Pensioners
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the design and levels of the pension system. S considers that female pensioners live in relative poverty due to an unequal working life 1 and advocates for equal pensions, a workers' pension, and that the Karens deduction should be abolished 1. SD calls for approval of the committee's proposal 2, argues that tax cuts and tithe care strengthen pensioners' finances 2 and that the pension should reflect the life income 2. V emphasizes that the target age must be adjusted 3 and that the government's tax cuts make a big difference 3. V wants to raise the income pensions 4, raise the contributions 4 and advocates for earlier retirement for strenuous jobs 4. C emphasizes political and financial stability 5 and argues that increased taxes are counterproductive 5. KD wants to create a simpler system with an accurate basic protection 6 and supports the committee's proposal 6. MP advocates for increased guarantee pensions and housing supplements 7 as well as increased pension contributions 7. L emphasizes the life income principle 8 and advocates for lower tax on pensions through an enhanced basic deduction 8.
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! We find ourselves in the month of January, which is often described as the poorest month of the year. Last month's Christmas food, Christmas gifts, and other things associated with the birth of Jesus are straining the finances. Add to that the large price increases we have lived with for a couple of years. The Christmas table and Christmas baking became extra expensive because butter is now 62 percent more expensive than it was in 2020. It has been extra straining for those who live with small margins. Not all pensioners, but many belong to those who live with small margins.
According to a report from Folksam from May 2025, the pension as a share of the final salary has never been lower than it is now. The general pension continues to fall and is now on average down to 43 percent of the final salary. To concretize what that actually means, one can take another angle. Newly retired female pensioners have on average 53 kronor per day left of their pension when everything is paid, while the corresponding figure for newly retired male pensioners is 157 kronor.
Madam Speaker! Pension is fundamentally about respect – respect for a long working life, respect for those who have built Sweden strong, and respect for the principle that no one, after a full working life, should have to count every krona to make the month's finances balance.
I shall mention two important issues for us Social Democrats when it comes to pensions. One is equal pensions, and the other is the workers' pension.
Madam Speaker! Before the Christmas break, we had a budget debate on economic security in old age. I told then about my grandmother Ritva. She started working in her early teens and worked hard throughout her life but retired a few years earlier than intended to take care of my sick grandfather. I saw her bank statement when the pension payment arrived in the bank account, and it was something of a shock. I have many times thought about how difficult it must be for her to make the month's finances work after all the bills are paid. Grandmother is not alone. This is how it looks for many women who have endured a long working life, often within health and social care.
Madam Speaker! There are approximately 2.3 million pensioners in Sweden today. According to 2023 figures, the average total pension before tax is 22,700 kronor per month. For women, the pension is 19,400 kronor per month, while for men it is 26,500 kronor. Women therefore receive on average 20–30 percent less in pension than men. In six out of ten municipalities, many women have a pension after tax that falls below 60 percent of the median income in Sweden. This means that, according to EU guidelines, they live below the threshold for relative poverty.
Madam Speaker! An unequal working life is later reflected in an unequal pension. An unequal labor market with lower wages and more part-time work during women's working lives leads to significantly lower life incomes for women than for men.
The Government emphasizes that it has a particular focus on monitoring and analyzing how the difference in women's and men's pensions develops in the long term, and the Government has stated that it will continue to work towards more equal pensions. We think that is good, but this must also be translated into concrete measures. We therefore believe that it is time for the Government to take a decisive step towards equal pensions.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have presented a proposal on workers' pensions. It is a targeted pension lift for those who have worked for more than the 40 years required to receive full income pension but who still only receive marginally more than what is paid out to those who only have guarantee pension. It is about those who have labored the longest and hardest in healthcare, in industry, and in the transport sector and who have started early, worked weekends and often had heavy work tasks throughout their lives. It is time that their work is also reflected in the pension.
We also want to make it possible to scale down at the end of working life, especially for those with heavy jobs, without it resulting in a lower pension. It is not worthy that people should be forced to work themselves sick to manage until the day of retirement.
