Economic security in old age

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

Before we begin the debate, I just want to inform that there are two expenditure areas left to debate and many registered speakers for these debates. I would therefore like to flag that it is not certain that both these matters will have time to be debated completely before 23.00, when we adjourn. Speeches that remain will be moved to the end of tomorrow's agenda.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report 2 on expenditure area 11 Economic security in old age. It is with pleasure that I move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

For us Sverigedemokrater, it is fundamental in our social-conservative political orientation that Sweden shall be a country with a strong welfare state. Those who have worked, contributed and built up this country shall be treated with great respect and gratitude.

Sweden's pensioners do not deserve a pension that is barely enough to survive on, but a pension that allows them to live a good life in the autumn of their lives. It is important that the elderly should be able to be secure in every way. We Sverigedemokrater are now putting forward a policy that will make Sweden safer.

Several surveys show that many elderly people are worried and afraid of being subjected to crime. Elderly people are significantly more worried than younger people about being assaulted, robbed, or harassed. It has been seen that, among other things, fraud attempts against the elderly are becoming increasingly common.

Violence and abuse against the elderly is a serious social problem. The number of unreported cases is large and the issue needs to be given even more attention. With this government, safety will be prioritized.

Madam Speaker! Women generally have lower pensions. We know some factors that contribute to this. It is about women being at home longer and also taking more of the parental leave. They take greater responsibility for family and children, work less, take more sick leave for children (vab), and have lower wages. All of this has a decisive significance for the size of the pension when one gets older. It might not be something one thinks about in the middle of life, but it can come as a harsh fact.

In order to level out the economic differences between men and women, the basic protection is central for pensioners with low income. It also largely goes to women, who often have a lower pension than men.

More needs to be done here, however. We also need to ensure that we do more to increase equality between men and women when it comes to the pension. Here, the Pension Group has a mandate, but this does not seem to be an issue that has been prioritized. We may have to hope that proposals will come from there.

At the same time, there must be a respect distance between the income pension for those who have worked and the guarantee pension and various other supports that those who have not worked in the same way can receive. It must pay to work.

Madam Speaker! Overall, Sweden has good pensions, but of course, we want to strengthen the pensions further.

The Pensions Agency notes that Sweden is lower than the average within the EU when it comes to relative poverty among the elderly. When it comes to absolute poverty, the Swedish share is the lowest among all member states in the EU.

Pensioners' disposable income has increased, and every fourth Swede receives a higher income after retirement thanks to the basic protection within the pension system being more generous than the basic protections that exist earlier in life.

We have a stable pension system in Sweden. According to various rankings, our pension system is among the ten best in the world. We must be careful and cherish our pension system. Many other countries look with some envy at the fact that we have such a stable system.

The Pension Group's importance for decisions on pensions and conditions for the elderly's finances has been the foundation of the stable system we see today. The Pension Group has functioned well for quite many years, but in recent years, it has started to creak a little in the group. There was conflict in the election campaign regarding the pensions, and the conflicts that arose risk breaking down the system's long-term stability.

The pension group is an old construction. It should be time for a rethink and for all parliamentary parties to be included in the group.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said in his government statement that all parties will be invited to cross-bloc talks on pensions. Spontaneously, it sounds good, but we Sverigedemokrater are disappointed that we have not yet been invited to the Pension Group itself.

The Government now proposes a new goal for the expenditure area. The goal for the expenditure area shall be that the benefits shall contribute to a good economic standard for women and men, both single and cohabiting, with low or no income-based pension. The proposal implies that a greater focus is placed on the economic standard among pensioners instead of on the real value of the benefits.

I move again for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In the previous debate, I heard Daniel Persson speak appreciatively about reforms that social democratic governments have implemented during the recent terms. He mentioned, among other things, the guaranteed pension.

I can truly agree that this is an important reform that has been implemented. One could say that this is a kind of safety valve for people who have often worked a long professional life, reached their 60s, and there feel that the body is starting to say stop. For many who today are 57, 58, or 59, this can be a light, something to look forward to and an opportunity when they feel how it aches in the whole body. Now we have a security pension in place, which means an opportunity for these groups.

At the same time, we hear the Moderate Minister for Social Insurance signal that they want to review this, which is not so unexpected. My question is: Will Daniel Persson and the Sverigedemokraterna take up the fight if it is the case that the government intends to start dismantling the guaranteed pension?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Kalle Olsson for the question.

We have also stood behind this reform. I would not be worried that the government will tear up this decision. If that happens, we will of course fight for this issue in negotiations, but I cannot anticipate that battle. That is my answer to the member.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

In his speech, Daniel Persson mentioned the Pension Group. The Sweden Democrats want to be involved in these contexts and discuss the pensions. My question is therefore whether Daniel Persson considers it important that one adheres to the principles that have applied until now.

This is a system that we have worked on and nurtured together parliamentarily for nearly 30 years. Is it important to stand up for the principles that have been guiding during these nearly 30 years, or is it not? Do the Sweden Democrats think, for example, that the agreement we have on target ages should apply, or do the Sweden Democrats mean that we should tear it up?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Kalle Olsson, for your question!

As I said earlier, the Pensions Group has worked to ensure that we have a stable pension system. We should be grateful for that, and the Social Democrats have been a part of this.

Regarding the agreements that apply within the Pensions Group, perhaps those are such things we should review, if we sit down, to see what we come to.

Just regarding the age of consent, the Sweden Democrats had a differing opinion. Now, however, we have made a decision, and it will apply - it is virtually impossible to overturn this decision.

We are very happy to be part of the Pensions Group and have constructive conversations.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the contribution.

The Sweden Democrats have long spoken about being the pensioners' party, burning for the pensioners and believing that pensioners should be shown respect in society. In what way does Daniel Persson think respect is shown for the country's pensioners in the budget now being presented by the Sweden Democrats when it comes to increased pensions? The impression that the Left Party and I get from looking at the budget is, however, that zero kronor are being invested in increased pensions during the coming period.

I want to remind the Chamber that we in Vänsterpartiet had the opportunity to exert influence in a situation similar to the one that the Sverigedemokraterna have been in here. At that time, we demanded that the guaranteed pension be increased. The result of this was the largest increase in pensions in modern times.

The Sweden Democrats have secured 14 öre in reduced fuel tax. There has been no electricity price support for northern Sweden. In the budget, we see that it will be zero kronor for the country's pensioners.

What have the Sweden Democrats put at the top of the list when negotiating? Has it been the pensioners, or have you ignored the country's pensioners, who have built up our country, and let the other right-wing parties decide?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Ida Gabrielsson for the question.

We have a stable pension system in Sweden, as I said earlier, and this system ranks high in various rankings. Our pensioners' disposable income has increased, and every fourth Swede receives a higher income after retirement thanks to the fact that we have a strong basic protection.

