Economic security in old age

Lena Bäckelin (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report on economic security in old age that we are debating today.

We have a report on the table that covers an important part for our pensioners and for society, namely economic security in old age. It concerns the guarantee pension, survivor pensions for adults, housing supplements, elderly support, and the income pension supplement. These parts complement the general pension for an enormous number of pensioners.

Too many pensioners, not least today, live constantly on the margin and have difficulty making ends meet. Therefore, these different forms of support are important for the individual pensioner.

Full-time work and occupational pension are two of the most important prerequisites for obtaining a sufficient pension in old age. But only four out of ten women in professional occupations have a permanent full-time employment, and just under half work part-time.

The single most important reason why both women and men in blue-collar jobs work part-time is that they have not been able to find and obtain a full-time job, and the consequence is, of course, a low pension.

A frightening example to highlight this issue and the situation for many workers today is that 30 percent of Handelsanställdas förbund's members have a full-time position. Add to that so-called "hyvling" (reduction of hours) and then everyone will likely understand that these persons, if possible, combine several jobs to put together a full-time salary that is livable. But if there is no possibility of full-time every month, the pension will be accordingly, that is to say, very low.

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, we implemented a number of improvements in the pension area. For those pensioners who have worked their entire lives but who have had a low salary, we introduced the income pension supplement. We increased the guaranteed pension, and we increased the housing supplement. Step by step, we abolished the unfair tax gap that the previous Moderate-led government had introduced, which meant that a pensioner paid more tax than a person who works.

In addition to what I have now raised, there is today an opportunity for a security pension for those who have turned 60 and cannot manage to work until the day the pension age can be reached. For those who have worn out their bodies in their work during an entire working life, there must be a safety net. It is a very important issue for us Social Democrats.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the best way to raise pensions is to increase the contributions to the pension system. It is underfunded, and it must be adjusted. Olof Palme once said that society is man's work and that if something is wrong, we can change it. With this, I want to show that the pension system is a part of society and thus something we are tasked to change and improve if we have the will to do so.

We Social Democrats have set a clear goal that everyone should have at least 70 percent of their final salary in pension. We also want to increase the contributions to the pension system so that they correspond to 18.5 percent, which was the intention when the pension system was introduced. It is important, not least to regain confidence in this system and its legitimacy, that we rectify this as soon as possible. People must feel secure that the system continues to function in the long term despite changing majorities in the Riksdag.

We Social Democrats have for several years clearly taken a stand for allocating more funds to the pension system. Unfortunately, there have not been the political conditions in the Pensions Group until now, but now it has nevertheless started its work again. Let us move forward with this important work, for the sake of the pensioners!

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! The underlying principle in the general pension system is the livelihood, meaning that everything one earns while being gainfully employed is also reflected in the pension envelope. There must be a clear connection between the earned income and the general income-based pension. All persons who can work shall work.

Before the Riksdag decided to raise the guaranteed pension and introduce the income pension supplement, which the member mentioned, around 30 percent of pensioners had some form of tax-financed pension supplement. Now it is over 70 percent. It is a very substantial increase in a very short time. One can actually say that the entire pension system has taken on a different appearance than before, with less of the income-based and more of the tax-financed. At the same time, the respect distance has decreased.

How do the Social Democrats intend for us to re-establish the principle of a living income?

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

Lena Bäckelin (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member! I believe no one has missed that we stand behind a work line, and there, the livelihood is important. We still stand behind the principles that were developed in the Pensions Group; there is no doubt about that. But what we have seen is that many cannot live on the pension. To turn a blind eye to that is completely unacceptable. Hence comes our previous action.

One in five in my home district lives in relative poverty. I can mention two municipalities: Bräcke and Ragunda. There are many such pensioners, and therefore we cannot wait until it becomes a priority in the Pensions Group. We did what was required for those pensioners.