Speaking of illness, it would be interesting to look at how the sickness absence deduction affects the pension. We are pushing to abolish the sickness absence deduction because we believe it is deeply unfair and unequal that Sweden has a sickness absence deduction for those who have to do the work at the job. This also affects the pension, and it would, as said, be interesting to receive an analysis of how much it affects it.
Madam Speaker! We stand behind our proposals in the committee motions but have chosen not to reserve ourselves with regard to the Pensions Group's work. We Social Democrats recognize the need and the importance of a broad political consensus on the basic security systems. Pensions are no exception, rather the opposite. Consensus, however, must not become an excuse to turn a blind eye to real social inequalities or let injustices persist. We will therefore push to ensure that the Pensions Group's continued work is characterized by precisely these perspectives.
Daniel Persson (SD)
Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report 13 Pensions, and I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposed decision.
We Sweden Democrats consider pensions to be an important issue, and we are pleased that since 2023 we have been included in the Pensions Group after having been excluded from it since we were elected to the Swedish Riksdag. Consequently, during previous years, we could in reality not influence issues concerning pensions.
Madam Speaker! Let me be honest that the Sweden Democrats were critical of the Pensions Group during the years we were not part of the group. We argued that if a necessary rethink was not made, the Pensions Group would be abolished, and we described the Pensions Group as an exclusive club without transparency and oversight. We were also against the Pensions Group's proposal for an increase in the retirement age and were critical of the change to the premium pension system which meant less freedom of choice for pension savers to choose funds. When this change occurred, the National Audit Office stated that consumer protection within the premium pension system is strong. We also argued that the Pensions Group had not come forward with so many proposals during the decades beyond the changed target age.
Madam Speaker! Now there was a long-awaited resumption in the Pensions Group, and as I mentioned earlier, we are pleased to be part of the Pensions Group and to take responsibility for these issues. From a democratic perspective, it is important that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag are represented in the Pensions Group so that we can work together to develop long-term reforms that strengthen the pension system without jeopardizing its stability.
I think things are happening in the Pensions Group. A decision has been made regarding a gap in the pension system and the opportunity to pause the occupational pension has been given. A decision has also been made to conduct a review of both the basic protection and the contribution levels in the public pension system.
Madam Speaker! Sweden has one of the world's most stable pension systems. It is a secure system based on long-term thinking – not on quick fixes or short-term reforms. The pension system is based on the principle that the pension should reflect a lifetime of income. This means that the pension is not something that the state distributes, but something that every citizen builds up through their work. Therefore, the work line is important in this regard.
Some describe that the pension system has gradually become more and more of a patchwork of different benefits. Over the years, the principle of life income has been protected, but when the income pension supplement was introduced in 2021, criticism came from several sides that this principle was compromised and that it went against how the system is otherwise designed, both regarding the guarantee pension and regarding the income-based system. I am not against the intention to strengthen pensions, but this meant that the pension system lost in legitimacy. The principles that are the foundation of our system were stretched.
Madam Speaker! The basic protection is complex and complicated and consists of several parts. It contains the following benefits: guarantee pension, housing supplement for pensioners, elderly support, income pension supplement, and survivor pensions for adults. Pensioner organizations, the Pensions Agency, and other actors have highlighted criticism that this system is difficult to understand. Therefore, it was pleasing that the Pensions Group in May decided that a review of the so-called basic protection should be conducted. The purpose of the review is for the basic protection to become more efficient and more accurate and to have a simpler construction. Alternative proposals for a reformed basic protection shall be developed.
I would like to take the opportunity to quote the Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance, Anna Tenje, who often says that it should be easy to do the right thing. This is something to strive for when it comes to a reform of the basic safety net. As mentioned, it is pleasing that this review is underway.
Madam Speaker! Something else that has affected the pensioners' finances in recent years is the tax cuts that occurred during the Tidö parties' time in power. They have put more in the wallet.
