Guidelines for economic policy and budget policy

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would start by describing this spring budget debate in a context. I have tried to do that before as well and, in some way, remember what is the task of politics. What is it we are here for? What is it we are to do with the decisions we make? I believe that we in this chamber have different answers, but at its core, it is about enabling good lives for people in this country and also contributing to a better world when it is possible.

We shall not rule people's dreams, but we can enable all the different dreams that exist in our elongated country. With every decision we make, we can simplify and make it possible for people to embark on the path they want.

Mr. Speaker! I have traveled quite a bit this spring and tried to talk to people, both at workplaces and in other contexts. I have asked the question: What is important to you?

I have asked young people. Not everyone answers in the same way, of course, but some answers are quite similar. They express it in different words, but if you are interested and listen, you hear what they are saying. Some say: I want to earn money. Then you ask the question: Why do you want to earn money? The answer becomes: I want to be able to buy a house or an apartment in the future. I want to be able to have a family and perhaps have the means to travel a little bit. It is this that people dream about.

Money in itself has no value more than what the money creates. It is the fruits of one's own work and one's own effort that make it possible to live that good life.

If you ask people in the middle of their lives, the answers are also very varied, but one thing keeps coming back, namely time. You can dress it up in different words, everything from money to jobs and careers, but time is very important for many. What is time then? Well, it is time to be with those you hold dear, those people who mean a lot to you – your children and your parents. It is about having time to do things, sometimes also for one's own sake. Sometimes it is threatened by the fact that one cannot quite make the everyday puzzle fit together or the money stretch far enough. But time often recurs in the answers.

What do people dream about when they leave the working life? It is the same there. It is many different things. But one of the things that often recurs is that one wants to be healthy. To be healthy is many things. On one hand, it is about taking care of one's own health when one has the opportunity, on the other hand, it is about that, when one's health is not as good as one would wish, there is someone who takes care of you. It is about that we have a functioning healthcare system and, in the long run, a good elderly care.

All this and much more are people's dreams. What we make decisions about here is such things that in different ways enable people in this country to live good lives.

It could be about, for example, the Minister for Financial Markets Niklas Wykman, who is sitting here in the chamber, who the other day presented a proposal to make it a bit easier for young people to acquire their first home. It can make it a bit easier to borrow the capital that one needs.

It can also be about Gunnar Strömmers work to toughen the penalties and get more money for the police. That means that people who today feel insecure in many places in this country can become a bit safer.

It could be Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson's employment tax credits, which she and others before her have implemented. They mean that a completely ordinary nurse over the last 20 years has had 4,000 kronor more left over each month when the tax is paid.

In politics, everything rarely happens all at once. But step by step, we make people a little freer and give them the opportunity to fulfill more dreams. Then someone might ask: Doesn't this mean that the welfare is being eroded? No, if more of us strive, work, and try to do more, tax revenues also grow. That is why we actually have never before had more money for welfare than we have today. This allows us to build good lives in this country, part by part.

We also live in a restless time. A lot is happening here at home in Sweden, with insecurity and with the gangs' ravages and shootings. It is war in Europe again. Ukraine is attacked by Russia. There is once again a country that thinks it is the right of the strongest to dictate the terms.

We stand firm, all eight parties in this chamber together with a broad majority of the Swedish people, behind Ukraine and its endeavors toward the obvious goal of being spared war, suffering, and oppression. We will continue to support Ukraine. It is a strength, Mr. Speaker, that this chamber can be united in that task.

We have unrest in the Middle East. When many people with roots there now live their lives in Sweden, this is also very palpable here in the chamber and in our country.

We have a situation where we can condemn what Hamas did with its acts of terror. But we must also acknowledge the suffering that people in Gaza are experiencing today. That is why this government, Mr. Speaker, in its endeavor to ensure that the rest of the world also becomes better, has doubled the resources to help the civilian population in Gaza and reduce the suffering for those who today are facing very great hardships.

Mr. Speaker! In all that is happening with trade wars, wars, and much great uncertainty, Sweden has a long tradition of what we are talking about in this chamber, and perhaps most of all we who represent the Committee on Finance, namely the economic frameworks, which ensure good order in the state finances. Regardless of which governments we have, we take care of this and ensure that we do not use more money than we have. This has made Sweden be in a rather unique situation today, with low state debt and very well-managed state finances. If it becomes more stormy, we have the economic muscles to actually do what is required, Mr. Speaker, for our commitment towards the rest of the world and to ensure that Swedish households, Swedish citizens, and Swedish residents can have it well here at home in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! This parliamentary term began with quite significant challenges for the government. I will mention a few things. Fuel prices in Sweden were practically the highest in the world. We have brought them down so that they are now the lowest in Western Europe. We have lowered taxes. We have removed the reduction obligation that made Swedish fuel much more expensive.

This is good for Swedish households. It is good for people who commute to and from work. In the part of the country that I come from – I can say that public transport does not always work there – it is important that people can use the car for work and to take the children to football practice and that they can go home and take care of their mother. All of that is made possible by being able to move around with the car, Mr. Speaker. We have made it much cheaper to transport oneself.

But this does not only help individual people. One of the major expenses, Mr. Speaker, for our healthcare regions is the costs for diesel, not only for ambulances and healthcare transports, which we might think of, but above all for public transport. For a small healthcare region, such as the one I come from, it is about many millions. For most, it is about hundreds of millions. Instead of going towards expensive fuel, they could go towards more hands in healthcare and better medicines for those who need it.

Mr. Speaker! Another thing that this government inherited was high and volatile electricity prices as a result of decommissioned nuclear power. We have implemented a number of decisions to do everything we can here and now to trim and improve the electricity system and lower electricity prices.

I am from Norrland. We are used to low electricity prices – I will say it right away. But my electricity bill for my house, a very common Swedish villa, was 10,000 kronor in December 2022. It was a high cost, and it was even higher in southern Sweden.

My electricity bill in December last year was 2,500 kronor – a quarter – thanks to a number of efforts and a bit of luck. Let us acknowledge that it was a bit of luck, because that is what decommissioned nuclear power implies. One must ensure that you have luck with weather, wind, and cold. So we cannot have that, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be that we cannot accept new industrial establishments in this country because we do not have electricity at all times of the day. It cannot be that Swedish households and Swedish companies cannot know what electricity actually costs. Therefore, we have started to rebuild nuclear power in this country, so that people can get low and secure electricity prices and to ensure that we can get more industrial establishments and less carbon dioxide emissions. That is how we also take responsibility for the future.

Mr. Speaker! The costs for mortgage loans have become much lower. They have become so because inflation is now down to low levels again – we inherited an inflation of 10 percent. For a completely ordinary villa in Sweden, with 3 million kronor in loans, the interest rates on the mortgage loans are now 5,000 kronor cheaper per month. That makes a big difference for the vast majority of households. If one takes responsibility for the economy, it also becomes better for all of us who live in the country.

Let us state that high inflation has been fought. We do not have skyrocketing prices. But prices remain high. Therefore, the government that we represent and the one that follows – let me say that I hope it is us four coalition parties who get to continue – must strengthen households and ensure that people's finances grow and that the country's economy grows, so that we can once again become wealthier in this country. We will do that through work, effort, and education. There are no shortcuts, and there are no free lunches. Whoever believes that it can be achieved in any other way is wrong.