We absolutely stand behind the principles that the Pension Group has agreed upon.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree with the member that one had and is forced to do something about the very lowest pensions. Measured by European standards, Sweden is admittedly low when it comes to the number of poor pensioners, but what the Moderaterna wanted to do was to strengthen all pensions simultaneously. That was the difference between our proposals. We Moderaterna wanted to provide supplements but also maintain the principle of a living income.

I am pleased that the member is so clear about the life-income principle. I actually enjoyed reading S-kvinnors latest magazine, and there was a statement from Annika Strandhäll. She is a heavy-weight member here in the Riksdag and former minister for these issues. She said that we must talk about this sacred cow and why the life-income principle does not hold. That made me a little worried.

It further states in the article that Annika Strandhäll thinks it is time to talk about the life income principle, which is not holding up, and look at a new pension system. Then I become curious about what kind of system is being envisioned. Should income during working life not play any role for the pension? I would gladly like to have an answer and a reflection on this from the member.

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

Lena Bäckelin (S)

Madam Speaker! At the Moderate gathering a few weeks ago in Umeå, if I remember correctly, Finance Minister Svantesson said that Sweden has now reached the lowest tax ratio since 1975. Then one understands that there is a lack of money in the chest.

I have unfortunately not had access to what Strandhäll said. I heard what the member read out, but I cannot go into it in more detail because I have not read the article. What I said, however, I thought was clear: We stand behind the principles that Pensionsgruppen has developed.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate on economic security in old age, I believe, needs to be sensible, as all the decisions we make and what we present here affect several generations forward. It also affects my children who are just about to enter the labor market and the pension they will receive when they choose to stop working.

Sometimes it sounds in the debate as if the pension system is not delivering. Therefore, I feel that a more reasonable discussion is needed. It is not entirely true that our pension system is not delivering at all. We actually have fewer pensioners in relative poverty today than before. If we compare with the 90s, there is an incredibly large difference. We also have fewer materially poor pensioners. These are, therefore, two different measures of poverty. That needs to be kept in mind when one discusses this.

According to the government's budget, approximately 46,000 of 2.3 million pensioners are materially poor. They have difficulty covering the most necessary expenses. It is obviously incredibly tough for these people, but it is not the entire pension system that is failing to deliver.

What I and the Center Party stand behind, Madam Speaker, are the basic principles that the pension system is built on. They are that it should pay to work, that every generation shall bear its own costs, that the system shall be contribution-financed, and that it must be based on long-term commitments with broad agreements. For that reason, I am pleased that we have moved forward and will continue to work in a broad cooperation. Now we need to uphold a basic principle that we have shaken on recently, and that is that it should pay to work.

Here we need to work together to be able to raise the income pension but also review the basic protection. We shall continue to lift where it is needed. We perhaps need a system that is a bit simpler, both for the pensioners and for the case officers at Pensionsmyndigheten, so that it becomes clearer what the basic protection is. It should also not cost unnecessarily much. Certain adjustments that we made in the guaranteed pension during the last parliamentary term and also earlier have created certain difficulties.

As said, I look forward to continuing the work during the mandate period. I hope that we can work on an increase of the income pension in different ways and review the basic protection so that it continues to be worthwhile to work.

Since the Centre Party had a different framework budget than what was decided last week, I refer to our special statement when it comes to the budget.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

For us Sverigedemokrater, it is fundamental in our social-conservative political orientation that Sweden shall have a secure welfare for its citizens. Those who have worked, contributed and built up the welfare state Sweden shall be treated with great respect and gratitude. Sweden's pensioners deserve a pension that allows them to live a good life in their old age. It is important that pensioners can feel that there is an economic security and that there is a good basic protection.

Madam Speaker! The objective for the expenditure area 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. The Government's assessment is that the objective that the benefits shall contribute to a good economic standard is fulfilled, partly because the benefits significantly contribute to an increased and good economic standard for pensioners with small economic margins, and partly because the proportion of pensioners with a low economic standard is decreasing.