We also see that approximately half a million Swedes between 66 and 80 years old are so-called jobbers. There are several positive effects of being a jobber. The economic gain is the wage one receives for the work. Research points to positive health effects of scaling down instead of abruptly stopping work. Social contacts with colleagues and customers in working life can reduce loneliness and counteract mental ill-health. Furthermore, workplaces gain access to many years of work experience and competence.
Madam Speaker! Other decisions from the government and the Sweden Democrats will also facilitate things for the pensioners. The dental care reform called tiotandvård came into effect on January 1 this year. We are lowering the electricity tax and introducing a high-cost protection for electricity costs. We are also lowering fuel prices and the food VAT. These are some of the proposals that will strengthen the pensioners' households.
For us Sverigedemokrater, it is gratifying to truly be able to take responsibility for the pensioners' finances. We are part of the Pensionsgruppen, and there we will continue to work constructively so that the elderly will have a more secure economy.
Once again, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
Ulrika Heindorff (M)
Madam Speaker! Benjamin Franklin once said the following: In this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes. I believe we can agree on that politically.
We can add another truth, namely that we are living longer and longer. It is truly a fantastic development, and therefore pension policy is the most long-term decisive issue being debated in this chamber.
Madam Speaker! The general pension system was introduced in 1991; at that time, there were five parties involved in the group. This was a crucial step to create stability, conditions, and accountability across generations.
During this mandate period, an important development has occurred. All eight parties in the Riksdag are now part of the Pensions Group. For us Moderates, this is very positive. It strengthens the legitimacy, broadens the responsibility, and increases the possibility of making long-term sustainable decisions beyond short-term political gains.
Madam Speaker! According to the Pensionsmyndigheten, only 8 percent of the population are familiar with the concept of "riktålder" (target age). Therefore, I would like to pause for a moment at this concept.
The target age is adjusted as we live longer and longer. When I was little, they said that you retired at 65, but now it looks completely different. In order for pensions not to become lower over time, we need more of us to work longer. Between 2026 and 2031, the target age is 67 years, and it will gradually increase. The reason for this is quite simply that the pension levels must be able to be sustained over time. Target age is a new concept.
It is important to emphasize that the target age is not mandatory. However, it does affect how early one can withdraw their income pension and premium pension, as well as when one becomes entitled to guarantee pension and housing supplement.
Madam Speaker! The pension system should not only be stable, but it must also be efficient. Therefore, it is welcome that the Pension Group is now introducing a "gas" in the pension system. It feels completely natural given that the "brake" in the pension system has existed since before. To those who are not familiar with it, I can say that this matter of "gas" in the pension system is about being able to distribute surpluses that arise in the pension system. The brake exists to handle any potential deficits in the system.
Madam Speaker! The Government notes in the budget for 2026 that women, on average, have lower pensions than men and to a greater extent receive the basic guarantee. An important explanation for this is, of course, labor force participation. The incomes have a historical explanation, and it is unfortunately also today a reality that men have higher incomes than women.
An unequal working life inevitably leads to unequal pensions. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that pension policy and labor market policy are linked. The Government has a clear focus on monitoring and analyzing the pension gap that exists between men and women and will, in the long term, continue to work towards equal pensions.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to say that for us Moderates, pension policy is ultimately about justice and responsibility. Those who have worked and labored throughout an entire working life should feel security and have a dignified life as a retiree. Therefore, the Moderate-led government continues to deliver reforms that strengthen the pension system and the retirees' finances and which make a real difference for retirees.
In addition to fighting inflation, which has been the absolute most fundamental, we have implemented a dental care reform. The food VAT and the electricity tax are lowered. We are introducing a high-cost protection for high electricity prices. Fuel prices are lowered. There will also be a lower tax on pensions. For an average pensioner, it means 26,000 more in the wallet per year between 2022 and 2026. That makes a big difference for the country's pensioners.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! All people should be able to live on their pension and be able to look forward to a life of security after a long working life. One should have the means to buy that cup of coffee in town and perhaps a gift for the grandchildren. People should feel security in being able to retire at a reasonable age. If one has had a heavy job that takes a toll on the body, one should also be able to retire earlier than if one has had a job that is not as strenuous.