But we can also, Mr. Speaker, do other things. This government has begun that. There are major investments in infrastructure and major investments in research and higher education. That is what, in the long term, makes us in Sweden more competitive than one is in the rest of the world and that Swedish companies are the best in the world. That is how we have become rich, Mr. Speaker. That the Swedish companies are more competitive than companies in other countries also means that wages can grow faster in our country than in other places.

Mr. Speaker! In the budget for 2025, we invested 60 billion kronor. We lowered taxes on wages, pensions, and savings because it is right and proper. We made large investments for more police and a stronger defense. Unfortunately, we need to do it in these times.

In the spring budget that we now have to deal with, we are adding further pieces of the puzzle. One should never see a budget in isolation but in a context. We continue to strengthen the areas that we now consider important. It is about maintaining countercyclical measures. Therefore, we are making a major reform of the "rotavdrag" to ensure that people do not lose their jobs in that industry – and so that people can utilize these deductions, of course.

But we are doing much more. We are reinforcing both job and education initiatives. We are providing more support to Arbetsförmedlingen. It is about summer jobs for young people so that they can get the first job they can include on their CV. We are making investments in roads and housing and many other things to maintain the Swedish economy.

Mr. Speaker! The task of politics is once again to create conditions for people to fulfill their dreams and actually live good lives in this country. With the budget we are now presenting, we are, from our side, adding another piece to that work.

Mr. Speaker! In the final item debate of our session, I would like to thank, above all, the Finance Committee's secretariat – there are some of them sitting here in the room – for the fantastic work. I believe I speak for all eight parties. Without your work, very little would happen. You are completely indispensable, and you do a great job. I hope you have a good summer when we come there.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank all the members of the Committee on Finance for a good job – not always in the same direction – and above all for a good spirit in the committee. We disagree, but we respect each other, and I think that is fundamentally very good. I also hope that you will have a good summer and some rest when the time comes.

Mr. Speaker! The Speakers and the Speaker's Office! At all times of the year and at all times of the day, you are ready to ensure that you facilitate debates and decisions for the best of this country. Many thanks to you! I also hope that you have a very nice summer when the time comes for it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! The security policy situation is serious, and the world economy is in turmoil. In this situation, Sweden needs to be strong, but Sweden is heading in the wrong direction.

We summarize three lost years for Sweden and the Swedish people. After nearly three years with the SD government, ordinary families are becoming poorer, healthcare and schools are hit by savings, and gang violence is taking hold and creeping down into younger ages. Unemployment is at its highest in ten years, bankruptcies are reaching record levels, and Sweden's growth has been at the bottom of the EU.

Food prices have increased by almost 30 percent since the cost crisis hit, and for an ordinary family with children, that means over 30,000 kronor more per year just for food. What is the government's answer to this? Well, the Finance Minister is now suggesting that people should haggle in the grocery store.

The fact is that the proportion of poor people in our country has doubled since 2021.

All this is a weak, if not deplorable, result for the SD government. Sweden and the Swedish people have become poorer than they should have been, and it is unfortunately a result of the government's economic policy.

Mr. Speaker! I believe in Sweden. We have incredibly many strengths, so Sweden could have been better equipped. Swedish households could have had it a bit easier. We Social Democrats have proposed broad measures to strengthen ordinary people's finances. We want to see a broad tax cut instead of a tax bonus for the very richest. We want to increase the child allowance for all families with children, and we want the reinforced housing allowance for families with children to be made permanent. We say no to the government's price increase for medicines, and we want to strengthen the housing supplement for pensioners.

Mr. Speaker! I believed until the very end that the government, in its spring budget, would present some form of measure to support ordinary people in this situation. But it was the opposite. In two weeks, on July 1, the high-cost protection for pharmaceuticals will be worsened when the co-payment for picking up medicine is increased by 900 kronor. On the same day, the reinforced supplement to the housing allowance for families with children is abolished. This could mean over 2,000 kronor less per month for parents who are already struggling hard to make ends meet. This happens at the same time as other things, such as food and rents, have become more expensive.

According to the SD government, it is a reasonable prioritization to worsen things for those who already have it toughest while simultaneously being able to afford to lower taxes for those who already have the most.

Let me be clear: It is not a reasonable prioritization, and it is also not a prioritization that creates growth and gets the Swedish economy moving.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish economy could have been stronger. The Social Democrats have presented proposals to increase growth, get more people into work and strengthen competitiveness. Sweden needs to invest in both its military and civil defense, and Sweden must adopt new technology, protect its industry and create that which drives the jobs of the future.

But the government has time and again chosen to turn a blind eye to the situation and hope for better times. When unemployment rose, cuts were made to labor market measures. When housing construction was abruptly halted, support for building rental apartments for ordinary people was removed. When ordinary families needed financial support, they refused, as the only government in the Nordic countries, to increase the child allowance.

In short: The SD government likes to talk about the work line, but it is a work line without work. They talk about growth policy, but no growth occurs. They talk about housing policy, but no new homes are built.

Sweden needs a new direction.

Mr. Speaker! The government has repeatedly misjudged the economic situation. Time and again, they have acted too late, steered in the wrong direction, or failed to act at all. For nearly three years, we have seen the same pattern. It is three lost years for Sweden.

Sweden needs a new direction that tackles the great challenges Sweden has.

It is about reducing gang crime by investing in the police and the justice system and toughening the penalties. We must target the finances and the leaders of economic crime through mafia legislation. A systematic effort is also needed to break the new recruitment so that children and young people are not drawn into the criminal economy.

A growth policy is needed that takes advantage of Sweden's strengths and opportunities. Sweden needs a government that would have made extra investments in the spring budget to support small and medium-sized enterprises that need to enter the global market and change their trade relations in our messy world.

We could have established a fund to attract researchers to Sweden at a time when the American administration does not seem to believe in science and is doing everything to weaken universities and research in the USA. Why do we not take advantage of the opportunity to lure some of these talented people to Sweden to drive growth and development in our country?

The government has created enormous uncertainty linked to the industrial establishments all around Sweden. You are creating uncertainty in energy policy, making wind power establishments more expensive, and creating uncertainty about where we are headed with the green transition. Sweden was a country that distinguished itself through high growth and decreasing emissions. Now Sweden distinguishes itself in the opposite direction. Now we have the largest emission increases and among the lowest growth rates in Europe.

How did it come to this? Could it be due to the fact that the Sweden Democrats are waging a culture war against the green transition, which creates uncertainty for the industrial establishments that can provide Sweden with jobs, investments, and new export successes?

This is the real question of what Sweden shall live off of in the future.

It is about seeing that the economic cycle also has to do with housing construction.

It is also about seeing that much of the Swedish economy has to do with consumption and ordinary people's finances, and that the uncertainty in the world makes people hold onto their wallets tightly. In that case, it would have been smarter to give ordinary people more money in their wallets than to direct tax cuts to those who already have the most. It is quite a self-evident economic thought.

One must also consider what can drive investments.