But as I said earlier, we are not quite satisfied with this. The Tidö Agreement states that we shall, among other things, work towards lower taxes on earned income and pension income and develop proposals on how pensioners' finances can be strengthened and freedom of choice protected. These are important proposals, and it is such things that will be initiated during next year.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! There is no specific proposal for a supplement to the country's pensioners in the coming years. On the other hand, the government provides 12 billion in tax cuts to those who earn over 50,000 a month.

Vänsterpartiet proposes an increase of the pensions by an average of 2,000 kronor per month in the income pension. It is a view that the Sverigedemokraterna have also favored. Now I perceive that some papers have been received from assistants at the Government Offices. In no other way can it be perceived when the system that one has criticized for so long now seems to be absolutely excellent.

Therefore, my questions to Member Daniel Persson are the following: How much more money will the country's pensioners receive in the budget for 2023? How much in increased pensions have the Sverigedemokraterna managed to negotiate into the budget for 2023?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Ida Gabrielsson for her question.

We have not made any decisions regarding tax increases. This government has been in power for two months, and we can see that there will be no deteriorations for pensioners during the coming years. It is also important to see when we enter a tough economic situation.

Then we will see what the investigations included in the Tidö Agreement come up with and what they will yield in the coming years after next year. Those are my answers.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, a woman receives an average of 13,100 kronor per month in general pension when she retires. The corresponding figure for men is 15,700 kronor.

If we look a little closer at the group of women within Kommunal, seven out of ten receive a portion of their pension in guaranteed pension. There is a simple reason why we Social Democrats have spoken and continue to speak about the need to raise pensions. It is that for far too many, the pensions are far too low. If we do nothing, they will become even lower for future generations of pensioners.

How pensions are distributed is in many ways a reflection of what society looks like today. Here we see the class society. Here we see the inequality. Here we see the inequality in the labor market. We see how an LO worker wears themselves out prematurely and receives a lower pension. We see how women take greater responsibility for home and family and therefore receive a lower pension. We see how younger wage earners many times miss out on occupational pensions because the employer has not signed a collective agreement and therefore receive a lower pension.

It is not enough, Madam Speaker, to tweak the pension system itself to improve pensions, but we must do so much more. We must, for example, increase staffing in the welfare sector so that nursing assistants, childcare workers, and others can endure a long working life. We men must take greater responsibility for an equal family life. We must safeguard a strong trade union movement so that more wage earners are covered by the benefits of collective agreements.

The pension system is special in that the perspectives are so long. What we sow today, we will harvest in perhaps 40 years. That insight has so far been guiding in the parliamentary work that has surrounded the pensions. For nearly 30 years, the five parties that stood behind the original pension agreement have taken a collective responsibility for nurturing and developing the system. No one can say that it has been easy or without friction, but I believe we can all agree that Sweden has a pension system that is financially robust, which has withstood both political changes of power and economic crises. Such a result should in itself give cause for reflection among the parties that are now considering tinkering with and tearing up the current order.

The Social Democrats argue that the parties that were part of the original agreement should continue to take responsibility for it and actually finish what we have agreed upon. It so happens that the next item on the Pension Group's to-do list is a review of the contribution levels. We Social Democrats believe, in line with many others, for example with the central trade union organizations and the pensioners' organizations, that we must increase the pension contributions so that we reach the 18 ½ percent in contributions that was originally intended. Only then can we, in the long run, ensure long-term sustainable pensions.

Exactly how this is going to work is such a typical example where the parties should discuss, weigh different interests, and finally land on a settlement that everyone can stand behind, just as we have done so many times before within the framework of the work.

Madam Speaker! Now, we Social Democrats in government, thanks to good cooperation with other parties, have been able to take significant measures to improve the conditions for large groups of the country's elderly. I am thinking of the pension supplement which strengthened the finances for elderly people who have had a long working life and yet receive a low pension. I am thinking of the introduction of the security pension for elderly wage earners who have worn out their bodies and for whom the alternative would otherwise have been to either take a premature low pension or live on any savings. And I am naturally thinking of the large increase of the guarantee pension which gave a million elderly people a higher pension.

For the 655,000 pensioners who already had a guaranteed pension, the reform meant an increase of an average of 900 kronor per month. These are funds that make a difference, especially in these expensive times.

Now, there are predominantly better-off civil servants with incomes that mean they will never personally come anywhere near a guarantee pension, who think that the increase in the guarantee pension has caused the difference in pension between those who have worked a very long working life and those who have not fully done so to have decreased too much. That type of objection is easy to have if one is sitting pretty, but for the single pensioner who perhaps has 9,000–11,000 kronor a month, it is not a theoretical discussion, but it is a very real question of whether the money actually suffices to buy food for the whole month. Will there be any Christmas presents for the grandchildren? The most reasonable way, Madam Speaker, to safeguard the respect of the distance is to increase the contributions to the pension system.

Regardless of whether we are in government or in opposition, we Social Democrats will tirelessly continue the fight for higher pensions. For us, the long-term goal is that the total pension for ordinary wage earners shall be at least 70 percent of the final salary. In Sweden, it must be secure to go into retirement.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kalle Olsson for an inspired and engaged speech.

I am new to the Committee on Social Insurance, so I do not have all the answers to the questions. But I can state that Kalle Olsson began by saying that there is much left to do. Then I reflect on the fact that you have been in power for eight years, and yet you have, so to speak, not addressed the issue.

Kalle Olsson speaks about the Pensions Group being important. I interpret the message from Kalle Olsson as that the Social Democrats are willing to go in fully into the Pensions Group's work. But are there any reservations? There is an understanding that those who want to join the Pensions Group, who stand up for the demands, can also be involved moving forward. We know that there are now parties that were not in the Riksdag when the Pensions Group was formed. A completely different parliamentary situation prevails now. I have understood that previous signals from the Social Democrats have not been crystal clear. Is one willing to go in with full force in the Pensions Group even if it might be feasible to broaden it?

If one thinks that the Pensions Group is so excellent, one can look at the guarantee supplement that we are discussing and which was also highlighted. It was actually not discussed in any way in the Pensions Group before it was implemented. Does Kalle Olsson think that it was a good handling of that guarantee supplement that became the result so that Magdalena Andersson could take office as Prime Minister?

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! If we look at how things look for the country's pensioners, we see a somewhat divided picture. There are those who have it well and secure in the autumn of their lives, but there are far too many who have it very tough. It is often women. They have labored, often in the public sector, while simultaneously taking great responsibility for home and family.

There are great injustices today in how this turns out. I mentioned Kommunal, where seven out of ten women receive a portion of their pension as a guaranteed pension. I do not think one can be satisfied when looking at that outcome.