That is not how it looks today. Today, far too many pensioners live with a low economic standard and in poverty. Far too many of the country's pensioners have such a low income-based pension that they are entitled to a guarantee pension. This was one of the reasons why Vänsterpartiet a few years ago ensured that the guarantee pension was increased by 1,000 kronor per month for those who needed it the most. It was enormously important and led to more pensioners having it a bit better.
When the pensioners who are worst off get better incomes, it creates pressure for improvements even for other pensioners. When the pension system was launched in the 90s, it was promised that the pensioners in the new system would receive 60 percent of the salary. This has not been delivered, and it must be at much higher levels today. Vänsterpartiet has demanded that, among other things, the income pensions shall be raised.
Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet is now part of the Pensions Group, which decides on changes to the pension system. There, we are pushing for the income pensions to be raised so that the pensions reach the level that was promised when the system was introduced. A significant boost needs to be introduced into the pension system so that the pensioners can receive a larger share of the money that exists in the system. The contributions to the pension as a share of the wage contributions also need to increase.
The most important thing, however, is to achieve increased income pensions, and it is no secret that we want a stronger gas. It is also no secret that we were against the increase of the retirement age, which the Riksdag has voted on. Vänsterpartiet was fundamentally against that increase because one did not simultaneously ensure the introduction of work environment measures that enable people to manage to work longer.
Even before the increase in the retirement age, there were many in strenuous occupations who could not manage to work until retirement. For those in a low-paid occupation, the extra years of professional activity do not also provide much more in the wallet at retirement.
The increased retirement age may indeed be reasonable based on the assumption that we live longer and thus can work longer, but the reality looks very different for different workers. Most commonly, women in education, healthcare, and elderly care do not have the strength to work until retirement.
Among all those employed in the age group 50–64, 12 percent judge that they will not be able to manage to work until retirement age. Among Kommunals members, seven out of ten are worried that they will not be able to manage to work all the way. Far too many are already starting and ending the workday with painkillers today. Sweden would therefore also need a pension where occupational groups with particularly strenuous work simply go into retirement earlier and do not lose money on it.
Madam Speaker! We need a pension that provides redress for all those who have carried children in preschool, poured concrete, driven buses, and scanned goods at the checkout. They have carried our welfare on their shoulders and have kept the wheels turning in this country. They, like all other elderly people, deserve a secure and reasonable pension, not to be forced to live as poor pensioners just because they were unable to work until retirement age.
We also need to ensure that the conditions in the labor market are improved. Constant cuts, so-called efficiencies, and a high pace cause many to become exhausted at work far too early. The working environment in the labor market needs to be improved.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the Left Party has no reservation today as the questions we raise regarding pensions are handled in the Pensions Group. I would, however, like to emphasize here in the chamber the importance of the Pensions Group being able to move from words to action and solve the problems that exist regarding the pension system today.
Anders W Jonsson (C)
Madam Speaker! It is an exciting discussion in the chamber about the pension system. One might think that this is exciting for those who are 80 years old, but I would say that it is perhaps even more important for those who are 18 years old. If we, today's politicians, make poorly substantiated decisions regarding the pension system, it might not affect those who have a pension today that much, but it would, on the other hand, be of decisive importance regarding the possibility of good pensions being eroded for those who are now entering the workforce.
Madam Speaker, there are no shortcuts when it comes to ensuring that we have strong and good pensions. During my years in the Riksdag, I have many times had the privilege of discussing these issues with Karin Söder, who passed away a few years ago but who was Social Minister between 1979 and 1982. She said on several occasions: I am glad that you are engaging in the social welfare issues – pensions, elderly care and healthcare – but never forget that money for the Swedish welfare does not fall like manna from the biblical heaven! The money comes because we in Sweden have successful companies, large as well as small, that can compete on an international market and ensure that Sweden is a wealthy country.
