Pensioners

Lena Bäckelin (S)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in report SfU11.

When we talk about pensions – and by that I mean reasonable pensions that can be lived on – it is about both respect for those who have built our society and about trust in society.

We Social Democrats have set a goal: The total pension shall correspond to at least 70 percent of the final salary. There are many pensioners today whose pension exceeds this goal, but all too many have a pension that makes them constantly live on the margin. This applies not least in the current situation, where this becomes even clearer. We cannot have it this way.

Pensioner

Mr. Speaker! For us Social Democrats, it is clear that pensions need to be increased. During the last parliamentary term, we implemented a number of changes and improvements in the pension area. We have increased the guarantee pension. We have increased the housing supplement.

Step by step, we have also abolished the unjust pensioner tax, or the tax gap between those who work and the pensioners, which the previous Moderate-led government introduced and which meant that it was more costly to be a pensioner than to work. It was a clear injustice, and it was not respectful towards those who are older and who have shaped the society that we enjoy today.

We have introduced a targeted pension supplement for those who have worked a full working life but still receive a low pension. It is needed. We have introduced a new security pension, as we do not think it is right that those who have worn out their bodies during a full working life must take their, often low, pension prematurely.

The premium pension shall now be renovated in accordance with the agreement that exists in the Pensions Group. That is very good. It shall be done through a tendered fund square. The premium pension is indeed a part of the pension system and exists for the pension savers - not for the fund companies and the risk capitalists. It is not reasonable that the average person should have to be a finance professional in order to be able to secure their pension.

Mr. Speaker! Some things have been done during previous terms, but we Social Democrats are ready to continue working for sensible pensions for everyone. We must manage to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. We Social Democrats want to raise the lowest pensions but also raise the income pensions for broad groups of wage earners. We believe that the best way to do that is to increase the contributions to the pension system. Today, we do not pay in as much as was intended from the beginning, and the pensioners notice that.

We also want to introduce a so-called gas to the system.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have for several years clearly taken a stand for allocating more to the pension system. So far, the political conditions to carry this out have not existed, and we regret that. We also stand up for the Pensions Group. Let us now move forward with the proposals to the Riksdag that exist - for the sake of the pensioners!

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Lena Bäckelin, for the speech! We return quite often to the Pensions Group when we talk about pensions. It is an old construction, which came into being in the 90s, and one has actually created a stable pension system.

But my question to the member is: Does the member consider that the Pensions Group should continue as it is today, with the principles that exist and with the parties that are currently part of the group?

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

Lena Bäckelin (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! We stand by the idea behind the pension system and think it is good. If only the things that we agree on in the Pension Group are actually implemented, I believe that it will strengthen the pensions significantly.

The pension system is a reflection of working life. We must have an equal working life with a good working environment, because then we will also get a pension system that works well.

The Pensions Group, which the member now wants answers about, is an agreement between the parties that stand up for the principles that have applied to the pension system. All decisions regarding the pension system are made in the Riksdag. That parties cooperate is, for me, to the highest degree democracy. Everyone chooses for themselves whom they want to cooperate with and on what grounds. I also see the value of the continuity in the Pensions Group.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer! The parliamentary situation is a bit different today compared to how it was 30 years ago, when the Pensions Group was formed.

I may think that the Pensions Group has not come forward with many proposals lately. It may be due to the consensus principle that progress is not being made. My questions are therefore: Do the Social Democrats want to review the principles that apply for the group to come forward with proposals? And could the Social Democrats imagine that all parliamentary parties should be part of the Pensions Group?

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

Lena Bäckelin (S)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my previous answer, I believe that consensus and continuity are good for the Pensions Group in the long run in order to be able to achieve results that are sustainable.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the contribution - even if one perhaps should be honest and say that some of the tax cuts that have occurred for pensioners have occurred under the Alliance governments, including 2006-2014. And it was actually in the 2019 budget that this House decided against the current government's will, which resulted in a reduction of the pension.

Member of the Board Bäckelin also speaks about safeguarding the Pensions Group and the system with it. We can only observe that the Social Democrats, together with the Left Party, during last year implemented a proposal regarding the guarantee supplement completely outside of the Pensions Group. Despite several parties wanting to discuss the implementation in the group, a model was chosen where this change was made through the budget, completely outside of the Pensions Group.

Does Member Bäckelin think it was a good approach to decide here in the chamber without discussion in the Pensions Group? Doesn't that create a situation where this rests more on the government's will and budget than on long-term discussions?

My colleague from the Sverigedemokraterna was on a different issue. For me, it is quite obvious that the Pensions Group's purpose and goals should continue to apply. Now that we have a changed parliamentary situation, we Kristdemokratern at least consider that those who meet the criteria we agreed upon should also be included in the group. But should I interpret Member Bäckelin's answer to previous speakers here as that the Socialdemokraterna want the group exactly as it is today, with the same rules and without broadening it?

