A more accurate and correct housing allowance
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a more accurate housing allowance. S considers that the previous government improved the allowance through raised income limits and supplementary allowances 1, but argues that current rules create indebtedness as the allowance is based on preliminary incomes 1. SD considers that the new modernization minimizes the risk of incorrect payments and indebtedness through calculation based on actual monthly incomes 2. M argues that the reform reduces clawbacks by 90 percent 3. MP wants the temporary housing allowance to be fully reintroduced 4. L considers that today's system is a debt trap 5 and proposes that the allowance be calculated monthly based on current income data 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ida Karkiainen (S)
Madam Speaker! When the world economy is restless and the labor market fluctuates, it hits ordinary people hard. For a family with children living on the margins, it does not take much for the family finances not to balance at the end of the month.
We need secure welfare systems that people can trust. The previous, Social Democratic-led government raised the income limits for housing allowances for families with children and introduced a special supplementary allowance due to the sharp cost developments in the years after the pandemic.
The reinforcements of the housing allowance meant a direct economic improvement for many of the most vulnerable families with children. The investments that the Social Democratic government made for families with children with a low economic standard were of great importance in combating child poverty, but further measures are needed.
The current design of the regulatory framework for housing allowance leads to significant problems with indebtedness. This is largely due to the fact that the allowance is paid out as a preliminary allowance, based on income, and that the housing allowance is determined finally only when Skatteverket has decided on the final tax. Many families therefore become liable for repayment. Debts due to the design of the housing allowance are, in total, the largest debts that individuals have to Försäkringskassan.
The obligation to pay in the rules for maintenance support is instead based on income derived from a two-year-old income according to the decision on final tax. The income that the person liable for the contribution has when the maintenance support is to be paid can be significantly lower. For some persons liable for the contribution, this leads to their current income not being sufficient to pay the demands directed at them, and a debt often arises as a result.
Those liable for contributions who have incomes that have not been significantly reduced compared to two years earlier also do not always pay the amounts that have been calculated. Less than 60 percent of what Försäkringskassan demands is paid to the agency. Many debts are handed over to Kronofogden. Through the introduction of employer declarations at the individual level for the entire labor market in 2019, there are now good opportunities to obtain reliable information on the vast majority of people's income from service on a month-to-month basis in close proximity to when the salary is paid out.
The investigation we appointed, which in common parlance is called BUMS, submitted the report Träffsäkert – Införande av månadsuppgifter i bostadsbidraget och underhållsstödet in December 2021. Against the background of the problems with indebtedness and accuracy, the investigation proposed that the income underlying the housing allowance and the income underlying the maintenance support should, as a general rule, be based on current historical incomes retrieved from data in the employer declarations when this is possible.
The investigation's proposals were therefore submitted a number of years ago. The proposals perhaps could have been implemented a bit earlier, which we have pointed out, for example, in a number of interpellations. We regret the delay but are glad to finally stand here today with a change that makes a real difference. People should dare to use the housing allowance without being afraid of debt. That is important.
Since we Social Democrats believe that the housing allowance could be further reformed, we have a specific statement in the report. The housing allowance would need to be reviewed in its entirety to achieve increased accuracy. One could also use monthly figures when calculating maintenance support. We obviously stand behind this proposition, which will hopefully make a big difference and reduce the indebtedness for already vulnerable families with children.
Daniel Persson (SD)
Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU24 A more accurate and correct housing allowance. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.
This report represents an important and necessary modernization of how the housing allowance is calculated and paid out. The new rules mean that the housing allowance shall be calculated monthly instead of being based on an estimated annual income. The purpose of this change is to minimize the risk of incorrect payments, clawbacks, and indebtedness among those whom the housing allowance is intended to support financially.
Madam Speaker! In the new system, the income underlying the benefit shall be calculated with the help of data at the individual level in employer declarations and simplified employer declarations. This means that the calculation is based on actual and current income data instead of an estimate, which has often resulted in inaccuracies. The income underlying the benefit shall correspond to the average monthly income within a timeframe of three months, which means better compliance when it comes to changes in income. Even a varied income will be captured better in the new system. At the same time, households will receive security and predictability in their finances.
The new monthly system will not fully replace the old annual system. When there are incomes from earned work but data is missing in employer declarations, for example when a person conducts business activities, the calculation will be made according to the annual system. In this way, the housing allowance can be adapted to different types of incomes and different forms of employment.