As a Social Democrat, I do not feel that we have anything to be ashamed of in how we have worked with these issues during the recent parliamentary terms. We raised the guaranteed pension. We introduced the supplement for those who have worked a long working life but still have a low pension. We made efforts on the housing supplement and so on—not infrequently under considerable opposition from the side that Ingemar Kihlström represents. So that is how it is.

We need to do more, but if we are truly going to tackle this issue and structurally raise pensions in Sweden, we must look at the fees, and as I said at the beginning of my speech, that issue lies on the Pensions Group's table. Instead of continuing to talk about everything else, let us focus on that! Let us tackle this issue now and conduct a review and see if we can find consensus to actually raise pensions sustainably and properly. That is what would make a difference in the long perspective.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kalle Olsson for the contribution but perhaps not for the absence of answers to the questions I asked regarding how the Pensions Group's continued work is viewed, who should participate and how one should behave.

It is actually so, Kalle Olsson, that there are more parties fighting for the elderly. It was actually our budget that removed the difference in taxation between wage subsidies and so on. That we can look at.

We can also look forward. What do we need to do?

I will return to the guarantee supplement, which one could say was handled on the side of the Pensions Group. Does Kalle Olsson think it was a good way? I share the view that Kalle Olsson has that one should have the Pensions Group to have long-term perspective. We should not have it so that it rests on budget decisions, which it did in this way. And the guarantee supplement that was produced did not make the pension system simpler.

We were at a pension forum not so long ago. There, the leading experts in Sweden said that we have a system that provides a good pension for very many – I share the opinion that we need to ensure that more people get it – but at the same time, it is very complicated. It is very difficult even for those who are the ultimate experts, because it has been a bit of patchwork.

We can probably be held somewhat responsible for both, so I am not saying that we haven't been involved in it as well. But I maintain that we need to have long-term perspective. That is where the Pensions Group - which I assess needs to be broadened so that we get a broad basis for those who meet the applicable criteria - is the important thing.

I repeat my question. How do the Social Democrats view the continuation for the Pensions Group, and what is the opinion on the handling of the guarantee supplement, which was later even criticized by the Pensions Agency because, to some extent, the respect distance was removed? Was it a good handling during the past year?

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! One problem here is that we have had a bourgeoisie that for a very long time has worked very actively so that we do not raise the pension levels that we have talked about here. So that is how it is. The discussion has indeed been ongoing in the Pensions Group for a long, long time about the fact that we need to do more to raise the pensions for those who are having it very tough. Or hasn't it? So that is how it has been. That is the truth.

In the best case, we could find as broad a consensus as possible on these issues. I am the first to agree with that, and I hope that is the path we can walk forward as well.

But when that didn't work, we had to act, because the truth was that before the increase, the minimum level for the guaranteed pension was 8,700. Now I do not have the opportunity to ask any counter-questions, but it is very low. Those are very low levels to live on.

I forgot to mention in my previous speech that we also removed the difference in tax that the then Alliance government drove up. It took quite a long time to do that.

If we are to be honest regarding the view on the Pension Group, it is about the fact that you have now joined forces with the Sweden Democrats. They want to be included, and it has created certain internal problems for you.

From the Social Democrats' side, we are fully committed to continuing the work to raise pensions. That is what is important for us. That is the absolute most important thing now. We must continue the work that we carried out when we were in a government position, and we believe that we have good conditions to do so if we just sit down and actually start tackling what we said as far back as 2017 that we would do. Then it is a review of the contribution levels that is next in line. I think we should tackle that instead.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! Aging is like climbing a mountain – you get a little out of breath, but you get a much better view. So said the actress Ingrid Bergman once.

With age comes experience, competence, and knowledge. To also feel well in old age, economic security is important, and that brings us into today's debate on economic security in old age. It is a large and important expenditure area that covers 55 billion kronor.

I have a great commitment to the opportunity for seniors and the elderly to live a good life well into their later years. It is therefore easy for me to speak about the issues in today's report on how economic security should be achieved for pensioners. To get to be older and perhaps even quite old is a blessing to humbly pray for, as it is often said – and the alternative is, as we know, much worse.

I read an article a few weeks ago, on October 24, with the headline "Statistics: Swedish pensioners wealthier than ever - best in all of the EU". Swedish pensioners have never had it better, show several reports that take into account pensioners' total economy. Still, many find it hard to believe that is the case, says pension economist Staffan Ström in the article. "The image of Sweden having a miserable pension system where everyone becomes poor sits so deep," he further says.

But the truth is that the Swedish pension system is holding up well. In the pension rankings that are made, Sweden usually ends up in the top ten, depending slightly on what is measured and how the measurements are made.

I think it is good to have this as a starting point when we are to debate economic security in old age. But with that said, it is of course important to look at the group of pensioners who have it toughest.

Over time, it is single women who are the group of pensioners with the largest proportion of people with a low economic standard. The reasons, as you know, are several. Women live longer than men and therefore are to a greater extent single. This applies if one looks at opposite-sex relationships. Women often have a lower general pension as a result of having worked in a lower degree and on average having had lower wages than men. Hopefully and probably, this is something that will change over time, as women today work to a higher extent than before and the wage gap is narrowing. But it will take time before we reach completely equal wages and then also equal pensions.

Madam Speaker! I want to continue by quoting a few sentences from the government statement before I address some of the areas covered by this expenditure area.

"Nothing creates prosperity in a country like work. Nothing counters individuals' poverty like work, and nothing creates new class mobility like getting one's very first job." So said Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in his government statement.

Those who have worked a whole life should have a sufficient pension that provides a dignified old age with a good quality of life. The Moderate-led government's direction is to produce reforms during the mandate period that strengthen the finances of all pensioners. There are good reasons to strengthen the finances for the country's pensioners. Actually, it is a self-evident matter: We must have a pension system that gives all the country's elderly a basic security. But obviously, it must also be reflected in the orange envelope if one has worked a whole professional life compared to if one has not worked at all or to a very small extent.

The experience and competence of the elderly are often overlooked in Sweden, and it is something that the entire society loses out on. Age discrimination, or ageism, often lies behind when the elderly's ability to contribute is underestimated in working life.

The Government proposes in the bill a new goal for the expenditure area, and that is that the benefits shall contribute to a good economic standard for women and men, both single and cohabiting, with low or no income-based pension. By changing the goal and replacing the previous goals, there will be a greater focus on the economic standard among pensioners instead of the real value of the benefits.

So, a few words about the Pensionsmyndigheten. The Government's assessment is that some parts of Pensionsmyndigheten's case processing function well while others exhibit deficiencies. The long processing time within the housing supplement is concerning, and the processing time must continue to decrease.