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

Lena Bäckelin (S)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with the final question, I would like to return to the fact that I believe the Pensions Group is important to safeguard. What it will look like in the future remains to be seen.

It is important to support those pensioners who have it the toughest. We took that step in the autumn, and that is what I and my party stand for.

I see no problem with stepping in and providing support where it is toughest, but there should be no doubt that we want to raise all pensions broadly. It is needed. It must be shown that one earns a living from having worked a full working life.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the answers, member, even though I cannot quite make it add up. One thinks that a proposal from last year, which was submitted purely from a budgetary perspective and completely aside from the Pensions Group, is good, and in the next breath one says that we should safeguard the Pensions Group and its cooperation. I do not think those are two lines that meet.

I think, like my party, that we should continue to work in the Pensions Group. Changes must have a long-term perspective. It should not be decided the night before a vote on the Prime Minister that what the pensions for our elderly should look like. We need to have a long-term perspective where both those who are pensioners today and those who will be in a few years know what applies.

That is why we need to safeguard the Pensions Group. In my view, we also need to broaden it. We may have to discuss exactly how the rules should look, but for the sake of long-term stability, the decisions must be made in harmony with the Pensions Group's work.

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

Lena Bäckelin (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to return to what I have said earlier: We stand up for the system. As long as the system does not function perfectly, with payments and so on, I feel that we cannot stand by and watch in silence while older people become increasingly poorer.

We made, as said, quite a few improvements in the system during the last parliamentary term. I look forward to a constructive work in the Pensions Group moving forward, for the sake of the pensioners.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve reservation 1.

For the Sweden Democrats, it is of utmost importance that every person who reaches retirement age should be able to live a dignified and decent life as a retiree. No one should have to work after reaching retirement age in order to make their finances work out.

When we talk about pensions, it is difficult not to mention the Pensionsgruppen – I know this will be a repetition of what I have said in previous debates. We know that the government and Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in the government statement promised to invite all parties to cross-bloc talks on pensions. Whether there will then be talks or an invitation to the Pensionsgruppen remains to be seen.

Regardless, Pensionsgruppen is a significant party when it comes to pensions. Pensionsgruppen has built up a stable pension system. In recent times, however, Pensionsgruppen has not achieved much more than an increase in the retirement age. This may largely be due to the fact that decisions in Pensionsgruppen are to be made according to the consensus principle.

We Sweden Democrats agree that we should keep the pension system separate because it is a complex system that requires long-term sustainable solutions. But I contend that it is time for a rethink and that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag should be invited to the Pension Group. We should also consider the consensus principle.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats believe that we need to increase pension contributions if we are to strengthen and maintain a good level of pensions in the future. We therefore want the possibility to be investigated of switching between a lower general wage contribution and a higher pension contribution within the employer contributions. In that way, it is possible to achieve higher pensions and at the same time avoid the companies being hit by higher taxes. We believe that this can be a long-term solution to strengthen the pensions.

We also want to task the government with reviewing the provisions that stipulate the right to the level of guarantee pension linked to the individual's civil status, with the aim that pensioners should not be affected financially because they are married or choose to marry in their later years.

Today, the provisions mean that if you are married, you receive a lower guarantee pension than if you are unmarried. For example, it means that an older couple who have been cohabitants for a longer period and do not have common children receive a worse guarantee pension if they choose to marry, which is completely unjustified.

Mr. Speaker! We also want to investigate proposals that provide equal pensions by creating more equal conditions for those who take greater responsibility for family and home. We in Sverigedemokrater do not believe that quota-based parental leave is the right way to go. We believe in the opposite: more freedom of choice for the family to piece together the puzzle of life. For example, perhaps strengthening the pension rights for years spent raising children could be an alternative.

For several years, it has been quite common for Swedish pensioners to leave Sweden and move abroad, perhaps to more southern latitudes. This means that payments from the Swedish social security system go to Swedish citizens in another country.

This is not a problem in itself. We Sverigedemokrater have the position that the pension is a deferred salary and that it is up to each individual to manage their pension as they find appropriate, regardless of where they choose to reside. In a report from the Swedish Pensions Agency, 2018:6, however, several deficiencies are pointed out in the system itself regarding international payments. On the one hand, the simplification with digital signatures has had an impact, and on the other hand, there are deficiencies in the communication between Pensionsmyndigheten and Försäkringskassan. We therefore want to task the government with investigating how Pensionsmyndigheten and Försäkringskassan can strengthen their work regarding the routines for international payments from the common social security system.

We also view child pension with some concern, a financial support that is paid out automatically to the child in cases where both the child and the parent in question were resident in Sweden at the time of death. In cases where the parent is not considered to have been resident in Sweden, an application is required for the survivor's support.

The practice regarding certificates confirming a parent's passing has changed. Now, certificates are submitted on honor and conscience, which we believe is too insecure. To avoid incorrect payments and fraud, the system should return to the previous arrangement, where certificates were required before payment. It is unreasonable that welfare money is paid out on such weak grounds.