This is fundamental for us to have good pensions even in the future. It is about us having good conditions for the Swedish companies, and that is why increased taxes and fees are counterproductive, as they can lead to lower pensions in the long run. That is why it is so important to ensure that we do not have red tape that hampers the Swedish companies. It is perhaps these measures that are most important for safeguarding strong pensions even in the future.
Madam Speaker! Another part is that one cannot pull oneself up by one's own hair regarding the pension system. That there is plenty of money to be able to have strong pensions is based on as many Swedes as possible working as much as they can for as long as possible. That was why it was obvious that it was not a problem, but a joy for the Swedish pension system, that life expectancy increased. In that situation, one was forced to raise the retirement age in order to be able to maintain strong pensions. Anything else would have been a deception, i.e., to say that we can keep a relatively low retirement age even though we do not, as before, live to 67 years but to 84 years.
The principle of livelihood is a crucial part. It was a strength for the Pensions Group and the parties involved in it that they could jointly make a very difficult decision. We have seen a number of other European countries where the discussion about raising the retirement age has led to populist parties jumping up, trying to start a debate with large demonstrations in the streets and perhaps even winning the Pyrrhic victory, which fundamentally undermines the pensions.
It is a strength for Sweden that we have been able to have this stability, because stability is a keyword when it comes to such important parts as how one designs a pension system. It is important that the pension system is politically stable. This we have succeeded with in Sweden since the 90s, and I hope that we can continue to have it that way.
So far, the experiences of the expanded Pension Group have been good, according to what I have heard. It is important to be able to preserve this, that is to say, that it does not become an issue to be fought over in political elections or that demands are made that cause the stability of the system to decrease in the long run, as this would primarily affect the younger generation.
Something else that, of course, is important, Madam Speaker, is to have financial stability. Regardless of whether the Swedish economy is running like a train or if we happen to encounter problems, which we have done many times before, the pension system should not be affected by it. That is why it is important that we have a brake, and that is also why it is wise to review whether we can have a gas.
Again: Regarding the discussion about having a gap in the pension system, there is the tempting tendency for today's politicians to say that we shall have a gap and that it shall be gapped a lot just now, for those who will soon go to the ballot boxes. The danger with this is, of course, that if we gap too much, there will not be any pension money left for those who today belong to the age group that perhaps has it toughest economically, that is to say persons who have just started a family, who are going to buy their first house and who have one, two or three small children, with the investments that it is then about. It is that generation that has it really tough economically.
With this said, there are great challenges in the Swedish pension system. One concerns basic security, where the principle of life income is very important. The basis should be how much one has worked in one's life and contributed to the pension system, but we must also have a basic security. There, as several speakers have pointed out, we have a patchwork today that does not function well economically. It is at the same time completely incomprehensible for very many of those who are to be able to take part in this, and that is why it is good that the Pension Group has now taken the step to try to see if the different components that exist in the basic security can be coordinated.
What we from the Center Party also see as a very large problem is the lack of equality. There are no quick or easy solutions there either, Madam Speaker. The reason why we have very unequal pensions is, in fact, that we have an unequal working life, where women have lower life-time earnings than men do. Women take a greater responsibility for children and family, which leads to a reduction in working hours. This then leads to a lower pension. An important part of this is, of course, to inform young women about how important it is to ensure that money is put into the pension system. The decisions one makes at the age of 25 can seriously affect the pension rights when one is 70 and 75.
Madam Speaker! For us, political stability and, of course, financial stability are very important. As a party, we have a number of views on the pension system, but we choose to act in the Pension Working Group to, to the greatest extent possible, reach good solutions in consensus with other responsible parties on how we can achieve an even stronger pension system. I therefore wish to vote in favor of the proposals in the report from the Social Insurance Committee.
Ingemar Kihlström (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decision, which in principle means a rejection of the motions within this area.
The Christian Democrats' policy in this area can simply be summarized by the fact that we want a good pension for both today's and future retirees. We see that pensions for some are not sufficient, and measures are required to rectify this. At the same time, it is important that the proposals implemented also have a long-term perspective so that measures here and now do not threaten future generations' right to a good pension. The stability and predictability of the pension system shall therefore be maintained.