Madam Speaker! During this year, we have also increased the housing allowance. Families with one child can receive an increase of up to 800 kronor per month, and families with two or more children can receive up to 1,000 kronor more per month. This is a targeted support, and it is the first time since 1997 that these levels in the housing allowance have been increased.
Soon, the requirement for notification before application for parental leave benefits will also be abolished. The requirement to notify in advance that one will be on parental leave before being able to apply for parental leave benefits will be removed. Parents can instead apply directly for parental leave benefits, without a separate notification procedure. This is completely in line with the ambition to create a more modern, flexible, and parent-friendly parental insurance.
Madam Speaker! The proposal we are now debating means that the housing allowance shall be correct from the outset to a greater extent. It shall be easy to do right. Today's system can lead to uncertainty and repayment demands, but the support shall now become more accurate and secure for families with children or other households with small margins. This is an important step towards a housing allowance that functions as a financial support and does not become the opposite, a debt trap.
Caroline Högström (M)
Madam Speaker! The housing allowance is a support that should be there when life is at its most pressured. It is for single mothers who are trying to make everyday life work, for families who struggle with high costs and small margins, and for people who work or study and are trying to move forward in life. Over 100,000 families with children received housing allowance during 2025, and a majority of the recipients were single mothers, who take a great responsibility for their children.
At the same time, we see a serious problem. After the reconciliation of the housing allowance, around 35 percent became fully or partially liable for repayment, i.e., more than one third. It is not primarily about people who cheat or try to trick the system. It is about the system being constructed in a way that makes it difficult to do the right thing, and that is not reasonable.
Madam Speaker! Incorrect payments from the welfare systems are a major societal problem. Every year, 15–20 billion kronor disappear in incorrect payments, and a significant portion of them are judged to be pure benefit crimes. Therefore, the government has implemented extensive reforms to stop the fraud and the organized crime. Confidentiality barriers between agencies have been broken, and Försäkringskassan has been given better tools to act against
subsidy fraud. A subsidy ban is also introduced for those who repeatedly and deliberately obtain money they are not entitled to.
Those who cheat must face clear consequences, but it is important to distinguish between crime and system errors. The matter we are now debating is largely about people who try to do the right thing but get stuck in a complicated system where the housing allowance is based on an estimated annual income that is reconciled afterwards. For many, it is enough to take an extra work shift, change jobs, or increase working hours for the finances not to balance and the reclaim to occur, and it can amount to thousands of kronor. It creates anxiety, debt, and insecurity for people who already live with small margins.
Madam Speaker! It should be easy to do the right thing. That is why the Moderate-led government is modernizing the housing allowance. Instead of basing the system on an estimate of the entire year's income, the government proposes that the housing allowance should be based on current data on monthly income, and the data shall be retrieved directly from employer declarations and other sources. This means that the housing allowance will be more accurate from the start.
Most importantly, the repayment demands are expected to decrease by around 90 percent. It is a large and important change. Fewer people will have to wake up to a repayment demand they could not have foreseen. Fewer single mothers will have to choose between paying back money to the state and making the finances at home work out.
Madam Speaker! Society must be there when people need support. But we must never build systems that make it risky to work more. The work line is crucial, especially for the children. More children should see their parents go to work, and more families should be able to make a class leap through work, education, and self-sufficiency. Then our safety nets must be fair and understandable and encourage people to take more work shifts, educate themselves, and increase their incomes. It should simply pay to make an effort.
With this reform, an important step is taken towards a safer and more just housing allowance system, a system that both protects the taxpayers' money and treats people with respect. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is long-awaited and welcome that a system is now being introduced where families with children are not affected by requirements to repay housing allowance because it turns out at the end of the year that they have earned more than they thought in January or June. We in Miljöpartiet have waited a long time for this legislative change, and the government has delayed unreasonably long in presenting its bill. This could have been done already at the beginning of the mandate period.
The housing allowance is particularly important in times when poverty in Sweden is increasing. Rents have skyrocketed just like food prices, and the number of people in Sweden who are poor has increased. Over 700,000 people are poor today. The housing allowance is part of the basic safety net that is supposed to protect the economically vulnerable, not least children. But some have not dared to apply for housing allowance because they have not been able to predict whether they will still be entitled to housing allowance at the end of the year. This has hit students particularly hard. But it is important that families with children and others do not opt out of a housing allowance they need for fear of clawbacks.