Can you in the government not present any proposals so that more housing will be built? You do not need to take our proposals on investment support and state credits for housing construction, but do something so that more housing is built. During your three years, nothing has happened, and it has contributed to the fact that Swedish growth has been lower than it needed to be.

When one hears the Moderaternas description, one can wonder if the governing parties are living in reality. The fact is that inflation and cost increases have also hit welfare. The Prime Minister's promise that no one would be laid off in healthcare was just empty words. That is not what happened.

If one is serious about a welfare policy that also protects healthcare and schools, one must introduce a new principle in economic policy: an inflation adjustment of the state grants. Otherwise, cost increases will erode the money that welfare receives. Investments in welfare will only be a pretense if there truly is less money than last year. Municipalities and regions cannot perform magic; they must pay for the costs that actually exist.

In a tough economic situation, the government had the chance to reflect on what is most important, and you chose to proceed with further cost increases for ordinary people. Is that not incomprehensible? How did you come to the conclusion that you could afford to lower the tax for high-earners by over 3,000 kronor a month while pensioners from July 1st may be forced to choose between buying food and picking up their medicine? Obviously, the latter was not an economic issue for you, because you could afford to lower the tax. Is there a moral argument for it to become more expensive to pick up medicine for people who have worked and struggled their whole lives, have a low pension, and have difficulty putting food on the table? I await the answer to that question.

I am listening to the speech about dreams, and it is beautiful. I share the image that people have dreams they want to realize. But it does not become easier if the household economy becomes even worse from July 1, and it is those groups who already have it tough who will take the hit.

I had hoped that there were politicians on the other side of the ideological playing field who could see that in such a cost crisis, in such tough times, it is a matter of holding a society together. We must move forward together to make Sweden wealthier. It is about seeing what reality looks like for ordinary people all around our country. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is three lost years for Sweden. Sweden needs a new direction, a policy that truly gets growth moving and stands on the side of ordinary people.

I move for approval of the Socialdemokraternas reservation number 1.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damberg, for the speech!

I have a question for the member. The Social Democrats have recently held a congress and made a number of decisions that make me wonder how they will drive their economic policy forward. They are moving forward with very expansive election promises, including among other things a scrapped "karensdag" and a so-called workers' pension. It is estimated to cost many tens of billions. How will Mikael Damberg finance those proposals if he gets the opportunity to be part of a left-wing government in the next mandate period?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! I appreciate the interest in the Social Democratic congress and our new proposals, which actually affect the everyday life and reality for many people.

I will begin with the sickness benefit deduction, as it is an important issue. The Swedish labor market has changed quite radically over the last 10–15 years. Many people who work in white-collar and academic professions can work from home when they feel a bit under the weather. They might do that last bit of work after the children have gone and gone to bed in the evening. Above all, they can still manage their jobs when they get sick – but from home. In that case, they avoid paying the sickness benefit deduction.

People in LO groups cannot work from home; they must be at work. That is the case in healthcare, in schools, and in industry. The person who falls ill is forced to choose between going to work instead of staying at home, as one should when one is sick, and losing perhaps 1,000 kronor per day for being sick. It affects the household economy of ordinary people. If one does not understand that this is also a wallet issue for many who work and toil, one has probably not understood what reality looks like.

It is often those with the lowest incomes who are affected by the period of absence rule. It means that they lose money when they become ill and cannot be at work. It is a matter of justice, and more parties should realize that. If one is to have a labor market that works for everyone, one must also realize that people work in different ways and have different opportunities to manage their jobs. These are not costs that just arise. They are costs that ordinary wage earners already bear today. It is noticeable when the salary is paid on the 25th if one has been ill.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! As usual, I received no answer to my questions. I asked how we are to finance the reform, not why the Social Democrats want to do it. I am becoming a little worried about this shift. When one listens to different representatives, including the member himself, it seems as if the Social Democrats have taken on the spender's trousers and promise everything to everyone.

One must remember how it was at the beginning of the 90s, when the Folkpartist minister of finance Anne Wibble had to clean up after decades of Social Democratic irresponsible policy that made Sweden's economy resemble Lyxfällan. The situation was completely unsustainable with a skyrocketing national debt and large deficits. She laid the foundation for the framework we have today, which has served us well, and for the fantastic growth we had in the 90s, which the Social Democrats would like to take the credit for.

It is thanks to the fiscal framework that we can now upgrade the defense through temporary debt financing. The Social Democrats have also said on several occasions that it has benefited Sweden, as it has allowed us to invest in welfare instead of paying high interest costs, as many other European countries have had to do.

In order for Sweden to be able to have a long-term welfare with the conditions that Mikael Damberg and his party very much want, a sustainable fiscal policy is required. I wonder again: How are the Social Democrats going to combine the billions in spending they promise with preserving our fiscal framework? Will it mean large tax increases for everyone or sharp cuts in welfare? I do not think that the Social Democrats' LO voters, whom the member turned to, want to see that in Sweden either.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! But it is a bit provocative to say that we have the spender pants on. If one reads the result, one sees that there was a deficit of 100 billion and that it will be so again. I believe that when these four years are summed up, this government will not have met the fiscal framework for a single year. It is a fact. It is a deficit again.

I do not know how many times we Social Democrats have taken over after right-wing governments and been forced to turn deficits into surpluses and sanitize the state finances in order to afford to invest in what is important for ordinary people.

What is most costly for Sweden is that we once again have low growth and high unemployment. We pay people not to work instead of making efforts so that they can get into work, pay tax and contribute to society.

This area is the Liberals' responsibility in the government. How can one have failed so capitally with the labor market policy? Incorrect assessments have been made in every budget, growth has been written down, unemployment has been written up, and measures that would lead to people getting jobs have been withdrawn.

We Social Democrats do not mess around with the public finances. Why? Because we know that ordinary people are affected if one runs a deficit and messes around with the public finances. Unfortunately, we have experienced this all too many times. We will, of course, not apologize for presenting proposals that strengthen ordinary people's finances and create increased justice in our country.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Next year is the election, and if we are to believe SCB's latest opinion poll, the proportion of undecided voters is record-breaking. That is good, I think. There is no point in deciding today what one is going to vote for when one has significantly more than a year left to reflect.

I still want to turn to precisely that group that has not decided. Remember how it looked before the Tidö parties took over and before we deposed the previous S-led government! Inflation was sky-high, and almost everything became more expensive. We have to go back more than 30 years in time, to before the last election, to find similar figures of fear. They no longer apply.

Inflation is back at manageable and controllable levels quite close to the target level, which is 2 percent. Do we want to return to the high-inflation environment? The Riksbank's policy rate was as much as 4 percent just a few years ago. Now we can state that it is 2 percent. About five minutes ago, the Riksbank announced that they are lowering it by 25 points to 2 percent. It is therefore a halving, all else being equal.

Everyone who has a mortgage has seen their mortgage costs decrease by half. It can amount to several thousand kronor every month. If your bank has not lowered the interest rate to the same extent as the Riksbank, I would recommend that you have a chat with your bank, or alternatively – perhaps even preferably – have a chat with another bank. Be strongly disloyal towards your bank! That is my advice.