The Government is aware that the economic situation varies quite significantly among pensioners. There are pensioners who, for various reasons, live under tight economic conditions. The proportion of pensioners with a low economic standard would, however, have been almost twice as large as today if these pensioners had not been able to receive the benefits within this expenditure area. The proportion of pensioners with a low economic standard would then have been at 23 percent instead of today's 12 percent. It is clearly seen that the benefits make a difference. For single men and women with the lowest general income-based pensions, the benefits constitute a large part of the total income.

Madam Speaker! 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 care for our pension system, which has been characterized by stability and long-term perspective. It is, however, somewhat worrying that the Swedish pension system is losing ground and is now the worst in the Nordic countries according to international rankings.

When we talk about pensions, it is easy to touch upon the Pension Group's importance and its decisions regarding pensions and conditions for the elderly's finances. This has been the basis for the stable system we see today. The Pension Group has generally functioned quite well for many years, but during the recent years, it perhaps has not delivered so much. It has been a bit shaky in the group. It may seem that the principles one has stood behind have not been followed.

I am thinking about the battles that have taken place in the last two election campaigns regarding pensions. They have dealt a blow to trust. Even though it is positive that pensions ended up in the spotlight, it risks breaking down the system's long-term stability.

We Sweden Democrats have considered that the Pensions Group should either be phased out or make a new start. Now we are there. The Pensions Group has made a new start and has been expanded to now include all parliamentary parties. Already at the first meeting in the new constellation, an agreement was reached that the occupational pension can be paused. This must be seen as a good start for the new constellation.

Then there are important and complicated issues to continue working on in the group, such as how to strengthen pensions and re-establish the principle of life income and the respect distance. I have a certain optimism regarding the Pensions Group's continued work, which will be interesting to follow from now on. Once again, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! Old age is like everything else – to succeed in it, you must start young. So Theodore Roosevelt said once upon a time. With increasing age comes experience, competence, and knowledge. In order to feel good in old age, economic security is important. Today we are debating expenditure area 11 Economic security in old age. It is a large area that covers 60.3 billion kronor.

For every day we live, the average life expectancy increases by an almost incredible four hours. Purely medically, it is often said that 70 is the new 50. It is fantastic, but at the same time, it places demands on continuing to work with the pensions and strengthening and securing them. There, a raised retirement age is an important part.

In the Tidö Agreement, it is established that pensioners' finances shall be strengthened and that freedom of choice shall be protected. Already in the previous budget, the tax was lowered for everyone over 65 who continues to work. In the autumn, the issue regarding the "57:orna" was resolved. It is clear that they shall have the right to their reinforced basic deduction from year one, and that was resolved by the Moderate-led government. It was the previous Social Democratic government's mistake that we corrected, and next year 3 billion kronor will be paid out. At the same time, we have ensured that no more age groups will be affected.

Madam Speaker! Inflation remains at high levels, and this hits pensioners in particular. Combating inflation is our primary focus within economic policy. This demands restraint. But to make it easier for Sweden's pensioners to make ends meet, a tax cut for pensioners is an important priority in the budget. In this year's budget, the Moderate-led government and the coalition partner are lowering the tax for all pensioners. If one has a pension of 25,000 kronor, the tax is lowered so that one gets 3,400 kronor more in the wallet. In these economically difficult times, this obviously makes a big difference. Step by step and decision by decision, we are strengthening the pensioners' finances.

Madam Speaker! The Pensions Group has been restarted. Now all parties in the Riksdag are included in the group, which I and the Moderaterna believe is important for the legitimacy of the pensions. A large and important task now lies ahead of the group. The Pensions Group is in agreement that it should be possible to pause the withdrawal of the occupational pension. This is an issue where we Moderaterna have been driving. Moving forward, the group shall also look at how a cap can be introduced and come with proposals so that the principle of life income can be strengthened.

I think that one can describe the pensions in two ways, and these stand in quite strong contrast to each other. On one hand, the pensions are at the top in an international comparison. Swedish pensioners generally have it good. The proportion of elderly people living in poverty is among the lowest in the EU. This is shown by a report from Pensionsmyndigheten. That is one side of the scale. On the other hand, in the other scale, it is a fact that the life-income principle has been eroded. To this can be added that the compensation rate in the pensions has decreased as average life expectancy has increased. The decline will continue if one does not raise the retirement age, which has been done and shall be done in the future.