The Christian Democrats therefore safeguard the pension system that Sweden has. It is fundamentally a good system. It is up to the parties tasked with managing the pension system to adjust the deficiencies so that they can be eliminated while stability is maintained. One should also be careful not to mix the state budget with the pension system. That was one of the important basic rules when the pension system we have now was launched in the early 90s.
Madam Speaker! Building a senior-friendly society where everyone can age in safety and with dignity is an important goal for the Christian Democrats. A welfare society can largely be judged by the degree of respect for, preservation of, and care for the older generation. As a senior, one should be able to live an active life and have influence in society and over one's everyday life. One should be able to feel safety and maintain one's independence, and one should be met with respect and have access to good care and support.
A coherent policy aimed at the elderly in society can and must therefore not only be about care and nursing. Healthy aging, viewing the elderly as a resource to be utilized, and having a well-functioning interaction between the generations are equally important components.
Feeling well-being and meaningfulness is important for all people. In Sweden, great focus is placed on physical needs when well-being is discussed. The physical is obviously important, but Kristdemokraterna are concerned that the equally important social, soulful, and spiritual needs are often forgotten or neglected. Many elderly people, for example, testify that they experience a harsh reality with imposed loneliness and isolation.
This does not happen infrequently when a life partner or friend is no longer there. It is not always the case that one has a family nearby who can assist in life's various stages. The Christian Democrats have therefore, during recent years, in different ways and through different representatives, particularly highlighted the issue of involuntary loneliness. We all have a responsibility to shape a society where the elderly shall feel security, community, human warmth, and dignity.
Madam Speaker! It is also not uncommon that the elderly worry about the economy and whether the money will even suffice for the most necessary things. Economic security is important for everyone, but especially important for those who may have difficulty influencing the situation through their own work.
The Christian Democrats are part of the Pensions Group. We have been since the start. It is a cross-bloc working group consisting of representatives from parties that stand behind the pension agreement. Initially, five parties were involved, and now all eight parties in the Riksdag are involved. It is eight parties that are committing to the long-term work and the long-term conditions for stability that are needed for the pension system to remain valid for a long time ahead.
Sweden today has a pension system that is long-term sustainable, and the Christian Democrats want to continue to safeguard that. When it comes to occupational pensions and private pension savings, individual responsibility must be reassessed. We have for a long time argued and worked for the tax for pensioners to be at the same level as for wage earners. We have also argued that changes regarding the target age should be fair. Mistakes happened in connection with the implementation of changes regarding the tax for those born in 1957. After much work by my colleague Hans Eklind, this was changed so that it is now a fair system.
We in the Pensions Group have also worked hard to ensure that there is not only a brake in the pension system when the economy does not allow for too large increases, but also a gas – that is to say that more money is allocated when there is a surplus and room to create a real increase in pensions. Now, what we have long argued for has become a reality. More money from the surplus – a gas – is introduced, but it is done with a maintained safeguard for future pensions.
We Christian Democrats have historically worked to ensure that pensioners have it better in many areas – not least financially. We will continue to do so.
Madam Speaker! In the bill we are now debating, there are important parts to create a more secure economic situation for the elderly. This concerns the tax-financed basic security benefits, i.e., benefits that contribute to improving the economic situation for pensioners with low or no general income-based pension. This includes, for example, the guarantee pension, housing supplement, and income pension supplement.
At the same time, it is important that the work now initiated by the Pensions Group to create a simpler and more cohesive system yields results as soon as possible. The work started in July 2025, and in June this year, proposals are to be presented regarding the direction for a reformed basic protection and which groups it should be targeted at. We shall also develop goals for a basic protection that is as accurate, cost-effective, and easy to understand as possible. These measures are important to create a more cohesive system that is easy to understand.
Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats, as stated, give their support to the committee's proposal for a decision within the area of pensions. Our elderly are worthy of a society that provides economic security, a protection against crime, and a support for initiatives to break loneliness. The Christian Democrats, together with the other government parties, are ready to continue and develop this important work.