We are also introducing relief when it comes to the amortization requirement. Do we want to return to a situation with high interest rates and expensive mortgages? It was exorbitantly expensive to fuel the car, Mr. Speaker. When the Social Democrats were in power, a liter of diesel cost 28 kronor. Now it fluctuates around 15–16 kronor. It is not quite a halving, but not far from it.

That it should be exorbitantly expensive to fuel the car seems to be the only thing one actually agrees on within the opposition. Otherwise, it diverges in all possible directions and corners, but that it should be expensive to fuel the car, people seem to be reasonably in agreement on. Do we want to return to a situation with sky-high fuel prices, when it was also almost impossible for many to pay the electricity bill? The completely incomprehensible – and, should it turn out, as the Sverigedemokraterna said in advance, also fatal – decision to shut down fully functioning nuclear power had consequences in people's wallets.

Electricity prices are still high, because it takes longer to build up than it does to demolish. But they have fallen, and above all, they are less volatile. Volatility is something good if, for example, you are riding a roller coaster at Gröna Lund. But I suspect that most people appreciate low volatility when they are going to pay their electricity bill.

Do we want to return to the situation with high inflation, high interest rates, high electricity prices, and exorbitant prices when fueling the car? I do not want to return to that time. But if one votes for any of the parties that caused that situation, we will of course end up there again. If one does not want that, one should also not vote for it. Here, the individual voter, obviously including myself, has a responsibility. One cannot vote for high fuel prices and then spend the next four years complaining about how expensive it is to fuel the car.

Mr. Speaker! It is tough even today. It is not easy. We have solved a lot of problems. We will solve additional problems during the 15 months that remain until the next election. Hopefully, we will continue to solve problems for another four years after that.

I mentioned inflation. We have solved that. We inherited extremely low growth. Now we have higher growth. We have twice as high growth as the Eurozone countries this year and, according to the forecasts, if we are to believe them, also next year. We have significantly higher growth than in the USA. We have a significantly stronger Swedish krona, not least thanks to the economic policy that we have pursued. A strong krona means that everything we import will become cheaper, including food.

In this situation, the Social Democrats have held a congress and decided on a lot of things that they want to implement. Much of what they have decided is shapeless matter, and that is how they want it. One should keep decisions and formulations as vague as possible so that no one actually knows what one thinks. But of what we can say about the decisions that can be calculated and quantified, it is that they would collectively lead to Sweden's GDP decreasing by as much as 9 percent. This assumes, of course, that the Social Democrats somehow succeed in pushing through the decisions they made at their congress.

A GDP reduction of 9 percent, 600,000 fewer hours worked and 11,000 fewer employed – all of that would be almost catastrophic. The leftward turn in economic policy that the Social Democrats want to implement would be almost catastrophic.

We have large investments ahead of us, which have already begun but also lie ahead of us, not least in an upgrade of the Armed Forces. This can only be financed with higher growth, obviously not with lower growth.

Decisions have also been made to phase out all private initiatives within the welfare sector, that is, all parents who have small children in a preschool or an older child in a regular school. It also applies if your elderly mother lives in a nursing home that is privately run. Those of you who have it that way must start building a plan B. Your small or older children or your elderly mothers will not be allowed to stay where they are today if they are in a privately run school or at a privately run nursing home. All of this will be shut down and in practice forbidden if the Socialdemokraterna get to decide. My appeal is that one should rather vote for one's own family than for the Socialdemokraterna, alternatively make a plan B. Do it right now!

Mr. Speaker! Earlier in June, the National Institute of Economic Research released a report on the socio-economic effects of migration to Sweden. For me, for my party colleagues, and for very many Swedes, these were no surprises. The report takes its starting point in 1983, Mr. Speaker. The past migration policy has since at least 1983 been an economic burden. This applies in particular to the so-called refugee immigration.

All other parties in the chamber, virtually the entire Swedish press corps, trade unions, and one self-appointed expert and know-it-all after another have during this time tried to do the opposite. It will be a benefit for society a bit further ahead, said the then S-leader and Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. Refugees can give Sweden a super-economy, said the then LO-base Karl-Petter Thorwaldsson.

One has simply been wrong, at least since 1983 and probably even further back than that still. For over 40 years, one has been wrong, and we have been right. I obviously have respect for the fact that we are all different and think differently, but for me, it is difficult to understand why one chooses to have confidence in someone who has actively been wrong for over 40 years. For me, it is much simpler to have confidence in the one who is right.

There are still some glimmers of light in the report. There are projected forecasts which state that immigration to Sweden can, nota bene can, become economically positive. This rather positive forecast holds true provided that, on the one hand, refugee immigration is kept to a minimum, and on the other hand, the immigration we have to Sweden in the future consists of more or less highly qualified labor immigration.

It is according to precisely this that we are acting now. Refugee immigration is heading towards zero, while labor immigration is limited to the more or less highly qualified jobs. If this optimistic forecast in the report is to become a reality, the Sweden Democrats must be a large enough party so that we have influence over decisive parts of Sweden's current and future migration policy. Otherwise, we know what happens. Then we fall back into what obviously does not work and into what we have already tried for over 40 years. Whether the Prime Minister is named Stefan Löfven or Fredrik Reinfeldt matters less then.

Mr. Speaker! The report is obviously interesting, but it only deals with transfers to and from the public sector and the individual, mainly obviously from the public sector in the form of various grants to, in this case, the individual migrant.

There is, of course, a plethora of aspects to consider when it comes to migration policy and its effects: Islamism, Hamas supporters, terror romantics, clan rule, clan structures, Sharia law, the Muslim Brotherhood, organized begging, alternative legal structures and law enforcement, areas of exclusion, robbery and rape, as well as a general contempt for the Sweden that I and many others with me love. It is such things we are grappling with now because we have had politicians who, instead of trying to be right, have said things like "open your hearts" and "my Europe builds no walls."

What is the Social Democrats' answer to the policy they themselves have pursued for over 40 years and which has led us here? Yes, forced mixing. People, individuals or families with small children shall not be allowed to live where they actually want to live. They shall live where the Social Democratic headquarters considers that they should live.

The fundamental freedom to live where one wants, where one feels comfortable and belongs, and above all, where one feels safe, is to be torn up so that the Social Democrats can carry out their social engineering on the Swedish people. I do not want to live in your forced-mixed areas. I am Swedish. I want to live in a Swedish area. I do not intend to be integrated into the Social Democrats' multiculturalism. I imagine that I am not entirely alone in thinking, believing, and feeling this way. I would believe that most immigrants also want to live in a Swedish area. They do not want to live in the Social Democrats' areas of exclusion either.

We in the Sweden Democrats will do everything we can to ensure that the Social Democrats' proposal for forced mixing of the population does not become a reality.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving to approve the committee's proposal and take the opportunity to wish everyone a very pleasant summer.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to Oscar Sjöstedt, it is obvious that the Sweden Democrats want to talk about everything other than the budget that we are discussing today or the reality that characterizes Sweden. It doesn't matter how much one makes up or lies about Social Democratic policy, because it does not impress if one does not take into account the reality that Sweden has right now.