Madam Speaker! Almost half of the expenditure area, more specifically 30.2 billion kronor, concerns guaranteed pension. It is an increase of approximately 5 billion since last year.

Now some figures are coming, so keep up. It is 1.2 million of the country's 2.3 million pensioners who receive a guaranteed pension. It is 70 percent of the country's pensioners who receive a share of any of the benefits mentioned in the report.

There has been a very rapid increase, as I mentioned earlier in the exchange, from 30 percent to 70 percent of the country's pensioners. This has caused the entire system to become less income-based and more tax-financed, and the respect distance has decreased.

It is becoming less and less profitable to work. It also makes it increasingly difficult to plan one's pension, according to the report that TCO released, Lön för mödan. It is worrying and should give cause for reflection for everyone in this chamber.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: Christmas is approaching. There is no better time for wishes than just this time. I and the Moderaterna wish that when we reach the end of the mandate period, the respect distance shall be restored, and it shall be worth having worked.

I also wish that we will see more equal pensions between women and men and that the Pensions Group will have made many wise decisions, including regarding a gap in the pension system.

Those who have worked a whole working life and have been part of building Sweden should feel that it has paid off. May these wishes come true!

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! It is special to stand here and see that the Moderates are distributing wishes much like Benjamin Syrsa. It is still the Moderates who are governing. One could think: Wish less, and do more! That is a tip from the coach in the Left Party.

(Applause)

Now Vänsterpartiet is included in the Pensions Group. Congratulations Sweden and congratulations to all other parties! Vänsterpartiet set the requirement that led to the situation we have today, of raising the guaranteed pension by 1,000 kronor during the last parliamentary term in order to let Magdalena Andersson through as Prime Minister.

Now it has been indexed to 2,000 kronor. It feels very good that one can push through major changes. Many pensioners are tired of the 100 kronor that come. They came, for example, now when the tax was lowered very slightly for pensioners.

In this chamber, we are now being told that the guarantee pension impairs the principle of life income. It means that it does not pay to work. But despite that, it also appears here that very many have a part of the guarantee pension. It simply cannot be that 70 percent of pensioners have not worked.

What the Left Party thinks is very good is not to think that people become extra happy because someone is doing very poorly. Those who receive income pension are told: There are still some others who have guarantee pension who are doing worse. Now it probably feels good to go to work. It should pay to work.

We work a bit differently. We think it is important to raise the guaranteed pension and lift the floor, and then in the next breath raise the income pension. That is why we have now accelerated the Pensions Group and are involved in that work.

Our main issue is to increase the contributions so that the income pension is raised. It is a very simple way to increase the respect distance and to maintain the life-income principle. It is to increase the contributions, because then the income pension is raised. We are terribly happy that all bourgeois parties have now also said that they think it is important. Then it goes very fast to introduce, and then we are all in agreement.

Madam Speaker! We have also had parties here who have raised the retirement age. Someone said here that 70 is the new 50, or something along those lines. That may be true for professors or members of parliament. But for nursing assistants and construction workers, unfortunately, it is not true. We even see that life expectancy is falling for the worst-off women who have it toughest financially in Sweden.

It is not the same plan for everyone. Therefore, we think it is important that now that the retirement age has been raised, we look at the parts that have been agreed upon in the Pensions Group to look at. That entering the labor market early and having a long working life should pay off. There are such systems in other countries; in Denmark, for example, they have a so-called Arne-pension.

The security pension is part of the health insurance, but it plays a role for older wage earners. It is incredibly important that it is maintained and perhaps also expanded so that even more people have the opportunity to avoid receiving a low pension. That is simply what is happening. It is not that we decide that the retirement age is raised, and then people who are broken in the body can work longer. Instead, they retire earlier, and then they receive a very low pension. That is what the Left Party really wants to push for, and we hope that everyone agrees on that direction.