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Madam Speaker! All people should have an income that is livable. It is a hard-core basic principle for us in Miljöpartiet, regardless of which part of the labor market or the different security systems we are talking about. This applies in particular to Sweden's pensioners, who have built this country and made Sweden the welfare nation it is.
It is a self-evident matter for us that every single pensioner in Sweden should have a pension that is sufficient for a life of security and financial safety. It is a matter of justice and of respect for people's hard work.
Sweden's population is getting older and in many cases healthier. For many people in several professions, it is therefore possible to continue working for several years after they have the right to retire. This is good and should be fully welcomed. It is, however, at the same time a painful fact that many people in professions within, for example, welfare and industry still wear out during their working lives and must retire early.
There is much that can and needs to be done so that these people can endure their entire working lives. We need to reduce normal working hours, improve the work environment, and hire more colleagues in the welfare sector so that no one has to be worn out because too few people are forced to do too much. This requires political will and the courage to dare to break with old ideas about what can and cannot be done.
We also know that pensions are an issue of equality. Three-quarters of all those who receive a guaranteed pension, which is the main basic security in the pension system, are women. Formulated in another way, there are three times as many women as men among those with low income pensions. It reflects the unequal labor market far back in time, when women worked less than men and had significantly lower wages.
But it also reflects the inequality we still have in the Swedish labor market today, where occupations with a majority of women have lower wages to a greater extent, where women take longer parental leave, and where women in strenuous occupations, for example in healthcare, wear themselves out earlier and must take sick leave or retire early and thus do not have time to earn as much for their pension. Therefore, an increase in pensions and a strengthening of basic security is a central equality issue.
Madam Speaker! Regardless of how long one has been able to work in Sweden and how high one's salary has been during their working life, everyone shall be able to live on their income when they retire. That is the position and ambition of the Miljöpartiet.
Everyone who is a pensioner today has been part of building up our society, regardless of what they have worked with and whether they were born here or immigrated later. The size of the paycheck is, as said, not always a measure of how much one has exerted oneself in life. Even those with low wages have worked hard and should have a pension that it is possible to live on without having to pinch every penny or go without food at the end of the month.
The Green Party's proposal is therefore as clear as it is reasonable. When the parties in the Riksdag now review the basic protection in the pension system through the Pensions Group, an increase in the guaranteed pension and an increased housing supplement should be self-evident measures for us to agree upon. It would clearly strengthen the pensions for that group of elderly people who truly need it.
Miljöpartiet also sees that the entire general pension needs to be raised to ensure that all pensioners are better off. For that reason, we want to raise the pension contribution in two steps. A higher pension contribution shall be exchanged for lower employer contributions so that it does not result in higher costs for Sweden's employers.
Finally, we also want, as a way to handle the consequences of an unequal labor market, to expand the possibility of transferring pension rights between partners. It is a small but still important possibility that exists today for families to make their pensions more equal. Today, this can only be done between married and registered partners. We want to extend this right to cohabitants so that more people can make their pensions more equal.
Madam Speaker! We have presented these proposals in our committee motion titled Högre pensioner. With respect for the Pensionsgruppens work, we will however pursue these proposals there, so we have submitted a special statement instead of a reservation.
Patrik Karlson (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin in the only correct way – with respect for those who have built up our country. Today's pensioners are yesterday's teachers, nurses, entrepreneurs, and industrial workers. Thanks to their lifelong efforts, Sweden stands where it stands today. They deserve both our gratitude and a secure economy in the autumn of their lives.
Madam Speaker! One of the greatest strengths in Swedish pension policy is the broad consensus. The pension system rests on a cross-bloc agreement. Now, all parliamentary parties have stood behind this and are part of the Pension Group. As a Liberal, I am particularly pleased by this, as long-term issues such as pensions must be lifted above short-term political bickering.
One of the absolute most important drivers for me personally is that we have a pension system that one can rely on. Therefore, it is also so important that we have an autonomous pension system that stands apart from the state budget. Ever since the new pension system was launched, this has been a fundamental principle – precisely so that we can ensure that even future generations know that their pensions will not become part of an over-budget policy. We must never compromise on that principle.