I would like to return to reality. On July 1, medicines will become more expensive. What will be the consequences of this Sweden Democrat choice? Let me recount what one of those affected says: "The risk is that many of us elderly will have to choose between medicine and food on the table, perhaps take a little less medicine or portion it out a little less. For an empty wallet, an empty wallet is an empty wallet."

For those living on small margins, it matters if the medicine costs 900 kronor more. How can you, Oscar Sjöstedt, push through a policy that means that in two weeks, the elderly can be forced to choose between taking out their medicine and buying food?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What is it that I am lying about? Haven't you had any congress, Mikael Damberg? I wasn't there, for one thing, but I follow the news. Haven't you come forward with proposals that the population should be forcibly mixed? What is it that is a lie? Please explain that policy instead! Explain what it means for the Swedish people when the Social Democrats want to forcibly mix them. That is more reasonable, I think.

Poor elderly people have, relatively speaking, although not in absolute kronor and öre, Mr. Speaker, had a stronger economic development than an average wage earner. Many of the systems that come into place when one is old and has an income pension that is not sufficient – the guarantee pension is perhaps the most tangible, but there are other things too – are namely indexed with inflation. That is not the case with the ordinary wage. Those who have taken the hit for the inflation that we have finally passed now are the ordinary wage earners. They have not had 9–10 percent in wage development. The guarantee pensioners, on the other hand, have.

So do not exaggerate, Mikael Damberg! And above all: Please explain to me and to the rest of the Swedish people what it means that they are to be forcibly mixed.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! This was a staggering contribution, in some sense. We should not exaggerate the effect for elderly people who have a weak economy if the high-cost protection is raised by 900 kronor. It would have been interesting if the Sweden Democrats had said this during the election campaign; it would have been a new message to the Swedish people.

You in the Sweden Democrats also voted, as the last thing you did during the previous parliamentary term, against the increase of the guaranteed pension that we made. Imagine if you had won that vote – then these pensioners would have had it even worse during this parliamentary term.

But the big question is that it is not for economic reasons that the Sweden Democrats are making it more expensive to collect medicine for elderly people who have worked a whole professional life, if I have understood correctly. You had the means to lower the tax for high-income earners like Oscar Sjöstedt and myself by more than 3,000 kronor a month. It was therefore not an economic prioritization. What did the moral prioritization look like when it comes to elderly people who have worked a whole professional life perhaps being forced to choose between buying food and medicine?

It is this question that the Sweden Democrats must ask themselves, because if this happens in reality in two weeks. These are not fantasies. These are not imaginary concepts that the Sweden Democrats make up when it comes to our congress, but it is the reality for ordinary families. It is about people who have difficulty making ends meet financially.

In a tough economic situation for our country, the Sweden Democrats choose in the budget to proceed with a proposal that makes it 900 kronor more expensive to pick up medicine. Stand for that policy and say: We did not promise this to the voters – we did not say this, but this is the Sweden Democrats' economic policy. Isn't that more honest and straightforward?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What has happened is not that politicians, especially not the Tidö parties, have made decisions that medicines should become more expensive. That is not how it is. What has happened is that medicines have become more expensive. It is therefore not about a political decision to make medicines more expensive, but they have become more expensive anyway, just like quite a lot of other things. Medicines are also affected by inflation.

What is also true is that the public sector, in this case the state, bears a larger share of the cost for these medicines, which Mikael Damberg is talking about, than was the case previously. The state therefore covers a larger share of the total cost vis-à-vis the individual user. I believe that one does oneself a bit of a disservice if one does not understand the entire sequence of events.

I do not think, therefore, that it is good that medicines have become more expensive. But neither I, anyone else in this chamber, nor the government has made a decision that medicines should become more expensive.

Furthermore, I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is reasonable to strive towards a principle of half remaining when it comes to income tax. I think that one should be allowed to keep at least half of a wage increase; 50 percent should go to the wage earner and max 50 percent to the state or the public sector. Now we have lowered this – it was 55 percent, which is obviously more than half. Half would be 50 percent, and 55 percent is more than half. Now we have lowered it to 52 percent, which is still quite a lot. I think it is a reasonable principle: half remaining. The state or the public sector should not take more than half of a wage increase. I also think that it is a moral principle.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Anyone listening to Member Sjöstedt may experience that there is some kind of Jesus complex occurring. One thinks that one rules over weather and wind, over the Saudi oil market and over Putin in Russia. But when something very concrete applies, something here in Sweden that one could influence, one has nothing to do with the matter. It is as if the Sweden Democrats do not know what they are involved in and governing, but instead, one puts on the victim's coat and whines and complains.

We have understood who should not receive anything, but it is still unclear what the Sverigedemokraterna have achieved in this budget, which is what we are discussing today. There are no "Sweden prices" in the proposal so that people get cheaper electricity regardless of oil prices, war, weather, and wind. There are still no nuclear power plants, so one cannot make up that they are the ones who have fixed it.

There are also no proposals that imply that when you are involved in governing and things become more expensive – and it is not something that anyone has conjured up, but that is how it looks, with everything; most things become more expensive, actually – make sure to act for what you believe is right and proper. Is it right and proper that elderly people who can barely afford to pay the rent and put food on the table should also receive much more expensive medicine as a Midsummer gift? Or could Oscar Sjöstedt have arranged something there instead of this with the wind and Putin's deals?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am not Christian, so I do not know how I should interpret that thing with the Jesus complex. I did not understand much at all of that post.

The Sweden Democrats have had no influence, I thought I heard. I would like to say that these four parties together, with the Sweden Democrats as the largest party, have probably been the most reform-minded group that has formed a government basis at least for as long as I have been politically engaged – and politically aware, possibly.

Good God, look at all the reforms and the entire paradigm shift within the justice system! Not long ago, we entered into an agreement with Estonia to rent prison places because there are so many thugs and bandits who will need to shake the bars as a result of our policy. I have understood it as that very question requires a qualified majority in this chamber, so it may be relevant to listen to what the opposition has to say about how they intend to act in just that question.

But my God, we haven't received cheaper fuel by chance, but because we have implemented a lot of measures. Lower electricity prices, as we heard Edward Riedl speak about earlier, we haven't received by chance either, but because we have implemented a lot of measures. We have lowered the tax for ordinary wage earners and for pensioners. We have raised the guaranteed pension. We have lowered the tax for people who save. According to the latest figure I saw, it is, I believe, almost 4 million Swedes who now have an investment savings account, Mr. Speaker, and have received lower tax because we want to encourage them to save.

I do not have time during a single exchange of remarks to tell you about everything we have done over nearly three years. The Sweden Democrats have, as I assess it – and I believe most agree with that assessment – had great influence in this cooperation constellation, which is perfectly correct because we are a large party. Had we not had it, we would not have remained. This is not a threat in any way; we want influence, and we have also received it.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! How electricity prices have been lowered, I find it difficult to understand, and oil prices are very much linked to what happens on the world market. We voted together on the Left Party's and the Moderates' proposal before the election, so there was already a reduction that you have made, Oscar Sjöstedt. It did not make much of a difference.

I return to what we are talking about today. There was a lot of talk about other countries and thugs and stuff. Now we are talking about today's budget bill.