We also want the government to investigate and produce a proposal where the compliance support can only be linked to children who are citizens of Sweden or another EU or EEA country, and that the parent to whom the support is linked shall hold Swedish citizenship in Sweden or another EU or EEA country or at least have been folkbokförd in Sweden at the time of their passing.

Once again, I move for approval of our reservation 1.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for the Sverigedemokraterna member because I notice that he is asking the question about whether one can join the Pensions Group of the Socialdemokraterna. In that case, I have a reminder or an urging; you are now governing Sweden together with the bourgeois side and should perhaps contact Kristersson and ask when that promised coffee break will take place. Vänsterpartiet also wonders when it will happen.

The committee members might be able to answer when there will be a coffee break with the Pensions Group and when the settlement they pushed through in the Tidö Agreement will be realized. We are sitting here twiddling our thumbs and waiting.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Ida Gabrielsson, for your question!

The answer is actually quite short. It is difficult to know when the Prime Minister is going to offer coffee. You will almost have to ask him yourself.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! We in the Left Party are not as kind to prime ministers who govern with the support of our mandates. We demanded 1,000 kronor more per month for the guaranteed pensioners, and the largest increase in pensions in modern times was implemented because of the Left Party's demands on the former prime minister.

That is why I wonder what requirements the members and the Sweden Democrats have set. Here, we perceive it as that no requirement has been set for that coffee break to take place. What requirements have been set beyond that? In the Tidö Agreement, I see no results.

What demands have the Sverigedemokraterna set regarding raising pensions during this mandate period? What message can the Sverigedemokraterna give to the country's pensioners who are now struggling under high electricity prices, food prices, and increased costs? When will they see increased pensions? And what demands have the Sverigedemokraterna set for the government in terms of the increased pensions? So far, I can read zero kronor in the Tidö Agreement.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your question, Member Ida Gabrielsson!

I agree that it is a worrying economic situation. In the Tidö Agreement, there are the following directions that can be to the benefit of pensioners: It concerns reduced tax on earned income and pension income. Proposals shall also be developed on how pensioners' finances can be strengthened and freedom of choice protected. And we want to see lower fuel prices as well as measures to protect households, above all from electricity price shocks. These are included in the Tidö Agreement.

The government has noted the problem. There is much to address after the previous government. But now we have started to turn the ship around.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is 110 years since we in Sweden took the first step towards a pension system. It was in 1913 that the Riksdag decided to introduce universal pension insurance. With that, we were first in the world.

The pension system needs to be long-term, secure and predictable. During the mandate period, we Moderates will, together with our coalition partners, develop proposals on how pensioners' finances should be strengthened and how freedom of choice should be protected.

Mr. Speaker! We must forcefully counter ageism. The Equality Ombudsman, DO, testifies that there is a large dark figure when it comes to age discrimination. Of the reports that come in every year, few lead to any action. We can read this in the report from the Delegation for Senior Labor, which was published in 2020 and has the fantastic name "Older people have never been younger" and the subtitle – more and more people can and want to work longer.

Studies show that age discrimination in connection with recruitment is extensive. The probability of being contacted by an employer during a job application drops sharply already in the 40s. When approaching traditional retirement age, the probability of being called for an interview is very low, approximately 2-3 percent. For women, the probability drops much faster than for men. It is about misconceptions, negative attitudes, and prejudices that seniors are obstacles. All of this needs to be cleared away. Society must take advantage of all the experience and competence that older people possess.

Mr. Speaker! From a compilation that Alecta has made of all Swedes between 55 and 85 years of age, it appears that every third 68-year-old, every fifth 73-year-old, and every tenth 79-year-old still has income from work. These people are not pensioners in the classical sense. A relatively new expression has been coined. They are instead job-pensioners.

Today, more than 416,000 people in Sweden have continued to work to some extent after retirement. Let us make it easier for these workers to continue contributing to the welfare. Pension economist Staffan Ström says: "It is a necessity that seniors who can and want to work longer also both get to and actually do so. The work for a longer working life should primarily be aimed at reducing the obstacles for those who can and want to work longer."

Mr. Speaker! Improvements have been made for seniors since the Moderate-led government took office in the autumn. I want to give three quick examples. Firstly, there is now an elderly minister with special responsibility for the issues. Secondly, we have made targeted investments regarding involuntary loneliness. Thirdly, the Moderate-led government has lowered the tax for everyone over 65 who continues to work. In that way, the job tax credit also becomes a relevant incentive to, to the extent possible, remain in the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude by saying a few words about the basic security. The basic security consists of guaranteed pension, housing supplement, special housing supplement, elderly support, and income pension supplement. Do you, listening at home, think it seems a bit complicated? You are absolutely right; it is. I quote: "The purpose of the various benefits is partly unclear and partly contradictory. The Pensions Agency questions whether the rules today are expedient, says Ole Settergren, analysis manager at the Pensions Agency."