Madam Speaker! Almost half of the expenditure within the area, specifically 25.6 billion, concerns the guarantee pension. The basic level for the guarantee pension was raised by 1,000 kronor per month starting this summer, and the number of guarantee pensioners increased by approximately 300,000 people. Since it must be a supporting principle that it should pay to have worked, I opposed the increase of the guarantee pension against the principle of life income.

Truth was spoken of earlier in the debate when the member from the Social Democrats spoke about precisely this issue, and the truth in the debate is that the Moderates' and the Social Democratic government's proposals for pensioners with the lowest pensions were completely identical. The difference was that we Moderates wanted to strengthen the pensions even for those who had worked.

In the Tidö Agreement, which has been entered into between the coalition parties, there is a provision regarding household economy. It is established there that proposals shall be developed on how pensioners' finances can be strengthened and how freedom of choice is protected. I truly look forward to returning later in the mandate period with more proposals on how we protect freedom of choice.

But already in this budget, though not within this expenditure area, the tax is lowered for everyone over 65 who continues to work. In this way, the job tax credit also becomes a relevant driver to remain on the labor market to the extent that one can. I, who come most closely from the Committee on Social Affairs, hope that this will make many within, for example, healthcare choose to stay on full-time or part-time, because there are great needs there as well as within other welfare services.

Madam Speaker! I have said this before, and I say it again: It is important to safeguard the pension system that exists and that we have broad agreements in the area. Pensions are far too important to turn into election pork, so I hope that we will avoid seeing that in the future.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The member, just like previous members from the government parties, points out that the increase of the guaranteed pension by 1,000 kronor, which the Left Party pushed through, was not entirely desirable. I then wonder why the government retains the increased pension for the country's poorest pensioners.

The Moderates previously had a proposal for 200 kronor a month in reduced tax. Vänsterpartiet proposes instead 2,000 kronor a month in increased pension. The member says that the Moderates' proposal was about maintaining the respect distance. But now that you and your coalition parties rule the country, you are presenting neither a proposal for reduced tax for the country's income pensioners nor increased pension. Why cry over spilled milk? Why is not your proposal of 200 spänn, which Vänsterpartiet of course thinks is far too little, included in the budget bill if it was so important and you wanted to implement it a few months ago?

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Ida Gabrielsson for the question.

The Moderates stand behind the principle of a living income. As I said in my speech, the problem was not the increased pension for those with the lowest pension, but that the economy was not strengthened for all pensioners.

Why were more initiatives not made in the budget? Time was short. We had a few weeks to finalize the budget, so everything that is included in the Tidö Agreement is not included in this budget. But we have a mandate period ahead of us, and we intend to return later on. It is stated in the Tidö Agreement that all pensioners' finances shall be strengthened.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Ulrika Heindorff says that the government lacked time. But the proposal to lower the tax by 200 kronor for the income pensioners, which would save the principle of life-time income, had already been submitted, so it should have been quick to include it in the budget proposal. The Riksdag even voted it through because the Centerpartiet sneak-voted on both proposals.

Speaking of the subsistence principle, Vänsterpartiet has a solution to that, and it is to increase the income pension by an average of 2,000 kronor per month.

Where are the Moderates' sharp proposals? They seem so indifferent on the issue. As I understand it, there is nothing today. They retain the Left Party's reform of 1,000 kronor in increased guaranteed pension but do not themselves put forward any proposal to strengthen the pensions.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! No, it is not true that we do not make further reinforcements for pensioners, and I accounted for that in my main submission. Lower taxes if one continues to work is also a way to strengthen pensioners' finances.

Many of those with me probably consider that large fluctuations in the pension system should be avoided. During the last parliamentary term, a proposal went through that we Moderates believed did not take the whole into account and which was bad because it raised the pension for some retirees but not for the rest. But to roll that back when coming to power would have been directly irresponsible. One must look at the pension as a whole.

As I have said a number of times in the rostrum, the pensions are long-term, and therefore we need long-term agreements. And let me remind the member that it is we and not her dear comrades on the left side who want political conversations with all parties.

This is something that both the Prime Minister has said and which is included in the Tidö Agreement. We want to invite broad discussions, because we believe it would be good for pensions. But in the Social Democratic member's speech earlier, we could hear that they are quite skeptical about inviting broadly. But, as said, the Moderates and the parties included in the Tidö Agreement think it would have been a good idea to invite broadly.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! It should pay to work. Those who work shall have the right to secure insurance, good wages, and after a long working life, a decent pension. But that is not quite the case today.

Madam Speaker! Pensioners are not served by empty promises or fancy election speeches. The Pensions Group has failed in its mission to guarantee decent pensions for everyone. This has continued year after year without any of the group's members from any of the parties included there having acted to secure the pensioners' security.

When the system was introduced, a compensation rate of 60 percent was promised in the agreement. Today, it is just under 50 percent.

During the previous parliamentary term, Vänsterpartiet demanded that the guaranteed pension be increased by 1,000 kronor per month. While the parties in the Pensions Group mostly seem to have sat and had coffee for several years, we ensured that the largest increase in pensions in modern times was implemented. Ultimately, a majority was also forced to stand behind our demand, after first claiming that Sweden's worst-off pensioners were not worth it.

After the turn of the year, the automatic adjustment will also provide a further increase of approximately 900 kronor per month. Vänsterpartiet proposed that the adjustment should be moved forward, so that those in the worst position could receive more reasonable compensation during the economic crisis with skyrocketing price increases. But most parties here in the Riksdag said no to that proposal.

Madam Speaker! We must have a decent foundation in Sweden. Today, people are actually being blown away. One argues for respect distances by telling those who are doing quite poorly that there are, at least, those who have it even worse.

The high base level has created pressure for higher pensions for all low and middle-income earners. The low base level in Sweden has long contributed to keeping pensions down overall. Nothing could be more wrong than to claim that Sweden's pensioners have not worked. Such a perception is for those who have never themselves had to roll up their sleeves and put in the effort.

If one wants to ensure that it pays to work, there is only one solution: Raise the pensions! The income pension needs to be raised, and therefore Vänsterpartiet proposes that an increase of an average of 2,000 kronor per month should be implemented during this mandate period. Unfortunately, we seem to be somewhat alone in that view as well.

Madam Speaker! The pension system, which everyone says they want to protect, works for those with the highest income or with a reasonably high income, but for low-income earners and lower average-income earners, it is not good. It is not primarily because the retirement age has been too low, but because the pensions have been too low, because the contributions have been too low, and because the system looks the way it does. Therefore, the contributions need to increase and parts of the surplus that exists in the system today must be used so that today's pensioners also receive a share of the increase.

The Left Party has previously opposed an increase in the retirement age. The increased retirement age will not pay off in the pension envelope. For people with ordinary wages, the extra years will hardly be noticed in the wallet, if one can even manage to work those extra years. We have a situation today where people cannot even work until the age of 65.