Madam Speaker! It is no secret what the Left Party has thought and thinks. We have pushed for increased income pensions. After we had raised the guaranteed pension in our budget proposal, we also had last year in the budget a proposal that would, on average, mean an increase of 2,000 kronor per month in pension.

Now we join the Pensions Group. Then we will get the work started there instead and push forward. It is important that all parties are involved in discussing the pensions. But no issue escapes democracy. No issue can be buried so that people around, the general public, and those who do not sit in this house, do not have sufficient insight. I do not think that is good. It is very good that Vänsterpartiet now managed to ensure that everyone can be included.

It is very nice that the government has agreed to the Left Party's demands regarding the 57s. It was described here as that it was the Social Democrats who had done something in their budget, and then the government had done something much more clever in their budget.

The truth is that it was a result of the agreement that both the Moderates and the Social Democrats had made in the Pensions Group regarding an increased retirement age. It also stands very clearly in the bill that one stood behind.

It is very good that you have agreed to this. You voted no several times first when Vänsterpartiet submitted proposals for committee initiatives on the issue. Now I am very happy to notice that the government has turned in the issue.

I will not take up the speaking time for too long here. But I want to say that we in Sweden have one of the most unequal pension systems between women and men. It is a matter of the public pension having withdrawn and the occupational pension having to step in. That is how it becomes. It also applies between those who work in the LO collective and the others. But it can be remedied. Something can be done about it. Of course, one does not need to change the entire system. It is possible to twist and adjust within the system we have.

Other Nordic countries have a much more equal pension system. It is a rather tedious comment to people who work today and perhaps have not been entitled to full-time work because we have not enacted the laws to say: You have made this choice, and therefore you have such a low pension. We still want people to be nursing assistants and healthcare assistants and that not everyone should choose to become, for example, a professor.

Madam Speaker! Now we are moving forward in the Pensions Group. A lot is going to happen ahead. I can promise that.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! It is not every day that one is apostrophized as Benjamin Syrsa. Therefore, I thought I must take the opportunity and reply.

I concluded my speech by presenting a number of requests. That was because we do not want the pensions to be election fodder. It was so in 2022, and it was so in 2018. A lot of agreements were made outside of the Pensions Group. Those wounds remain. That is why I am coming with humble requests regarding what I would like to see the pensions be in 2026.

Then we can, of course, do other things as a government. We also take responsibility for that. In my speech, if the member heard it, I mentioned, among other things, a tax cut for those who are 65 and older to motivate more to stay in work. I mentioned that in this budget we are lowering the tax for everyone who works. I also mentioned that for those with a pension of 25,000 kronor, it amounts to 3,400 kronor in a year.

Of course we are doing things. But it is still the important Pensions Group that is setting the pace. The member must also remember that it was a Moderate minister who took the initiatives that led to all parties now being included. We are glad that it is an agreement that everyone in the group stands behind.

I still want to ask a question during my last 40 seconds of speaking time. The member is talking about nursing assistants who have fought for an entire working life, perhaps 40 or 45 years, and set the alarm every morning to go to work. Doesn't Vänsterpartiet think it is problematic that there is now an extremely small or no difference between their pension and the pension for those who have not worked at all? I think so.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Even before the guaranteed pension was increased, 70 percent of municipal workers, who are auxiliary nurses, had a guaranteed pension. If you work for two more years as a municipal worker, you get approximately 100 kronor more in your wallet. There we absolutely have a problem to look at. But it is not an increased guaranteed pension that will decide that, but rather it is that one looks at, for example, years in working life.

My parents started working when they were 15-16 years old and have worked every day. What does their pension look like today? Yes, not as good as for those for whom you are now lowering the tax when they continue to work and who perhaps have it the best.

Furthermore, it is you yourselves who have chosen to have different indexing for the guarantee pension and the income pension. That is why it looks the way it does today. Vänsterpartiet has previously proposed the same indexing for guarantee pension and income pension, but the Pensions Group has not stood behind it.