In addition to this, the difference in pension has also decreased between those who have worked and those who have not worked at all or worked to a very small extent. It is a consequence of the previous S-government making agreements with, among others, Vänsterpartiet regarding the pensions outside the Pensionsgruppen.

I really hope that this parliamentary term will be characterized by that one does not make populist moves regarding pensions and that one does not use pensions as election promises or election pork.

(Applause)

In this speech, Caroline Högström, Magnus Resare and Viktor Wärnick (all M) concurred.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I actually changed my mind at the last second and withdrew my request to take the floor. But it is just as well to stand up and say something when one gets the chance anyway.

It sounds like the member is speaking about others, about the workers, and not the pensioners. Now, it is still about pensions. In that case, it is a bit about the opposite of those who work. I intend, in any case, to ask about the pensioners – those who take part in the pension system and whom we are talking about today.

It often concerns people who have worn themselves out. They have worked a whole working life and do not have the possibility of becoming a job seeker. They may have worked in healthcare or elderly care, in a shop or with other heavy jobs and are completely dependent on the pension system we have.

If one thinks that it is a major problem that the income pension is too low in Sweden, for that is surely what the member refers to when she speaks about wanting to feel that one gets a little extra from working longer, my question to her is: Why don't you increase the contributions to the pension system, so that we can raise the income pension? Vänsterpartiet has proposed an increase of the income pension by 2,000 kronor per month.

So far, I have not seen any proposal in this area from the Moderates or the bourgeois parties, but the only thing they are doing is ensuring that those who have very little should have even less, so that the difference between people shall be maintained in that way. Why not think the opposite and raise the income pension and in that way address what the member spoke about in their contribution?

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ida Gabrielsson, for the question and the comments! When I speak about jobbers, I am speaking about the freedom and freedom of choice that I and the Moderaterna safeguard. If one can, wants to, and has the opportunity, one should be allowed to continue to contribute. It is very many who choose to do this. Over 416,000 in Sweden do exactly this. We want to facilitate for them to continue to work and contribute.

There are some dividing lines in the pension issues. A very clear dividing line between my party and the Left Party concerns whether it should pay off to have worked. If one every day for 40 years or even longer sets their clock, perhaps at 6 o'clock every morning, and goes to work, that should mean a difference in relation to the one who has not had a job or worked to a very small extent. We Moderates think that is important.

Sometimes we call this respect distance. It is about showing respect for all those who have struggled throughout an entire working life. There, I believe, there is a major dividing line.

Ida Gabrielsson asks about increasing the contributions. We Moderates support that we should analyze the issue. What I understand is that this was included in the 2017 pension agreement. The issue is to be analyzed further. But in context, I can also mention that there has been an increased contribution to the pension system. In the 1990s, 3.5 percent was set aside in many agreements, and that figure is now 6 percent. In total, we are talking about up to 24-25 percent to public and agreed pension that is set aside in the pension system today.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are now also receiving reports that the pension system is running with large surpluses while pensioners are freezing in their homes and cannot afford food. In that case, one can with good reason approve the Left Party's proposal today. Then people will receive a much higher pension.

Half of the country's pensioners have a guaranteed pension, which Member Ulrika Heindorff argues is paid out to those who have worked little or nothing at all. It is therefore a majority of all municipal workers - those who kept society running during the pandemic - who, the Member argues, should not receive respect for their work.

Vänsterpartiet thinks that we in Sweden should have a reasonable basic level in the pension system, just like the other Nordic countries. We have had a very low basic level in Sweden, and in that way, the rest of the pensions have also been kept down.

If one wants to address what the member from Moderaterna says they are concerned about, one raises the income pension. But I do not see the Moderaterna or the government putting forward such a proposal. The only thing that recurs in all debates is that those who have a little should have even less, so that we others should feel happy and satisfied that we got a bit more because we were lucky enough to have better working conditions and higher wages. The Vänsterpartiet considers that the wrong way to view people.

If one thinks that this is a problem and wants the so-called respect distance to increase, what is then the Moderates' proposal to make it worthwhile to work? How are the Moderates going to raise the pensions, and when will those proposals arrive?

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! A good start to this debate and something I would like to add in my final contribution here is that we fundamentally have a good pension system. Sometimes it can sound like we don't have it, but fundamentally we have a stable pension system.

The same pension economist, Staffan Ström, whom I quoted earlier, has also said that we have an image that we would have a miserable pension system, but that is not the case at all. We are usually among the top ten in the surveys conducted on the world's various pension systems. Fundamentally, we have a good and stable pension system.

Now, I have heard Ida Gabrielsson say on two occasions that we want those who have a little to get even less. In that case, I think Ida Gabrielsson has completely misunderstood what happened during last year. Proposals were presented from the government, where there was a cooperation with Vänsterpartiet. There, we had identical proposals for those with the lowest pensions.

