Sträva efter miljöeffektivitet och hitta de åtgärder som ger mest miljö per krona« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strive for environmental efficiency and find measures that provide most environment per krona.”
- evidence-based environmental policy»Miljöpolitiken måste alltid stämmas av mot nya rön i forskningen och baseras på fakta framför känslor.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Environmental policy must always be attuned to new findings in research and based on facts before feelings.”
- taxes must not hamper companies»Ha skatter på en nivå som inte hämmar svenska företag i den internationella konkurrensen« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Have taxes at a level that does not hamper Swedish companies in international competition.”
- against symbolic politics»Stoppa symbolpolitik som går ut över möjligheten att bedriva industri och näring« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Stop symbolic politics that undermines the ability to conduct industry and business.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
Share and embed
Sources and documents
- The committee report on riksdagen.se (2024/25:SkU15)
- Committee report full text (HC01SkU15)
- Per-MP voting data (API)
- Case status (API)
Documents under consideration
- Motion 2024/25:1028 — Införande av en ny Lidingöregel av Kerstin Lundgren (C)
- Motion 2024/25:1045 — Vägavgifter av Denis Begic (S)
- Motion 2024/25:1112 — Kemikalieskattens effekter av Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)
- Motion 2024/25:1123 — Utvärdering av miljönyttan av dagens elektronikskatt av Lars Püss (M)
- Motion 2024/25:1165 — Vägavgift för utländska lastbilar på svenska vägar av Gudrun Brunegård (KD)
- Motion 2024/25:1191 — Sveriges 13 sämsta lagar av Rickard Nordin och Niels Paarup-Petersen (båda C)
- Motion 2024/25:1351 — Punktskatt av Per Söderlund m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1394 — Kemikaliepolitik av Martin Kinnunen m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:14 — Avskaffande av kemikalieskatten av Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1454 — Regional utveckling - för ett levande Sverige av Tobias Andersson m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1472 — Kemikalieskatten av Larry Söder (KD)
- Motion 2024/25:1547 — Beskattning av snus av Jörgen Grubb och Patrik Jönsson (båda SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1557 — Väsentlig lättnad av den statliga skatte- och regelbördan för svenskt jordbruk av Helena Lindahl och Daniel Bäckström (båda C)
- Motion 2024/25:1744 — Utredning om avgift eller skatt på jungfruliga råvaror av Elin Söderberg m.fl. (MP)
- Motion 2024/25:1771 — Flyget i en ohållbar tid av Linus Lakso m.fl. (MP)
- Motion 2024/25:1772 — Ett utsläppsfritt och transporteffektivt samhälle av Linus Lakso m.fl. (MP)
- Motion 2024/25:1773 — Decentralisering av trängselskatten av Linus Lakso m.fl. (MP)
- Motion 2024/25:1779 — Sänkt skatt på spel för en ökad kanalisering av Carl Nordblom (M)
- Motion 2024/25:1859 — Differentierade trängselskatter av Kristina Axén Olin (M)
- Motion 2024/25:1921 — Ett rättvist skattesystem m.m. av Ilona Szatmári Waldau m.fl. (V)
Source: The Swedish Parliament