Madam Speaker! It should pay to have worked a whole life. Our pension system rests on the principle of life income – the income during working life shall be reflected in the size of the pension. This is a deeply just principle. The person who has worked, paid tax, and contributed to our common welfare for decades shall also receive a noticeably higher pension than the person who has not done so. The respect distance, that is, the difference in pension between the person who has worked a whole working life and the person who has not done so, must be maintained. It is about both decency and incentives. If someone who has toiled a whole professional life receives hardly more in their wallet as a pensioner than the person who has not worked, trust in our system is undermined.
Unfortunately, this respect distance has shrunk alarmingly much in recent years. For many who have had lower wages their entire lives, the difference compared to the basic protection is only a few hundred kronor. It is unreasonable. How is a hard-working person supposed to feel that it was worth the effort if the pension hardly differs from the benefit level? That is what we do not want and cannot have.
Madam Speaker! An important step towards recreating a more just respect distance is the gas we are now introducing into the pension system. All parliamentary parties in the cross-bloc Pension Group have agreed on this introduction, and it is historic. We have long had an automatic brake that lowers the indexation of pensions in times of crisis to protect the system's finances. Now we will finally also have a gas that, in better times, pays out the surplus to the pensioners. It is a very positive news. We thus ensure that the system not only becomes long-term stable but also becomes just over time. The pensioners get to share in the surplus when things are going well and not just take the hit when things are going poorly.
Madam Speaker! The Liberals have long championed the demand that pensions should be taxed lower. Pension is not a benefit but deferred wages. It is therefore pleasing that we now move forward within the government with an increased basic deduction for the elderly, which lowers the tax for everyone over 67 years old. It is reasonable to lower the tax both for people who work and for people who have worked.
Madam Speaker! I also want to touch upon equality in the pension system. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that women's pensions are, on average, 26 percent lower than men's. It has begun to even out, but it is progressing very slowly. After a long working life, a large part of the population should not be financially punished for happening to have a certain gender.
But we must simultaneously discuss and understand why the gap has arisen. The reason is primarily that women's working lives unfortunately often look different, with lower life-time earnings, more part-time years, longer parental leave, and a heavier responsibility for unpaid domestic work. An unequal working life results in an unequal pension; the pension is to a large extent a reflection of professional life. The solution is partly about making the labor market more equal, but also about adjusting the pension system where it may be needed.
Madam Speaker! Since we are standing here today and talking about pensions, I think it is appropriate to talk about the view of the elderly in society and their opportunity to participate in working life and thereby work towards their own savings but also towards their future pension. What I am referring to is, of course, age discrimination in the labor market. Today, far too many elderly people are met with prejudices when they seek jobs or want to remain in working life. This is not only deeply unfair to the individual. It is also harmful for our labor market and society as a whole. We cannot afford to waste the competence of the elderly based on incorrect prejudices.
In my world, it becomes a bit contradictory when, on the one hand, we encourage people to work longer so that we can sustain our welfare as we live longer, but also so that they can build up more of their pension – we all know that the final years in working life make a very big difference for future payments – but on the other hand, the labor market is closed for this target group because they have reached a certain number of candles on their birthday cake.
Madam Speaker! We simply need a working life where competence and will count, not the personal identity number. We must address the prejudices and structures that cause a 50-year-old to be rejected on the labor market despite having so much left to give.
All of this is connected. The basic idea is that we show respect for our elderly in all parts of society. Our elderly have kept their promise to society. They have worked hard, paid their fees and taxes, and built Sweden strong.
By ensuring that pensions reflect a whole working life, we signal that every hour worked is important. By guaranteeing a basic protection for those who, for various reasons, have not been able to work, we simultaneously show consideration for the most vulnerable.
Through tax cuts and rebates when the economy allows it, we acknowledge that pensioners shall have their share of the cake. By combating ageism, we guard everyone's right to contribute and receive appreciation regardless of age. That being 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.