Here we come back again to the fundamental question. What distinguishes the Moderates and the Left Party is that we want it to be worthwhile to have worked. We therefore wanted to strengthen the pensions for those with the lowest pensions, but we also wanted to strengthen the pensions for all pensioners. That is where the major dividing line lies, and I believe Member Ida Gabrielsson misses this in her statement. It is therefore not about those who have little having less. On the contrary, we also strengthened those pensions in our proposal, but we felt that it was necessary to strengthen pensions across the board.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Food prices are skyrocketing, and fuel costs are extreme. Interest rates and rents are soaring - not to mention the electricity bills. Electricity prices are today chasing people from their houses and homes.

It is in this situation that the right-wing nationalist government has chosen in its budget to prioritize those with the absolute highest incomes. It became a tax cut for those who earn over 50,000 a month, the largest investment in the right's and the Sverigedemokraternas budget. The electricity companies' profits of 100 billion may continue, while pensioners with low pensions are left to freeze indoors to afford the rent.

Mr. Speaker! It should pay to work. Those who work shall have the right to secure insurance and good wages, and after a long working life, one shall have the right to a decent pension. When the pension system was introduced, a compensation rate of 60 percent was promised in the agreement, but it is far from the reality that today's pensioners live in and what the system delivers.

Those who retire today will only receive half the salary, and it will get worse in the future if we do nothing. Worry constantly gnaws at those who do not have everything. As a child, one worries about how the parents will afford to live when they get older. The elderly are forced to live off their children in the welfare state Sweden. It is bad.

Now the government and the Sweden Democrats are blaming the outside world. It is everyone's fault except their own, even though it is actually they who make the decisions. It is about priorities, about whom one represents when making decisions in this chamber. It is about what demands one as a politician sets when one has the opportunity for influence.

Mr. Speaker! Take, for example, the retirees Berit and Sven, who Oskarshamns-Nytt reported on a couple of weeks ago. They live in a drafty villa, and the heat easily escapes. But they have lowered the heat as much as possible and burn wood for a few hours in the evenings. They walk around the house wearing double layers of clothing. Their electricity bill for January was as high as their combined pension. Sure, they can get some reimbursement in electricity support, but it takes time. And it will not help in the long run, because their pension is far too low.

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes, and even from here, we have heard the argument that there must be a so-called respect distance in income between those who have worked and those who have not done so throughout their lives. But the Pensions Group has not succeeded in its mission to guarantee decent pensions for everyone. We are to have a decent floor in Sweden. Today, people are actually being blown away. One argues for a respect distance by telling the person who is doing quite poorly that there are, in any case, those who are doing even worse.

The raised basic level has created pressure in the debate for higher pensions for all low- and middle-income earners. The low basic level in Sweden has long contributed to keeping pensions low in total for everyone. Nothing could be more wrong than to claim that half of 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 work pays off, there is only one solution: Raise the pensions! The income pension needs to be raised, and therefore Vänsterpartiet has previously proposed an increase of an average of 2,000 kronor per month during this parliamentary term. Unfortunately, we seem to be alone in that view.

Mr. Speaker! The pension system, which everyone says they want to protect, works for those who have the highest income or a reasonably high income, but for low-income earners and lower average-income earners, it does not work. It is not primarily because the retirement age has been too low, but because the pensions and the contributions have been too low that 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.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet 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 even manages to work those years. We have a situation today where people cannot even work until they are 65 years old. According to Kommunals calculations, each individual year worked after the age of 66 gives approximately 150 kronor more per month for their members. Is this what is meant by that it should be worth it to work?

Mr. Speaker! Not least, the Sweden Democrats' betrayal of the country's pensioners is evident. It cannot be seen in any other way. 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. But how much have the government and the Sweden Democrats given to all the country's pensioners? The truth is appalling. So far, they have not managed to squeeze out a single krona in increased pensions. The respect for those who have built up our country does not seem to exist within the government and the Sweden Democrats.

In that light, it is almost a bit embarrassing to see that the Sverigedemokraterna have a number of reservations in today's report.

Mr. Speaker! To now come forward with proposals and reservations is, honestly speaking, some form of hypocrisy. Why have these demands not been pushed forward in the negotiations with the government? Why do you stand behind a government that does not lift a finger for the country's pensioners?

Mr. Speaker! The answer is as obvious as it is clear. The Sweden Democrats do not care about the pensioners – not really. They have entered the corridors of power and are quite satisfied with it. They are happy to treat millionaires and high-income earners to both the one and the other, but the country's pensioners in the Sweden Democrats' Sweden must settle for empty words, contentless speeches, and reservations that are nothing other than a game for the gallery.

Mr. Speaker! Pensions must be raised, not the retirement age. Vänsterpartiet proposes significantly increased pensions and that we work for a system that truly gives Sweden's elderly the respect they deserve. I therefore move for approval of reservation 2 under point 1.