Today's reform is not enough, however, and the housing allowance needs to be reformed in other ways as well. Miljöpartiet wants that the temporary housing allowance for families with children be permanently reintroduced in full, i.e., that which the government first removed and then restored a small part of. It is needed.
We need to raise the maximum amount of the housing allowance, not least so that families with children can afford a home where they do not become overcrowded. We also need to raise and index the income limits and the housing cost ceiling and also investigate a new family policy goal for the housing allowance.
The age limit should be abolished, and even those who do not have the opportunity to obtain their own rental contract but are lodgers need to be given the opportunity to apply for housing allowance. There is already a great injustice in the housing market where those who can afford to buy and own are favored in many ways tax-wise, while those who do not succeed in getting a first-hand contract can be forced to pay extortionate rents and end up in an even worse economic situation. Those who do not even succeed in getting a second-hand contract on their own apartment end up in the very worst situation, where they are referred to becoming lodgers and cannot even receive housing allowance.
We also think that one should be able to obtain a preliminary decision regarding housing allowance. Even if this change will likely reduce the reclaims by 90 percent, a certain uncertainty still remains that a preliminary decision could eliminate.
Patrik Karlson (L)
Madam Speaker! The housing allowance is intended to help households with low incomes and high housing costs to manage the rent. It is, therefore, intended to be a safety net, but as the current system is constructed, it all too often functions in a way that is difficult to defend. For many, it has instead become a debt trap.
It has required that people with insecure incomes, temporary positions, short substitutions, part-time jobs, studies, or temporary work shifts should be able to predict their annual income in advance, that is, not their approximate income next week or next month but the entire year's income. It is almost like saying to the people who have the least margins: "Please! Here is a support, but first you must guess your future."
If they guess wrong, a letter may arrive much later. Then, the support that was intended to create security in everyday life can instead become a demand for repayment, and the help that was supposed to pay the rent can become a debt. That was not how it was intended to work, Madam Speaker.
There are many examples of this flawed construction. We have seen families with children who were entitled to housing allowance when income was low but who later in the year received an income increase, perhaps through extra shifts or a substitute position, and who subsequently became liable for repayment even for months when the allowance was actually needed.
We have seen students and young people who have small margins and who do not know exactly how much they will work during the summer, alongside their studies or between two jobs, but who are nevertheless expected to make an annual forecast as if life were an Excel spreadsheet.
We have also seen how notices of demands for repayment can arrive long afterwards. A few years ago, tens of thousands of households received notices that they had to pay back housing allowances. Many had moved on in life, and their life situations had changed. But the debt still came. It is such situations that the reform addresses.
Madam Speaker! For a family with children and good finances, a reclaim of a few thousand kronor can be sour. For a family with children and small margins, it is much more than that. Then a reclaim is no small matter, when it is put to the test. It is a month's rent. It is winter clothes. It is grocery shopping. It is birthday presents that do not happen. It is that lump in the stomach that children notice even when adults try to hide it.
When the debt is passed on, it does not just become a debt to the state but a barrier for the future. It can affect the possibility of obtaining a new home. It can create stress. It can lead to contact with the municipality's budget and debt counseling and, in the worst case, the Enforcement Authority.
Madam Speaker! Support for economically vulnerable households should not be constructed in a way that risks making them even more vulnerable. That is where the government's proposal comes in.
We propose that the housing allowance should be calculated more extensively on a monthly basis and based on current income data. Income from service shall, as a general rule, be determined by reference to data in employer declarations. This means that the housing allowance follows reality better.
When the income is low, the support can be higher. When the income rises, the support can be adjusted faster. And when the system uses data that already exists, instead of placing the entire burden on the individual to guess correctly, the risk of error is reduced. Simply put, it is the difference between a system that looks back several years later and says "You did it wrong" and a system that continuously tries to do it right from the beginning.
Madam Speaker! It should not be dangerous to take an extra shift. It should not be risky to go from fewer hours to more. A single parent should not feel anxiety that work in November creates a debt regarding benefits that were paid out in February.
Madam Speaker! Those who are entitled to housing allowance must dare to apply for housing allowance. Those who work more should not have to feel worry that the state will be ready with a clawback much later.
With this said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.