It is still a bit about money for the one who is the economic spokesperson. We heard the member say that it just becomes more expensive, and that is how reality looks. Things often become more expensive, and things change. If you are a politician and have power and influence, it is not good to then put on the victim's coat and say that you cannot do anything and complain and blame others, instead, one must act.

One tip is what the Left Party did. We demanded 1,000 kronor in the highest guaranteed pension, to increase sickness benefits and many such things. That can be done in the budget if one wants to. If Sjöstedt is serious about his belief that it is important to ensure that wage earners and pensioners have it well in Sweden, I want to tip him off to try to influence the budget itself in that direction the next time he negotiates.

One can stand at press conferences and make promises, and one can hold up others' changes as one's own successes. But is it reasonable that a pensioner who has received all these cost shocks now also has to pay more for medicine?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As I stated in my speech, the Riksbank could now proceed with a further reduction of its policy rate. They lowered it by another 25 points, from 2.25 percent to 2 percent.

What was the reason that they could do it? The Riksbank is independent, it should be said. It is our authority. The Riksbank does not submit to the government and takes no instructions from the government, but it is our authority. It submits to the Riksdag. The reason that they could make this decision independently is that we have brought inflation under control, that is to say that things have stopped becoming more expensive in the way they were when we took over. At that time, inflation was double-digit – if I remember correctly, it reached 10.3 percent, and the policy rate was raised in stages up to 4 percent. Now, just half an hour ago, the Riksbank could announce that it is lowered to 2 percent. It is therefore a halving.

The reason they were able to make that decision independently is precisely that we have gotten inflation under control. If we had not gotten inflation under control and everything had continued to become more expensive in the way it was when we took over, they would not have been able to make such a decision. Then the policy rate would have continued to be 4 percent or perhaps even more – what do I know.

Scaring people with the ghost of inflation when we have spent half of the parliamentary term fighting it and almost taken the life out of inflation – not quite, because a little inflation can be good, but we have spent half of the parliamentary term fighting it – I do not think is a successful path. Nor is it to claim that nothing has happened for ordinary wage earners and pensioners. We have lowered the tax for ordinary wage earners and for pensioners, not once but twice. Perhaps there will be time for a third time as well. I cannot stand here and speculate about that, or I do not intend to do so. And we have raised the guaranteed pension. It was increased by 9.3 percent when inflation was so high.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would have intended to ask such questions to Oscar Sjöstedt as we usually ask in such debates: why the Sverigedemokraterna insist on raising the costs by 16 billion for small businesses to hire in a situation where these have extreme difficulty hiring, especially in certain parts of the country, and it is record-high unemployment with half a million unemployed and why one raises the costs when prices have already become so high and thereby contribute to reducing people's purchasing power.

But sometimes there is something else that takes over, Mr. Speaker, even in debates like these. In this debate, it is hearing expressions such as the forced mixing of people in Sweden from the rostrum and that hardly anyone here reacts – that hardly anyone thinks it is unworthy to speak about people in our country in that way. And it is that during an entire speech, large parts of our population are described as a burden – people who go to work, who strive to be a part of Swedish society and who constitute a large proportion of our nurses, our doctors and our workers.

Furthermore, a report is referred to in a completely incorrect way, because what it shows is precisely this: that the people who come to our country or are in our country and come into work and come out of unemployment are of great benefit to our economy and to our development.

If you shut people out from the labor market, whether they are born here or not, it is naturally not a plus for the treasury and the economy. But that has nothing to do with that view of humanity.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It cannot be this way. I do not know what it is that is disturbing Martin Ådahl here, really, whether it is some kind of exaggerated political correctness or if it is the emotional side taking over. But it cannot be this way when we stand here as adult people, that I, as a Member of Parliament, cannot speak about a report that came out quite recently from the National Institute of Economic Research. I thought it was an interesting report, and therefore I choose to speak about it. Then people can interpret it however they want. I do not know if I even used the word burden, but I am referring to what that report says. It is available; one just has to take it out.

What the report states is that refugee immigration to Sweden has been economically costly since 1983 – this is because they began looking at the figures just in 1983. I am merely stating that the report says so. I thought it was interesting.

Martin Ådahl wants to enter some mode of general sentimentality or political correctness. That cannot be. We are adults; we must be able to talk about things and matters in an open and free way. That the result in this report did not go Martin Ådahl's way is a completely different matter. I don't give a damn about that. It is not my problem.

When it comes to the concept of forced mixing, I brought it up because I am so much against it. It is not the case that I am for it, if Martin Ådahl missed that. I strongly dislike that there are parties in this chamber that agree with such ideas. I think that people should be allowed to live where they want. That was my whole point. It is not the case that I am for forced mixing, Mr. Speaker. I am very much against it.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I hear the usual artillery of expressions from this side, such as political correctness. Next, it will be called that I am woke.

But this is actually about a fundamental view on how people participate in the Swedish economy and the importance of actually reading and not just misinterpreting the reports that come in regarding this and what the actual causes are – this in connection with the reference to the report.

When it comes to the expression forced mixing, it was your way, the Sweden Democrats' way, of describing that one should reduce segregation in Sweden so that we people in Sweden can live together in areas and that we should not have parallel societies, as it is sometimes called from this side.

When we talk about the Swedish economy, what drivers there are and how we can create growth and development in this country, we must once again begin to see people as resources and opportunities and realize that if small companies can grow and if people can get employment, if they can get the skills they need and enter society, they are always an asset for a country and not a burden.

And mixture, the member of the Riksdag from Sverigedemokraterna, is not necessarily something bad in a society. It can be something positive. We must return to what is the strength and the great thing about our country.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The point was not to attack Martin Ådahl for excessive political correctness or woke or whatever it may be. I have noted that here on several occasions. This is not the first exchange of remarks that Martin Ådahl and I have had, but there have been several over the years – which I appreciate for my part. The point is: Sometimes it is the case that I present facts, and then Martin Ådahl adds values to these facts. It is this that is a bit irritating.

If we have a report stating that refugee immigration to Sweden has been economically costly since at least 1983, is that not interesting information? Then it is good that we know about this? To then take the step of saying that one has a different view on people or that it is derogatory in some way – that simply has nothing to do with the matter. If that is the case and if the National Institute of Economic Research is correct in its report, then we do need to know that. We need to be able to take that into account.

It is what I mean is a bit irritating: that one always has to start talking about something else. We have a serious problem – or we have had it. Now we are sorting it out, of course. Now we have overhauled the entire migration policy, so now this will cease to be a problem. But we have had a problem for 40 years at least with this policy, and that is what bothers me a little bit.

One can say nice things and so on, but one cannot live in some fantasy world. If there are problems, then we have problems, and then we need to be able to face them.

By the way, I noticed that in the first exchange of remarks, Martin Ådahl began to talk about employer contributions. I didn't manage to get to that. Let me say a few words about it. I have nothing against lowering the employer contributions.