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Gabrielsson, for the speech! I want to start by correcting an important factual error in the Left Party's motion on pensions. There it can be read: "The proportion of poor pensioners in Sweden is higher than the average in the EU, according to figures from Eurostat".

This is not correct, Mr. Speaker. According to Eurostat's figures for 2021, the proportion of poor pensioners in Sweden was 2.2 percentage points lower than the EU average.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is about more than a factual error. The figure I just mentioned refers to what is usually called relative poverty, which actually reflects inequality more than poverty itself. The figures on relative poverty in this case only say that there is a certain proportion of pensioners with disposable incomes that fall below 60 percent of the median income in the country.

If one truly wants to speak about poverty in the sense that most give the word, one should refer to what is called absolute poverty or, if I am to use the term that Eurostat uses, material deprivation. It is therefore about the inability to satisfy life's basic needs.

If one uses this measure, Mr. Speaker, one can state that Sweden, together with Luxembourg, has the lowest absolute poverty in the entire European Union. It is actually difficult to find another country on the globe that has such good figures regarding material poverty.

My question to the member is: Why do you do it in this way? Why do you paint such a misleading picture of the situation of pensioners in Sweden?

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Member from the Liberals is welcome to speak about what kind of measure should be used for poverty. Relative poverty is a very common measure that can be used. But I think we can discuss this via email. The important thing here is to point out that there is a fairly large group of pensioners today who are having an incredibly tough time.

We have, before the Left Party's large increase of the guaranteed pension, been among those who have had the lowest basic pension in the Nordic countries. There are pensioners today whose electricity bills are higher than their pension.

The Member of the Riksdag from the Liberals thinks it is relevant, in today's situation where so many pensioners hardly have the possibility to pay their housing costs, to bring up what type of measure of poverty we use. I am extremely glad that we do not have absolute poverty in Sweden. That is something one should not have in a welfare state. But there are increasing inequalities, and a budget is made where one uses the largest item, 13 billion, for you and me, for people who have over 50,000 a month, instead of ensuring that today's pensioners get a substantial increase. That is what I and the Left Party consider to be the real scandal.

I regret that the Liberals are discussing measures of statistics instead of looking around and seeing how it looks in reality. How are people doing in Sweden?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Right must be right. If one writes something in a motion, it must be correct. One must not say that we have this and that if it is not true. I look at the figures from Eurostat, and this is not correct. Then there must be a will to give a misleading picture and to paint a picture of that Sweden almost has the very poorest pensioners in the entire European Union.

It is actually the case that we have lower levels regarding absolute poverty among pensioners than even oil-rich Norway, yes, than in all other European countries with the exception of Luxembourg.

This must also be said if one does not want to give a misleading picture of the situation in Sweden. You write it. You shall take responsibility for it. I will also email the figures, but it is important that everyone finds out that you are not telling the truth about important matters when you compare Sweden with other countries.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! The statistical measures that the Left Party uses in its motions can still be up to us. Relative poverty is a very common term that is used. What the member is referring to describes the inequalities in a country, and the inequalities in Sweden have surged.

For my part, it is more important to see how it looks in reality and how people actually are doing. We receive reports that people cannot even have decent heat in their houses and cannot buy food, bread, and ordinary basic goods. That is what I, as a politician, want to be here to change. We may not see the same thing, but that is the reality I see.

The members of the committee may have noted the sad letter we received today in the committee from a pensioner. He described his income situation as such that it was just as well if he took his own life. That is my entry point into this debate: to try to ensure that people have a bearable life. People should not just survive. One should be able to live when one is older. In Sweden today, it does not look that way for the vast majority. Some have it well, but the vast majority have it really tough right now. Let us have this focus in the debate.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Ida Gabrielsson, for the speech!

The chairman was a bit within the distance of respect. The distance of respect is shrinking, and there are several critical voices pointing out that it pays off less and less to have worked for one's entire life. There are also examples of those who, after a full working life, receive less in pension than a person with full basic protection.

My perception is that the Left Party's policy continues to erase the respect distance, which means that it does not pay to work. My question to Member of Parliament Ida Gabrielsson is therefore: Does the Left Party want to safeguard the so-called respect distance?

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member! One could almost believe that it is the Left Party that is leading both the Pensions Group and the government.

The Left Party's policy unfortunately does not go through anymore when we cannot set demands before prime ministerial votes and so on. If the member looks at the Left Party's budget, he sees that we propose 2,000 kronor more per month in increased income pension, something that would improve the situation that the member raised. If the member thinks that this is concerning, he can do something about it by setting demands on the sitting prime minister and on his own cooperation base.

Even from the Moderates, it has come up earlier in the debate how good the own proposal to lower the tax by 200 kronor for all pensioners was. But now, it is fair game! It is you who govern. Why have you not maintained the respect distance and implemented your own proposal, at least regarding the tax reduction of 200 kronor?