In tough times, I believe it is good that those who are worst off manage. Vänsterpartiet does not believe in selling to someone who doesn't have it so great that you should be happy, because this person has it even worse. Instead, we believe in raising the contributions to the system, introducing a fairly large gap, and in that way raising the income pensions.

It is difficult to imagine that anyone would be happy just because someone else had it worse. That is not my opinion.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! I must still say something about the taxes. It always sounds as if if one lowers the taxes, it is something terrible one is doing, that is to say, so that people get to keep more of their own hard-earned money. That is what lowering taxes is about.

We certainly have the lowest tax burden since 1975, which was mentioned here earlier. But in an international perspective, we still have a high tax burden in Sweden. That must still be remembered. But it is not something bad to lower taxes. On the contrary, it is about being able to keep more of one's own income.

It is precisely what is being done in the budget we are now presenting. We are lowering the tax for all pensioners, for those with the lowest pensions and then across the entire scale. It is precisely to maintain the principle of life income. It is the one I think is so important. I still feel a certain uncertainty about whether Vänsterpartiet stands behind it. I know well enough that you do, for I assume that all parties that are part of the Pensions Group also stand behind the life income principle. Sometimes, however, I have a bit of difficulty following the reasoning and wonder if you really do so fully.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Of course, the Left Party stands behind the principle of a living income. I can also please the Moderates and the members with the fact that the Left Party's proposals before we entered the Pensions Group – now we have no proposals, but now we will take them in there – would improve the living income principle much more than what you have implemented. If one raises the income pensions by an average of 2,000 kronor, it makes a difference. This, therefore, does not need to be worried about. The Left Party is capable of raising the floor for those who are worst off, but also for those who have worked for a long time and a lot.

Of those who have a guaranteed pension, it is only about 30,000 who have not worked. These are older women who stayed at home with children before preschool was expanded. I think that there is not quite enough respect for the women who are within the Kommunals area, for example, who have worked. Because we in politics have not legislated on the right to full-time work, they have had part-time jobs where they have worked and struggled with a low pension as a result. For me, it is not strange that one takes responsibility for that as a member of parliament and politician.

If you lower the tax for those who actually manage to work after retirement age, you can then consider where they should do the most good. For me and Vänsterpartiet, it will always be more important that all retirees can put food on the table than that someone who manages to work because they have had a job that has not worn out the body should get even more in their wallet. That is the simple answer to that question.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by stating that we have a pension system that is fundamentally both sustainable and well-designed. But there are deficiencies, and what is good can always be improved. The deficiencies that exist, we shall, of course, ensure are resolved.

I am very pleased that we have achieved a broadening of the Pensions Group so that all parties in the Riksdag are now represented. This is something we Christian Democrats have pushed for for a longer period. There are several reasons why we thought such a broadening was important. One of the main reasons for me personally is that the more parties that are included in a pensions group where one can reason together, the greater the conditions will be for the decisions they make to be long-term sustainable.

I have sat in the Pensions Group for nearly five years. One of the absolute most important driving forces for me has been to try to solve the problems of our time without risking that we get a pension system that cannot be relied upon. One must be able to rely on the pension system. Both my children and, hopefully, future grandchildren and great-grandchildren shall have a pension system to rely on.

That is why I returned in very many debates during the previous parliamentary term to the point that it is important that we have an autonomous pension system, i.e., a pension system that stands apart from the state budget. It has been a central supporting principle ever since the new pension system was launched, precisely so that we can ensure that even future generations have a pension system to rely on.

Madam Speaker! Here in the Riksdag, we can still make a number of decisions, outside of the Pensions Group, to ensure that pensioners' finances are improved. Under the former Alliance government, we lowered taxes five times and increased the housing supplement three times. Together with the Moderaterna, we also removed a specific payroll tax that was placed specifically on elderly people who chose to continue working after retirement age. In this budget, we also, as we have just heard, put forward a proposal where we lower the tax by 3,400 kronor per year for a pensioner with a pension of 25,000 kronor.

In addition to these improvements, Madam Speaker, I would like to dwell a little on the 57s. It is an issue that I personally have spent a very large amount of time on.