I actually believe that one should lower the tax on work. One can direct that tax cut towards the employer or towards the employee. Fundamentally, it has the same effect – fundamentally, it becomes more attractive to work. One cannot do everything, because one does not have all the money in the whole world. We have chosen to lower the tax for the wage earners, not for the employers.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Much of what Oscar Sjöstedt said can be reacted to. Much of what he tried to make sound like the fault of the opposition, and our policy, is instead entirely due to the uncertain global situation.

It is high prices, and the cost crisis we are in is largely due to Putin invading Ukraine with all that it entailed, the aftermath of the pandemic and so on. It is therefore a very dishonest rhetoric.

I also hear that Oscar Sjöstedt is beating his chest regarding the importance of costs for households – despite the fact that there is a lack of sensible policy to actually help those who are most vulnerable. Many examples have already come up in this speaker's chair, such as lowering housing allowances and raising the high-cost protection for medicines. This will hit many people very hard. There is, therefore, a lack of policy from Sverigedemokraterna.

Oscar Sjöstedt also says that he is glad that the Riksbank has lowered the interest rate. That is indeed all of us, because households need to be able to use more of their resources for something other than paying interest. But why is that? Well, it is also because a recession has taken hold in Sweden.

It is also very serious. It undermines the possibility for people to get new jobs, and companies go bankrupt. But instead of addressing the recession and its problems, Oscar Sjöstedt is standing here beating his chest for politics he doesn't actually have.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask: What is actually the Sverigedemokraternas policy for changing the economic situation?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Riksbank has an inflation target, period. It is inflation they look at. Now they are lowering the interest rate because they assess that inflation is under control.

Let me say this. Let us look at the Green Party's budget policy. In it, they want to finance very many things – more than other parties, I should say. Or to begin with, I should say that they do not stand behind the fiscal framework we have. They wanted to stand outside of it. They did not want a balance target, but they wanted a deficit target. They wanted to actively drive the state with a deficit. They also wanted to borrow money for a hell of a lot of things they think are sensible to do.

Let me say it. If you run things with a deficit and borrow very much money – more than other parties in this chamber – inflation increases. It is that simple. If you print a lot of money to finance things, those monies become less valuable. Then inflation increases. This is one of the most fundamental macroeconomic relationships that exists at all.

If Miljöpartiet had somehow miraculously gotten their budget policy through, we would have had higher inflation. I am completely sure of that – 100 percent sure. Then the Riksbank would not have been able to lower the interest rate in the way they have. That is how it is. It is no invention – that is how it is. If you borrow money and run things and affairs with a deficit, you get inflation. The bill must always be paid. There is no free lunch.

Let me also object to the claim that we have done nothing for the groups that have tougher economic margins. We have increased the guaranteed pension, the sickness benefit, the sickness compensation, and the allowance.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with the Green Party's economic policy: We have proposed large investments – climate investments. We see that we must address the emissions that are now increasing under this government. We must rebuild society to manage to reach the goals of reduced emissions. Everything else will make it more difficult for all other economic goals – all other political goals we have, in fact, because more and more will be required to tackle the climate crisis.

I also want to correct Oscar Sjöstedt. Miljöpartiet stands behind the fiscal framework. We believe it is important that we have a common framework. But yes, we propose a deficit target instead of a balance target over the next ten years. We also want a different debt anchor, if we are to go into the details. We simply want that in order to enable what must happen. If Sweden has made those investments, it will be easier moving forward.

It is still fascinating that Oscar Sjöstedt has such great self-confidence when it comes to economic policy and what the Riksbank's decision is. He arrives at completely different conclusions than, for example, the Fiscal Policy Council, which is nevertheless considered Swedish expertise in the field. When it comes to so incredibly confidently asserting what would lead to more inflation, I do not think one can tone it down.

I also asked about the Sweden Democrats' policy for stimulating the economy, and I received zero answers on that. In the Green Party's policy – in this investment policy for a climate transition – there is also an economic stimulus package in itself. So I would still like to ask the Sweden Democrats: Do you have any policy at all in the government to turn around the economy we are seeing now?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would have nightmares – yes, now it will thankfully never happen, but if it were to happen – if Janine Alm Ericson and Miljöpartiet were to run around and make climate investments with borrowed money. I would lie sleepless. I think that we would then buy Northvolt with borrowed money, I assume. We see how this goes. We see how the bubble bursts, don't we?

One can say: "Yes, we stand behind the fiscal framework, but we want a deficit instead of a balance target. We want a different debt anchor." But the balance target and the debt anchor are the framework, Mr. Speaker. You cannot extract things and say: "We stand behind this, but we are going to remove everything that is the essence of it – but we still stand behind it and replace it with something else."

If one deliberately and actively pursues a policy of deficit, if one wants to increase the national debt and if one wants to borrow money for everything it needs to do, one is not standing behind the fiscal framework. I am quite certain, Mr. Speaker, that it will ultimately lead to higher inflation.

The bill must always be paid. That is how it is. One should not believe that the long-term solution can be to borrow for things and circumstances. The bill must always be paid. We noticed that, not least with the economic policy that we pursued during the pandemic, Mr. Speaker, when we were forced to help households, companies, community life, and everything else. We ran the state with quite large deficits. The bill came, didn't it? The bill came in the form of higher inflation. I am therefore hardly alone on that side.

Yes, my god – a large part of the bill we are talking about now is a cyclical measure. The root deduction is perhaps the most obvious in this specific budget. It is about helping a sector – a business – that is having a very difficult time.

I do not have time to say anything more.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! One must start by thanking the Liberals, as the first party out, for having supported the Left Party in the government! I hope that the Liberals will enter the Riksdag after the election, because then at least one knows some who press the green button. We have decided that we shall be part of the government, so I am very happy about this.

Sweden is more fragile than it has been in a long time. Far away is the spirit of equality and cohesion that has characterized our country historically. What we are discussing today is what direction the economic policy should take in the coming years, and unfortunately, the government continues on the path it has taken, which tears us apart rather than brings us together. I regret that. Sweden would be much better off if we did things differently.

We in Vänsterpartiet do the opposite. In our budget proposal, both an increased child allowance and an increased housing allowance are included. In this acute cost crisis, we want to double the child allowances and housing allowances this summer. All children should have the right to a summer without worry about their parents' finances. Sweden can afford it. But what is the government doing, apart from this thing about returning to the time when people haggled in the shop? Yes, they are pulling the rug – the last straw that child families had – and lowering the housing allowance for many people.

Mr. Speaker! I was in the same class as the Sandvik director's daughter in the late 80s. Her father was a director at the company where my grandfather worked on the workshop floor. We used to play with our rabbits together.

It took a long time before I understood that her mother was a housewife, because I didn't even know that there were adults who didn't work. The buns were good in themselves, and there were many kinds of cookies. They lived centrally in a large villa, and we lived in a house in Klangberget. Dad worked at Konsum and mom at the preschool. The clatter from one of Sweden's largest industrial areas sounded exciting at night. The office buildings were adjacent – the "adult-day," as my grandfather used to call the engineers' workplace because they were allowed to draw during working hours. He is dead now, so I must apologize on his behalf.

Mr. Speaker! Not everything was better before, but we stuck together better. My grandmother's hips collapsed after she had cleaned office premises for many years. My grandfather's hands shook just as much as the road machine he worked on, and my grandmother's hands were crooked from the years at the laundry. They lived in Ockelbo and rarely traveled outside the municipality's borders. In my family, we went with mom and dad on caravan holidays to Orsa camping.