Do not ask me why it looks this way, but roll up your sleeves and do some work yourselves now, Sverigedemokraterna! 2,000 kronor a month, I say. 200 kronor you have said, but you have not made a workshop of it. We have budgeted for 2,000 kronor more a month, which would improve all the problems the members of parliament bring up. When will you get to the point? That is my question.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Ida Gabrielsson!

Generally, it is positive that the lowest pensions have been raised and that the distribution is somewhat fair. Those with low pensions have a good basic protection. It should be safe to become a pensioner in Sweden.

A good basic protection and safeguarding the respect distance can be a fine balancing act. My question to Vänsterpartiet is: Should there be a difference in the pensions? If one, for example, takes those who have spent an entire working life full-time in healthcare and care professions and compares them with those who have not worked at all, should they have the same pension or should there be a difference?

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that there would be a difference if one were to do as the Left Party proposes now and increase the income pension by 2,000 kronor a month. The Sweden Democrats can join in if they want to. It would make a difference.

When it comes to the unfair working life and also the system itself, which is actually not entirely favorable for those who spend an entire working life in care, I am grateful for the specific example the member took. It is the case that even when one has spent an entire working life in care, one has a large part of one's pension in guarantee pension. We could partially remedy this by raising the income pension, because then that person would have more income pension and would not need to have this basic protection.

Of course we shall have different pensions; that is exactly how the proposal looks today. But we shall not have such a low basic level that those who have done right by themselves will have to stand and beg in a welfare country like Sweden.

1 million people are covered by the guaranteed pension, and the vast majority of them have worked a full working life. Others may have been affected by illness. There are also some who may have been at home with children before there were preschools. They should not have to worry about how they will manage to get food or about not having anywhere to live. The basic level should be good and respectful, and then, according to the Left Party's proposal, we shall increase the income pensions.

All parties are welcome to vote yes to it. Now the chance has passed, since the budget is finalized. But next time you are welcome to support the proposal.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin this debate by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decision, which means a rejection of the motions within this area.

How we take care of those who are older and those who need support in different ways is for me a sign of how good our society is. More and more of our citizens are living longer. One is more active after leaving working life, and medical development ensures that many get a long, active life. Then it is important that we create conditions so that one can feel security even during that part of life when one is counted as a senior.

Promoting and pursuing a policy with the goal of creating a senior-friendly society where everyone can age in safety and with dignity is a focus area for the Christian Democrats. As I said earlier: A welfare society can largely be judged by the degree of respect, provision, 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 must 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 just care and support. Healthy aging, seeing the elderly as a resource to be utilized, and a well-functioning interaction between different generations are equally important components. Feeling well-being and meaningfulness is important for all people.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, great focus is placed on physical needs when well-being is discussed. But as it is written, man does not live by bread alone. The physical is obviously important, but the Christian Democrats are also concerned that the equally important social, emotional, and spiritual needs are often forgotten or neglected.

Many elderly people testify, for example, that they experience the bitter reality of forced loneliness and isolation. This often occurs after one's life partner or friends are no longer there, and it is not always the case that one has a family nearby who can assist during life's various stages.

The Christian Democrats have therefore, in different ways and through different representatives, raised the issue of involuntary loneliness here in the chamber. Therefore, I am pleased that the government we have had for a short time now is making priorities for the elderly in the budget for 2023. There are initiatives to break the loneliness and isolation that many elderly people are forced to live in. Funds are allocated to municipalities, regions, the sports movement, and civil society to break involuntary loneliness.

It is not always normal in our society to extend a helping or welcoming hand. We can only address the loneliness and vulnerability of the elderly if we activate society's resources but also take advantage of civil society. I am therefore proud that there is such an initiative from today's government.

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

The Christian Democrats' policy regarding pensions can simply be summarized as that we want to see a system and a framework that creates conditions for a good pension for both today's and future retirees.

Measures are required to rectify the system when we see that the pensions are not sufficient. But at the same time, it is important that the proposals we implement have a long-term perspective so that measures here and now do not threaten future generations' right to also receive good pensions, that is to say that stability is maintained in the pension system and predictability is preserved.

As many here have mentioned, the pension system is based on a settlement between a number of parties in the 90s. This has created a framework and a system that ensures that decisions hold over time regardless of changes regarding power in this chamber. For us Christian Democrats, it is important that the decisions made regarding pensions are based on broad agreements, and therefore we safeguard the pension system that Sweden has. It is a fundamentally good system. For the parties tasked with managing the system, it is a matter of adjusting the deficiencies, but at the same time we must take care not to mix the state budget with the pension system. That was, in fact, one of the important basic rules when the system we have today was once launched.

We Christian Democrats are also prepared to discuss how the Pensions Group can be broadened with more participants. This naturally depends on finding a common ground and agreeing on the conditions that create a long-term and predictable pension system. Sweden's current and future retirees deserve a sustainable system, and we Christian Democrats will continue to work for that.