According to Kommunals' calculations, each individually worked year after the age of 66 gives approximately 150 kronor more per month for their members. I wonder if this is what is meant by that it should be worthwhile to work?

Madam Speaker! The person who retires today will only receive half the salary, and it will be even worse if we do nothing. Anxiety constantly gnaws at those who do not have everything. As a child, one worries about how the parents will be able to afford things when they get older. The elderly are forced to live off their children in the welfare state Sweden. It is bad.

Once again, it is about priorities – about whom one favors when making decisions in this chamber. It is about what demands one, as a politician, sets when one has the opportunity for influence.

With skyrocketing food prices, extreme electricity bills, increased fuel costs, and rising interest rates and rents, the right-wing nationalist government chose in its budget to prioritize those with the absolutely highest incomes. It becomes a tax cut for those who earn over 50,000 a month, the largest investment in the budget and the Sverigedemokraterna's budget. It costs 12 billion - more than what the government and Sverigedemokraterna give to the entire welfare operation. It is a scandalously bad prioritization that will hit ordinary people hard.

Madam Speaker! Obviously, the Sweden Democrats must have gone and laid themselves to sleep when the negotiations on the security systems and welfare began. It is not possible to see it in any other way. How much do the government and the Sweden Democrats give to all the country's pensioners? The truth is appalling. In the budget we are now going to make decisions on, which is intended to help people through the crisis, there is not a single extra krona for the country's pensioners. The respect for those who have built up our country does not seem to exist with the government and the Sweden Democrats.

When the Left Party had the opportunity to influence during the previous mandate period, the largest reform in modern times was carried out to raise pensions. The Sweden Democrats instead backed down and did not even fix 1 krona more in the pension envelope.

A coffee break where all parties are to be offered coffee and cake with the Pensionsgruppen is something the Sverigedemokraterna have boasted about achieving, but that coffee break still hasn't happened. That is how one can also work. They have promised much but delivered little. To be lured by fine positions and offices at the Government Offices instead of standing up for their voters seems to be the Sverigedemokraterna's melody.

Madam Speaker! Christmas is coming soon. The security for Sweden's pensioners is the responsibility of politics - our responsibility. And we shall ensure that we take back control over the pension system and raise the pensions significantly. I and Vänsterpartiet shall work and do everything to ensure that it happens in that way. I refer to our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin this debate by moving for the approval of the government's budget proposal for the expenditure area Economic Security in Old Age.

The Christian Democrats' policy in this area can simply be summarized by saying that we want to see a good pension for both today's and future retirees. Measures are required to rectify the situation when we see that pensions for some are not sufficient. At the same time, however, it is important that the proposals implemented also have a long-term perspective, so that measures here and now do not threaten future generations' right to also receive good pensions, that is, so that the pension system's stability and predictability are maintained.

The Christian Democrats therefore safeguard the pension system that Sweden has. It is fundamentally a good system. For the parties tasked with managing this pension system, it is a matter of adjusting the deficiencies so that they can be eliminated, while at the same time taking care not to mix the state budget with the pension system. When the system was launched in the 90s, this was one of the important basic rules for it to hold up over time.

Madam Speaker! Building a senior-friendly society where everyone can age in safety and with dignity is an important goal for many and also for us Christian Democrats. A welfare society can to a large extent be judged by criteria such as the degree of respect for, maintenance of, and care for the older generation.

As a senior, one should be able to live an active life and have influence in society and over one's everyday life. One should be able to feel security, maintain one's independence, be met with respect, and have access to good care and support. A coherent policy aimed at the elderly in society can and must therefore not only be about care and support. Healthy aging, seeing the elderly as a resource to be utilized, and having a well-functioning interaction between the generations are equally important components.

Feeling well-being and meaningfulness is important for all people. In Sweden, great focus is placed on physical needs when well-being is discussed. The physical is of course important, but the Christian Democrats are concerned that the equally important social, soulful, and spiritual needs all too often are forgotten or neglected. Many elderly people, for example, testify that they experience a harsh reality in the form of forced loneliness and isolation. This often happens after life partners or friends are no longer there. It is not always the case that one has a family nearby who can assist in life's different stages.

The Christian Democrats have therefore, during recent years, in different ways and through different representatives, raised the issue of involuntary loneliness. The budget the government has now presented has a very strong advantage: It shows that money is not everything by including an initiative to break the loneliness of the elderly. It is about finding ways to break the loneliness and isolation that many elderly people are forced to live in.

Madam Speaker! We all have a responsibility to shape a society where the elderly shall feel security, community, human warmth, and dignity. In Sweden, there has unfortunately been silence regarding this issue for a long time. That silence may be due to many different things, for example, that there is a perception that it is always someone else who is supposed to solve problems. But we all have an individual responsibility to try to break someone's loneliness, regardless of whether one is young or old.

We have a society where it often does not feel normal to extend a helping or welcoming hand, but the loneliness and vulnerability of the elderly can only be addressed if we all take action - and if we use civil society as a resource. I am therefore proud that there is such an initiative in the budget being presented. It is a community initiative of 300 million kronor to break involuntary loneliness. These are measures that demonstrate the government's ambition to meet the problems with the elderly's loneliness in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! It is also not uncommon for the elderly to worry about the economy and whether the money will suffice even for the most necessary things. Economic security is important for everyone, but perhaps especially for those who may find it difficult to influence the situation through their own work.

The Christian Democrats are, as I said, part of the Pensions Group, a cross-bloc working group consisting of representatives from the parties that initially stood behind the agreement regarding the pensions. Sweden today has a pension system that is long-term sustainable, and we Christian Democrats want to continue to safeguard that. But we also see that it is time to discuss whether more parties should be involved. This naturally requires that one stands on the basis that applies, that is, that decisions are made with a long-term perspective and that it happens in such a way that we ensure both the short and the long perspective.

Madam Speaker! We can also read about how unscrupulous criminals, through various devious methods, cheat elderly people out of their savings, which in many cases have been saved up over a long working life and constitute an important basis for managing everyday finances. This despicable approach cannot be condemned enough, and it is important that our society marks even more clearly against this type of crime.

Sweden's elderly are particularly vulnerable to fraud. Often it concerns invoice, telephone, or card fraud. The situation is serious, and many elderly are hit very hard. It is not uncommon that they afterwards feel anxiety in their own home, before going out, or from something as simple as the telephone ringing. Others feel ashamed that they have been deceived. We must as a society invest more in the police and tighten the penalties for crimes directed at the elderly. We need to acquire deeper knowledge regarding the elderly's vulnerability to crime and, through information initiatives, strengthen the elderly's preparedness. In this way, we reduce the risk of the elderly being affected by crime.