It was wrong that people born in 1957 did not get to benefit from the increased basic deduction. The reason why this was truly wrong was that it went against what we agreed upon in the Pensions Group, namely that when the target age is raised, all systems should be adjusted in parallel so that we avoid just that type of effect that we have received. This year, the 57s will have to pay 24,000-28,000 kronor too much. They will get it back the following year; it is one of the larger initiatives that the government is making in kronor and öre.

If a bank receives too much money in its account, it does not keep the money but pays it back to the rightful owner. That is exactly what it is about when it comes to the 57s. They are the owners, and therefore they should get their money back.

Madam Speaker! Something I have thought about sometimes when I have followed politics – both before I entered politics again and as part of it – is that it is the negative news that gets space. It is those that the media reflects, but it is actually not the whole reality.

I was a bit surprised, because a positive piece of news came from the Pensionsmyndigheten this week regarding the proportion of pensioners living in material and social poverty. No one in here is saying that it is good that it is 2 percent, but it is much lower than what we are constantly told in the debate. In the population as a whole, it is 4.7 percent who live in social and material poverty. Of our elderly, it is 1 percent who live in what is called serious poverty. When it comes to that figure, I believe it is only Luxembourg that has a lower proportion of elderly living in serious poverty.

The pension system that we have, together with a well-developed economic safety net for our elderly, performs well. As someone who is interested in these issues, I googled this but got very few hits. There are very few news articles about this. I find that a bit upsetting, because it is important to present both sides of the coin.

Madam Speaker! In the Pensions Group, we will continue to work to ensure that we have a functioning basic protection. At the same time, it is extremely important to ensure that we have a respectful distance so that we constantly encourage and maintain the work line, for that is what the success of the pension system is built upon.

I am pleased that the gas that I have argued for for over four years is now embraced by all parties in the Riksdag. The background for why we Kristdemokrater submitted the proposal for a gas was that the pension system is equipped with a so-called automatic balancing mechanism, but only in the form of a brake. It ensures that the payments in the long term do not exceed the assets and thus guarantees that the money in the system suffices.

A balancing mechanism must, however, also work in the other direction. With a gas, the surplus of hundreds of billions that exists in the pension system can be used to strengthen the pensions. This surplus amounted to 1,300 billion kronor this spring - I believe it was in March; it was the latest figure I found. Parts of it are now to be funneled back to strengthen the pensions.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Expenditure area 11 Economic security in old age concerns the tax-funded benefits for pensioners and survivors. Its appropriation is an important component of the economic security for many of the approximately 2.3 million people who have reached retirement age.

The economic aspect constitutes a central part of our pensioners' security and prosperity, but it is important to point out initially that there are also other at least equally important aspects of the living conditions for the elderly.

To give an example, I want to remind that according to the national safety survey from October 2023, 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 just over four out of ten who find themselves in such a situation. It is therefore the government's measures to combat crime and create safety on our streets and squares that are so important for improving the living conditions of the elderly.

Insecurity but also involuntary loneliness are two of the primary life conditions that can make the natural burdens of aging feel even heavier. In this regard, it is worth noting that according to SCB's report *Efter 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 they very rarely or never meet relatives, friends, or acquaintances.

Given these circumstances, it is gratifying to note that during 2024, the government continues with the three-year community initiative totaling 900 million kronor aimed at preventing involuntary loneliness.

Madam Speaker! We can now turn our attention to the socioeconomic conditions for the elderly in Sweden. In that regard, we have at our disposal a recently published report from the Pensions Agency where Sweden is compared with other EU countries regarding the measure of severe material and social poverty, which is one of the most used within the union to measure poverty.

In this context, it is gratifying to note that Sweden is one of the countries with the lowest proportion of seriously materially and socially poor elderly within the union: 1 percent of the men and 0.9 percent of the women are in that situation.

It is also gratifying to note, as appears from the budget bill, that we face a very substantial resource reinforcement regarding the basic protection for pensioners. The allocated appropriation for the guarantee pension increases by 4.6 billion kronor in 2024 in comparison with the previous year. This complements a historically unique increase in the appropriation for the guarantee pension, which has more than doubled in comparison with the outcome for 2021.