Mr. Speaker! We can also read about how unscrupulous criminals with devious methods cheat people out of their savings. Here, society needs to act ever more powerfully so that the elderly can feel safe. They must not be exposed to crime.

Mr. Speaker! One of the major causes of concern in today's Sweden, also for the pensioners, is the housing costs, and this applies in particular to the skyrocketing energy prices that we have seen for some time and which will likely also apply for a coming period.

In light of this, I am pleased that many of Sweden's pensioners, like other residents in Sweden, receive increased economic security when the electricity support begins to be paid out now on Monday, February 20. This is an additional measure from today's government to create economic conditions for the elderly in our country to meet today's and future challenges.

Mr. Speaker! Our elderly are worthy of a society that provides both economic security, protection against crime, and support for initiatives to break loneliness. The Christian Democrats are ready to continue working to achieve these goals.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have a pension system that is fundamentally sustainable, long-term, and good for the vast majority - almost everyone, or perhaps everyone.

My representatives and most of us in the chamber were wise when they made the decisions in the late 90s and introduced the pension system we have today. We were also given the mandate to safeguard the system together in a cross-bloc cooperation.

One of the quirky parts that I like most about the system is that it is based on fees. On the salary I earn every day when I go to work, a fee is paid into the pension system which is set aside from the state budget. That is what makes the system sustainable, and it is based on my working life.

The system has given us more and more pensioners who have a higher pension level compared to the old pension system. There was previously a discussion in the chamber about which measure we should use. If one talks about relative poverty, it is today 700,000 fewer pensioners who are relatively poor than at the end of the 90s. The system has given more pensioners who have a better pension level - not all, but a large proportion.

In recent years, I have become concerned. I believe we have become worse at safeguarding the valuable cross-bloc cooperation that has existed, and agreements have been made outside of the Pensions Group that have created an instability in the current pension system. Here, we need to reclaim working methods and principles and return to the fact that it is in a cooperation across block boundaries where we can work with consensus that we can actually preserve and safeguard the system further ahead. It must continue to be worthwhile to work for a salary and pay into the system. There must be a gain.

I want the work principle to continue to apply in Sweden. With the increases that have occurred in the guaranteed pension in recent years, including in the autumn, and that an adjustment has occurred again in connection with the turn of the year and with inflation, it has meant that on incomes up to 40,000 there is still a part of a basic protection. The basic protection is so high that even if I have had a larger wage income, it will not make a difference, that is to say, the assistant nurse who has worked and earned money is not really rewarded for their efforts in comparison with the one who has not worked for a wage for one reason or another.

We have moved more towards a basic security system than an income-based pension system. This we must return to. That is why it is important for me to return to a good way of working where we cooperate across party lines and work to reach an agreement and achieve a prevailing consensus.

I want to mention the issue of age increases, which has become a point of discussion again in Sweden, in any case among certain parties. It is about not raising the retirement ages. But why is it so important to raise the retirement age? Well, it is because all people are needed. All people who can work should, of course, be on the labor market. We must not continue to support the ageism that exists today, where older people are not expected to be able to manage on the labor market.

I saw a fantastic exhibition on Monday where people over 65 were photographed in the middle of life, at workplaces, on the dance floor, or at Friskis & Svettis. 70 is the new 50. Why should we not be allowed to work?

Part of raising the retirement age is that the years as a retiree become fewer. That may sound dull. But we have a system that is based on the fact that the contributions I pay in become my capital, and that is what I am to have when I become a retiree. Then it is clear that there will be a difference if I am a retiree for 18 or 19 years or if I am a retiree for 25 years. We do live longer and longer.

Mr. Speaker! The person who is middle-aged today will be a pensioner for 18-19 years. I am expected to work until I am 70. Then I will also be a pensioner for 18-19 years. This is what it is about, that is to say that the money must suffice during those years. It is my own savings that have been placed in a buffer aside from the state budget.

I have a tendency to expand on my intended speaking points, but I will try to pull myself together at the end.

You have heard that I am somewhat critical of the debate of recent years. However, it has contributed to us increasing the knowledge among a part of the population regarding how the pension system works, and that is good. But we need to do much more on that front. We need to get more people to see how it relates to the earned krona and the fee that is paid in, and here we need politicians to actually contribute.

It is about how we talk about the pension system - that it is, for the most part, very good. There are things that we need to improve, but overall it is good.

We may also need to contribute to simplifying the system. My Moderate colleague rattled off a number of things that belong to the basic protection. It is clear that as long as we have so many different parts of the basic protection, it is not easy to understand.

We therefore have some work to do politically as well. That is why we think it is important that we give the Pensionsmyndigheten a clearer mandate to inform but also to target different groups when it comes to the information, so that one can start thinking about what the pension means already early in professional life.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 3.

(cont. § 8)

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