Elderly people who are affected also need to receive help and support when they have been victims of crime. Measures are required to increase safety. A shift in values is also needed in favor of the good values that once built the country strong. Everyone should be able to feel safe. Freedom must not be limited by the fear of crime, and elderly people shall be treated with both dignity and respect.

Madam Speaker! As has been mentioned, the Tidö Agreement points out a direction for this mandate period regarding pensioners' and also others' household finances. This includes, among other things, reduced tax on earned income and pension income, and proposals shall be developed on how pensioners' finances can be strengthened and freedom of choice protected.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats, as stated, support the budget for 2023 that has been negotiated between the four parties. Our elderly are worthy of a society that provides both economic security and protection against crime as well as support for initiatives to break loneliness. Our parties are ready to continue developing this important work.

I also want to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the Speaker, the civil servants and the Chancellery, as well as to the brave viewers who are sitting in front of their computers watching the debate - and of course to my committee colleagues. We can all celebrate Christmas now, and I look forward to good discussions and a fruitful cooperation even after that.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Money is not everything, says Ingemar Kihlström in his speech, and in some sense it is of course true. But when one has to pay the electricity bill at the end of December, January or February, money will be very important.

I myself come from Jämtland County, and over the last few days, I have spoken with Jämtlanders and Härjedalingar who are desperate. It is primarily older people who have reached out, and that is why I am raising this issue in this debate. They are desperate over how they are going to afford to pay the electricity bill when it arrives. Now, we have also had a situation over the last few weeks where electricity prices also in my electricity price area, i.e., in northern Sweden, have been as high as in southern Sweden. At the same time, we have had temperatures that have crept down to perhaps minus 20 degrees.

My question to Ingemar Kihlström is: Why should the elderly citizens - the pensioners - in my constituency Jämtland or in Norrbotten and Västerbotten not be allowed to share in the electricity price support that the government has announced?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kalle Olsson for the question.

I believe we should broaden the issue, just as Kalle Olsson says. I wanted to touch upon the fact that money is not everything, but that it is very important to talk about how we need to give the elderly dignity and create opportunities to break the loneliness and create security. But if we are now going to talk about the electricity bills, which to some extent belong in another area but naturally have an indirect effect, it is of course natural that we need to ensure there is a pension that allows people to pay the bill, whether it concerns food, rent, or electricity. In some cases, it also concerns fuel, because it is also the case that many active elderly people need to transport themselves or be driven by their relatives.

Regarding the electricity support, it is de facto the case that the proposal that has now been presented is based on the mandate that the previous government gave. It was about seeing how one could bring back the bottleneck fees that have been charged by those who live in area 3 and 4. That is how it is. As I said earlier, we simultaneously have a situation where we cannot have what is according to the Norwegian model, where we fuel inflation.

At the same time, we can observe that the situation we have with high electricity prices is rooted in the fact that we do not have enough electricity. I think one can look a bit inward, Kalle Olsson.

If we had not closed the nuclear power plants, we would have had significantly more electricity, and then we would also have had a different mission. Now it is about ensuring that the electricity bill can be paid. The government has presented a model, and we will ensure that it is implemented.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Government has presented a model where half of Sweden is exempted from its model. It is difficult to imagine a more acute and burning issue today, December 19, as it is getting close to Christmas and we are to pay our bills.

Ingemar Kihlström speaks about the economic vulnerability of the elderly. It does not get any harder than being able to manage this issue for many elderly people. I return to the core issue itself. Why should the elderly in northern Sweden, with their small margins, not be allowed to share in the support that the elderly in southern Sweden are allowed to share in?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Kalle Olsson! I think Kalle Olsson should go home and look at himself in the mirror. The responsibility for the electricity prices we have in Sweden rests with the party and the constellation that has held power for eight years. One should perhaps take that into consideration before mocking what we say here.

It is de facto so, Kalle Olsson, that as far as I know those who live in area 1 and 2 have not paid the bottleneck fees that it is a matter of paying back. This is retroactive.

The minister we have, Kalle Olsson, has said that we leave no one behind. We will ensure that even pensioners and others can pay the bills moving forward. That is something the Social Democratic government should have thought about. But now we look forward. Now we move on.

We will ensure that pensioners both receive a good pension and can pay the bill, whether it concerns the electricity bill or the diesel fee when they fuel the car. We will work and take care of it.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is approximately 30 years since we made the decision and launched the pension system that we have in Sweden today. We did that because we needed a pension system that would be long-term and economically sustainable.

We emerged from an economic crisis where we risked having to lower the pension. Therefore, we needed a system that stands alongside the state budget. It is one of the fundamental pillars in our current pension system. It is one of the principles that I think is important to continue to safeguard.

Another important principle is that every generation shall pay for its own pension. It is only in this way that we can work with what we are discussing. It must pay to work, and there must be a respect for the distance.

It also means that the pension system can become predictable if it is based on a life-income principle and not a short-term debate where we raise or lower in the state budget.

Those who have stood here in the speaker's chair before me this evening have spoken about base levels and various figures, and how much people have in guaranteed pension or not. What is important is that we talk about the entire basic protection.

It is both a guaranteed pension and a housing supplement. One needs to see it as a whole in order to see the basic protection that the current pension system is built on.

Then it should not be understated that the system we have today contains a lot of different parts. It is not super simple to understand how the pension system is structured.

I have devoted myself to these issues for two years. I have learned a lot that I had no idea about before I had the privilege of joining the Social Insurance Committee and the Pensions Group.

Of course we have work to do to get a clearer system that becomes easier for all of us to understand. That is why it is so important to safeguard the basic principles that exist in the pension system and which we agreed upon in the 90s when we made these decisions.

Our system does not only suffer from short-term proposals, solutions, and debates. A sustainable agreement is required. It needs to continue to be separate from the budget and be built on the fee paid on the salary that I earn when I work.

That is how it became economically sustainable. It is only in that way we can counter a bidding war every four years. It is in that way we can continue to safeguard, with the risk of being repetitive, the lifelong income and that it should be worthwhile to work.

Then the question is: Do we have good pensions in Sweden today or not? Sometimes when one listens to the debate - and it has been both during the past year and from some of the speakers who have been in the debate earlier this evening - one can believe that we do not have it.

I still want to assert that we generally have good pensions. Then there are individuals who do not have a high pension for various reasons. We must remember that approximately 30,000 of 2.2 million pensioners are absolutely poor. They cannot afford to buy the most basic things.

We have approximately 300,000 relatively poor pensioners. We had 1.1 million relatively poor pensioners in the 90s when we introduced the current pension system. It has delivered, even if we do not get 60 percent, which was the target when we introduced the system. One reason for that is that we have not raised the retirement ages in time. We live so many more years today than we did and than we thought we would.

It is approximately 15 percent of the pensioner collective that are the 300,000 pensioners who are relatively poor. If we look at another group in society, if we speak of families with children, we also see that it is approximately 15 percent of the family-with-children collective who are relatively poor.