In this context, I also want to mention two pieces of pleasing news for Sweden's pensioners. The first is the decision to provide a tax-free compensation of 3.2 billion kronor to persons born in 1957 due to the raised age limit for participating in the increased basic deduction. The second is a tax reduction of 2.2 billion kronor due to the strengthening of the increased basic deduction.

Madam Speaker! In this relatively bright scenario for many pensioners with relatively low disposable incomes, it is important to draw attention to the problems that threaten our income- or work-based pension system, even if it lies outside the appropriation framework for expenditure area 11.

As we know, the public pension system is based on the principle of life income and presupposes a reassuring respect of distance towards pensions and other benefits that are not work-related. If this distance decreases or completely disappears, that which is the very foundation not only for our pensions but for our entire welfare structure is undermined: the will to work and in that way finance the public commitments.

For us in the Liberals, it is an indispensable starting point that it should pay to work and to have worked, and that this should be reflected both in the paycheck and in the pension we receive when we get older.

Unfortunately, today there are fewer and fewer pensioners for whom this simple but significant starting point is a reality, and the respect distance towards what one can receive regardless of previous work efforts decreases very rapidly in times like ours, which are characterized by high inflation. This is due, as we know, to the different indexing mechanisms that apply to the contribution-financed age pension and the tax-financed guarantee pension.

Madam Speaker! These circumstances make the work of strengthening the income-based pension one of Sweden's most important political tasks.

From our side, we see different ways to increase the level of the fee-financed pension but also to strengthen the individual's own power over their pension.

Firstly, we are positive about introducing what is called the pension gas, that is, a mechanism where the surplus above a certain level in the pension system is distributed to today's and tomorrow's retirees.

We also want to strengthen the part of the pension contribution that goes to the funded premium pension, which has shown a long-term return level that far exceeds the compliance index that applies to the non-funded income pension.

We also want to create good conditions so that more and more people choose to extend their working lives.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we stand here to discuss an issue that concerns the very foundations of our society - safety and dignity for our elderly.

Our elderly have over the years contributed to the building of this country. Their work and commitment have been crucial for the prosperity development that we experience today. Despite this, we face a situation where many of our elderly live on meager economic resources even though Sweden is one of the world's wealthiest countries.

The pension is not just a figure; it is a measure of the respect and the recognition that we as a society show for the contributions that our elderly have made. That many elderly people are now forced to live on pensions that are far too small is not just an economic issue, but it is a question of dignity and justice. Therefore, we must collectively raise the pensions. We must ensure that more of our elderly receive a pension that enables a decent quality of life.

Raising pensions is not just an act of generosity, but it is also about what kind of future we want. It gives older people the opportunity to live dignified and secure lives while simultaneously strengthening social solidarity. It shows that we care about one another and that people are not left in economic exclusion.

Today, the differences are great. But everyone who is a pensioner today has been involved in building up our society. They should have a pension that it is possible to live on without having to turn over every krona or go without food at the end of the month.

We need to get more equal pensions in Sweden. We do that best by raising them for those who have the lowest pension. And that, Madam Speaker, is also a matter of equality.

The increase of the guaranteed pension that we pushed through with S, V and C last year was incredibly important for many. It now provides a substantial supplement to the wallet for those pensioners who have the smallest margins.

A large proportion of the pensioners who now receive a higher standard of living are women. Therefore, increasing the lowest pensions is a central equality issue. But we cannot be satisfied with that. The pensions must both become higher and continue to become more equal, because the difference in income between men and women actually increases when they retire.

There are three times as many female guarantee pension recipients as there are male. It reflects the unequal labor market far back in time, when women worked less than men and had significantly lower wages. We cannot change the past, but we can decide what the future shall look like.

Now the Pensions Group has re-emerged. There, we in Miljöpartiet want to be involved and work constructively for higher, more equal and more sustainable pensions.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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