I am not saying here that it is right or wrong. I just want to bring it up. There are many groups in society that we also need to think about when we start tinkering with different systems.

When it comes to the pension system and changes, it sometimes needs to be adjusted. In that case, it is a matter of us adjusting in the right places. We have a bit to address after the recent increases that have occurred. It has affected the difference between the one who has worked a little or very little and the one who has worked more.

We have raised the ages. There will be more increases. We will have a reference age so that it keeps pace as we live longer and longer. But we must not forget that we also have to work on issues regarding the work environment. That is needed so that you can manage to work more years if you have a tougher profession.

We have also introduced the possibility of a transition in mid-life. During the previous parliamentary term, it was one of the Centerpartiet's important issues. It was about ensuring that one should be able to make a transition. That is exactly what is needed sometimes to be able to manage to work a few years longer.

Mr. Speaker! I am starting off a bit. I am going off-script. I hope that I keep my eight minutes of speaking time in the final stretch. We shall see.

Do we have unequal pensions in Sweden? Yes, we do, if we compare between men and women. But it is not because of the pension system that the pensions are unequal. It actually builds on what I have worked, because the entire pension is based on the lifetime income I have had.

If I and my family have made different life choices that have resulted in one of us working part-time, it will affect the pension. It is not wrong in itself. It can be solved in other ways. It can be solved by one person saving money in the other's account, which one must then designate as separate property so that they do not disappear in the event of a possible divorce further ahead. It is possible.

It is the kind of thing that I can feel is incredibly important that we continue to work on. The difference is narrowing. The labor market is becoming more equal, and the differences between the pensions are decreasing. But they can decrease even more by us working with knowledge and information, above all to our young adults, about what these things mean. It is they who are currently on their way to starting a family and on their way to moving out of home.

The Center Party has spoken for a very long time about the fact that we need to strengthen the information mission, both to the Pensions Agency and to the Social Insurance Agency.

We who are here in the chamber today and who have considerable knowledge of our pension system can also help spread this knowledge about these norms and values, which are deeply rooted in us, so that we help to break them up.

There is a lot of legislation that can be worked on in the field of family law. I just want to mention one thing, namely that one does not actually have joint custody automatically when a child is born. The legislation shows in some way how we view the man's and the woman's role in a family, which also affects our life choices.

Mr. Speaker! I realize that I will not be sticking to my reported speaking time of eight minutes. I therefore apologize in advance.

I must say a few words about long-term agreements and the Pensions Group, which is sometimes incredibly criticized. But for me, the Pensions Group is incredibly important. It has been an important part that we have worked with consensus agreements, long-term agreements, in order not to break our pension system. Of course, this work can be improved. We can cooperate better between the parties. We can become more transparent regarding what is on the agenda and what will be handled in the coming years. Which questions are those that we actually discuss, and what are the difficult sticking points? But that is not the same as breaking a successful cooperation.

I want to return to the stability that existed previously regarding the cooperation on the pension system. I do not want to be part of us continuing to end up in short-term solutions that break a system and which risk that my children, who are now about to move out from home, cannot rely on the pension system when they are going to stop working.

That is why I think it is important to safeguard the discussion we have had and improve our cooperation. Even if it is not a game-changer, it is sometimes actually better to do the right thing, even if it is difficult.

Mr. Speaker! I wish you and all others in the chamber, officials and colleagues, a Merry Christmas and apologize for having exceeded my registered speaking time.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Expenditure area 11 Economic security in old age in the budget bill concerns the economic living conditions for just over 2 million people or one-fifth of our country's inhabitants.

The economic aspect constitutes a very significant part of these people's security and prosperity. But it is important to point out initially that there are also other at least equally important parts of the living conditions for the elderly, or the "year-rich," as my party colleague Barbro Westerholm usually says.

To just take one example, I want in this context to remind that according to the latest National Safety Survey from October 2022, more than one in three women between 65 and 74 years old feel insecure or simply do not dare to go out late in the evening in their own residential area. Regarding women between 75 and 84 years old, it is more than four out of ten who find themselves in such a deplorable situation.

The insecurity and the loneliness are two of the primary life conditions that can make the natural burdens of aging feel even heavier and even be exacerbated.

In this regard, it is worth noting that, according to Statistics Sweden's report *After 60*, 900,000 people over the age of 60 live alone and that every fifth single person of that age is also considered socially isolated, meaning that they very rarely or never meet relatives, friends or acquaintances.

Therefore, it is pleasing that the government presents a three-year joint initiative totaling 900 million kronor.

Mr. Speaker! Another important aspect that affects the life situation of the elderly in a more overarching way is the lack of political representation that this group has in our primary decision-making assemblies, not least in this Riksdag.

Only nine members who were 65 years old or older were elected to the Riksdag at the last general election. This gives a representation of a miserable 2.6 percent for a group that corresponds to just over a quarter of the electorate.

In our committee, the Social Insurance Committee, which handles issues related to the elderly's financial security, there is only 1 out of a total of 47 regular members and working substitutes who is older than 64 years.

I highlight this circumstance because I am convinced that this underrepresentation is not only unreasonable but outright harmful to how our democracy functions.

Mr. Speaker! If we now turn our gaze toward the economic conditions for the elderly in Sweden, we can be pleased to note, as reported in the budget bill, that the proportion of persons who are 65 years of age or older and who live in material poverty is the lowest in the European Union. And this applies to both men and women.

Even the proportion of pensioners with what is called a low economic standard, that is, those who have a disposable income that is below 60 percent of the median for the whole society, is comparatively low. That proportion has also, according to Eurostat's statistics, decreased from 17.9 percent in 2016 to 13.4 percent in 2021.

But here a particular group should be noted, namely single women with a pension, where just over a third live with a low economic standard. Previous structural inequality shows its face in people's wallets in their later years.

Mr. Speaker! It is also gratifying to note, as clearly appears from the budget bill, that we are facing what is probably the strongest resource reinforcement of the basic protection for pensioners that has ever been made. The budget expenditures for the guarantee pension for 2023 are 50 percent above the projected outcome for 2022 and over 80 percent above the outcome for 2021. The projected outcomes for 2024 and 2025 are even higher and correspond to an increase of 123 and 129 percent respectively in relation to the outcome for 2021.

Mr. Speaker! In this bright scenario for many pensioners with relatively low disposable incomes, one must note the problems that threaten our income-based pension system. This system, which has the life-income principle as its basis, lies, as is known, outside the state budget. But it is affected in a very significant way by the development of the basic safety net and likewise by other budget-related income supplements such as the housing and income supplement for pensioners.

Not so long ago, on November 17, 2022, Daniel Barr, Director General of the Pensions Agency, published an op-ed in Dagens Nyheter where the following could be read:

"Overall, the increased guarantee pension and the pension calculations mean that just over one million pensioners with low or normal incomes, out of a total of 2.3 million pensioners, will be covered by the guarantee pension from next year. Among the women, it is a clear majority who will receive the guarantee pension."

He continues:

"When more than four out of ten pensioners and more than half of all female pensioners lack the intended connection between work and pension, one can on good grounds question whether the life income principle is still a fundamental principle for our pension system."

Director General Barr concludes his contribution with a very pressing question:

"A central question in the public debate on pensions is to what extent work should also pay off in the pension envelope. The question is whether we should have a general pension system with a strong life-income principle or a system where the general pensions are more or completely equal for everyone?"

Mr. Speaker! For us Liberals, the answer to this extremely important and current question is crystal clear. We believe it is fair and furthermore crucial for our common prosperity to safeguard a pension system that promotes the work principle. That it shall pay to work in all respects is the foundation upon which a sustainable welfare society rests. Every departure from this principle weakens our future opportunities to finance a generous welfare system with good social safety nets, schools, and healthcare and care for all who need it.

There are other parties that, in the name of equality, are prepared to erode our work-based pension system. That way of thinking leads to a uniformly distributed poverty for everyone, because it undermines the wealth-creating foundation that gives us all the opportunity to live a more secure and prosperous life. We have seen this in all societies that have chosen this wealth-hostile line of equality. Therefore, we hope that a clear majority of the Swedish Riksdag will continue to safeguard the foundations of our work-based pension system and not fall victim to populist proposals that may provide short-term gains in public opinion at the expense of our common welfare's sustainability.

Mr. Speaker! With these words I conclude my contribution and move for the approval of the committee's proposal and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In one of the world's richest countries, one should be able to feel secure regarding one's own finances when one is going to retire. And many can do that. Our economic development and our pension system have benefited many who can add a golden touch to life in the autumn of their years. But there are also many who cannot do that. They have worked an entire working life with low wages and without the right to full-time employment. They have been at home with children or taken care of an elderly parent.

The differences are very large. But everyone who is a pensioner today has been involved in building up Sweden. Everyone should therefore have a pension that it is possible to live on without having to pinch every penny or be left without food at the end of the month.

We must achieve more equal pensions in Sweden. It is, at the very least, a matter of equality. Therefore, the increase of the guarantee pension that we pushed through with S, V and C last summer is important. It provides a substantial supplement to the wallet for those pensioners who have the smallest margins. Of the pensioners who now receive a higher standard of living, a large proportion are also women, which also makes it an important measure for equality.

There are three times as many female guaranteed pensioners as there are male, because our unequal pension system reflects a labor market from decades ago, a time when women worked significantly less than men and had significantly lower wages. We cannot change the past, but we have every opportunity to influence the future. If we do not make the right political decisions, we will see unequal pensions for decades to come, specifically for another 100 years.

The Commission for Equal Life Incomes has calculated that at the current rate of change, it will take 100 years before we have equal pensions. The bank SEB has calculated that we will have to wait until the year 2053 before the first generation of girls is born who can look forward to a pension at the same level as men's, i.e., when they retire around the year 2123.

It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at this. But one thing we environmentalists know for sure. It is that we must act. It is our duty to ensure that all women in Sweden will not have to live with an unequal pension system for another 100 years.

The fundamental reason is, as many have also pointed out, that men and women work for wages to different extents. This means that women work for wages to a lesser extent than men and take responsibility for children and the home to a greater extent. Women still took approximately 70 percent of the parental leave and 60 percent of the vab days in 2020.

The withdrawal of the parental insurance has particularly great significance for economic equality, wage labor, and thereby also pensions. We can only change this through politics. A more equal work and family life and more equal wages also provide more equal pensions.

But we must also improve and change the pension system. Above all, we must strengthen it when it does not deliver as intended. The levels are too low, and the general pension needs to be raised with a focus on the lowest pensions. We in Miljöpartiet therefore propose in our budget motion that the general pension should be raised by increasing the pension contribution from 17.21 to 18.5 percent. Older people in Sweden should be able to rely on being able to have a livelihood that is livable.

Even though the pension for many is too low, Sweden's pension system has performed very well and is running with a surplus. We therefore want the government to look into introducing a guarantee in the pension system as soon as possible.

Besides the levels, it is also important that the pensions are predictable and that it is possible to plan one's life based on what one knows will become one's own economic reality. Unfortunately, that is not the case for everyone today.

The Pensions Agency contacted approximately 58,000 pensioners in October to inform them that the guaranteed pension will not be paid out to them after the turn of the year. These are people who live abroad and who until now have been able to receive their guaranteed pension there. Many are desperate. According to EU regulations, there should be support in the country where they reside, but this seems to be lacking in many places. This means that people will now not be able to buy medicines, pay bills, or pay the rent.

So the state cannot treat people this way. If a support is to be withdrawn, it must be ensured that there are alternatives. That has not been done here. People's conditions for planning their finances have changed drastically. We in Miljöpartiet believe that the compromise proposal that has been put forward should apply. According to that, those pensioners who have already moved out and had their guaranteed pension granted shall be allowed to keep it for the rest of their lives, while others must comply with the new legislation.

Another example of changed planning assumptions is the tax hit that pensioners born in 1957 are now affected by. When the Riksdag voted in May 2022 for raised age limits in the pension system, it was also decided to raise the age limit for the increased basic deduction from 65 to 66 years. The decision means that persons born exactly in 1957 receive tax increases of between 1,000 and 3,000 kronor per month during 2023, because the tax was excluded from the transitional rules. So we simply cannot have that either. Miljöpartiet wants the government to adjust it immediately. It still appears to be a mistake in the design. But until now, the government is responsible for the answer.

Another question hanging in the air is the Pensions Group. The government has said that all parties shall be invited, but I have not yet seen any such invitation. Instead, the old group meets, the one where very little happens and where Swedish pensioners have continued to go backwards. But when Miljöpartiet was in the Pensions Group, when we sat in the government and could influence, real increases were implemented for broad groups, and there was an increased focus on equality. But the increase of the guaranteed pension did not happen thanks to the Pensions Group, but rather despite it.

But with that said, the Swedish model, despite its flaws, is worth preserving and worth continuing to work on. It is a stable system that holds over time and provides economic security in old age, so we continue to wait. Perhaps an invitation will come soon.

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of pension group or not, Miljöpartiet's goal is that pensions shall be raised, become more equal, and also contribute to Sweden's sustainability goals. Sweden shall be the world's best country to live in, also as a retiree.

Due to the budget rules, we cannot move for approval of our proposal in the expenditure area. We therefore refer to our budget motion and to the specific statement we have regarding economic security in old age.

Economic security in old age

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 December.)

Education and university research

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