The Sandvik director's daughter and her family certainly had much more exciting vacations. We had a bit compared to them, but still, she and I could meet, see each other and bridge the obstacles that our backgrounds had given us.

Mr. Speaker! Today we no longer meet in the same class. The school system is broken, and the class society is more segregated. In many ways, Sweden has moved from being a modern country at the forefront to being a country that seems to be moving backward in time.

Those who work and toil today do not receive the respect they deserve; it becomes perfectly clear with the distribution profile that the government and the Sweden Democrats have had during their years in power. Some children graduate from high school and move on to university while others hardly get the opportunity to learn to read and write. Those who take care of our children and elderly receive the lowest pay and worst conditions despite the fact that their work is completely indispensable for society to function.

Today, the authorities seem to believe that Swedish GDP is built by PR consultants and stock market speculators – there seem to be many stock market speculators inside the Government Offices – and not by shift-working industrial workers. It should pay to work, say the right-wing parties, and then they direct their tax cuts to those who have over 65,000 in monthly salary. Tax subsidies for balconies in Danderyd and Lidingö shall fix the entire construction crash. The earth is flat, and pigs can fly.

Mr. Speaker! The world has rarely been as shaky as it is now. We have an ongoing war in our vicinity following Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. While many parents in Sweden now get a well-deserved holiday together with their children, Ukrainian parents are forced to leave their children behind to defend their country and all of our freedom in war.

The horrors of war are difficult for us who have grown up here in Sweden to imagine. But we have a responsibility to try – we must never close our eyes. That is why it makes me miserable that the government, even though it literally concerns life and death, does not base its actions on what is actually happening. Children are dying in Gaza when Sweden stops the aid to UNRWA. The aid is used as a pawn in a game, and the debate becomes a spectacle, instead of the government taking its responsibility and acting. Is this how we are to have it? Is this what Sweden is to be now?

Mr. Speaker! When the world outside rocks, Sweden needs to be built stronger. Resilience and cohesion are built on the fact that we see each other, understand each other, and trust each other. Sweden is a safety system, work and growth, high mountains and deep valleys. We have previously succeeded in building the world's most equal country where we could see ourselves in each other, and we can do it again. It is a Sweden that is worth defending.

A country's strength and resilience can be measured in how strong the sense of community is and in whether the citizens can trust that those elected to govern the country also pull their weight. For a strong total defense, it is not enough to only build military facilities, even if that is important. If there is no one who can care for the population, it does not help to have all the ammunition in the world. If we cannot trust the railway here in Sweden even in peacetime, it will of course be difficult in times of crisis and war. If people cannot afford to house themselves and put food on the table for their children, trust in the common good is damaged. The governing must provide for their population. That is how one creates trust and confidence.

Mr. Speaker! Behind the figures, the bickering, the signaling politics, the announcements and the theater at the press conferences and in the party leadership debates lies the reality that the citizens have been left to handle.

It is about the single mother Caroline, who herself has to skip meals so that her children can have food.

It is about children who are deprived of their entire childhood, despite exceptionally hardworking parents, simply because we politicians do not do the job.

It is about Annamarie, who has to borrow money from her children to afford the rent as a pensioner.

It is about Bassam, who is told that he does not belong here but who, despite that, takes the commuter train into the city every day to serve coffee to the Stockholmers at the café where he works. In the evenings, he devotes himself to legal studies.

What then are the social problems that the government seems to prioritize most? Is it to stop the gangs from profiting from the welfare state? Does one want to take measures against collapsed growth, sky-high unemployment, and expensive food prices? No, it is primarily two major social problems that the government has chosen to engage against: Slotteriet and most recently also Palmecentret. The Social Democrats have rigged the entire system for the aid money, says Sweden's Minister for Development Cooperation, and I haven't seen so much fire in his eyes since he took office.

It doesn't end there, though. There doesn't seem to be much to do, and the government is holding a press conference. We have also heard here today about another party's party congress. One begins to wonder if they are members. That becomes the first question. Are they dual members? But what lands absolutely heaviest with me is the question of whether they have nothing else to do but sit at SVT Forum and follow other parties' boring congresses.

The government's anxiety does not stop at the largest opposition party – no, no! The entire Swedish opposition is shaking sensitive Moderate ministers. If they take over, they will release all the thugs from the prison, it is believed. They will pull the plug and shut down the nuclear power plants. The borders will stand wide open, and in the Government Offices, everyone will sit and sing Kumbaya, people say and raise a warning finger.

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson seems to wake up every day and realize: Just yeah – it is I who am Prime Minister! It cannot just be me who thinks of that old sketch in Hassan. Is it you or me who speaks? Is it you or we who govern?

Sweden deserves better than this. The opposition must be better, unite to take Sweden in a new direction and ensure that politics becomes real again. We must show that we keep what we promise, because we cannot have it this way.

Today, the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget will, by all accounts, be passed. It is an economic policy that does not move Sweden forward when it comes to the transition, growth, or jobs, and which leaves the citizens to manage entirely on their own in times of crisis.

The Left Party's budget, with broad investments in welfare, the transition, and total defense, would have made a difference for jobs and growth. Cheaper medicines, child allowance, and housing allowance would have been beneficial and brought us closer together. I hope and believe that after the 2026 election, we will be able to implement just such reforms, which truly make a difference in people's everyday lives.

I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are currently living in a very uncertain time in many ways, and all of this weighs on the recovery. Not least has the US's notification regarding import tariffs created concern worldwide, which we have been able to see in the reactions on the financial markets. The uncertainty means that the recession could become even more protracted. I think the chief economist for Svenskt Näringsliv expressed it well when he stated the other day that he had never witnessed anything similar, due to the tariff unrest that now exists.

At the same time, it may be appropriate to point out that Sweden consistently has sound public finances and that the stable economic foundation can be used to strengthen economic development. In its budget bill, the government states that economic policy shall focus on three areas: strengthening households and supporting the recovery, re-establishing the work principle and pressing down unemployment, and increasing growth and investments in Sweden.

Even though real wages are now rising, more needs to be done to strengthen and restore households' purchasing power. The tax has therefore been lowered for everyone who works and also for those who have worked. We have lowered the tax on savings, and a major improvement in households' finances has been made possible thanks to lowered fuel taxes and lower requirements in the reduction obligation. The situation is, however, still tough for many households, and therefore we in the Christian Democrats have been clear that we are following the development closely and making this a priority ahead of the budget for 2026.

Mr. Speaker! In connection with the presentation of the budget bill for 2025 in the autumn, I, as a Christian Democrat, naturally pointed out that the government made the largest investment in modern times on infrastructure. This investment of just over 200 billion kronor was a must to enable the growth that we all so dearly want to see. Infrastructure is the economy's lifeblood. With the new framework of 1,171 billion kronor, we can now address 100 percent of the maintenance debt on the roads.

We Christian Democrats want to be Sweden's most car-friendly party. One can hardly call oneself that if one does not prioritize addressing the maintenance debt that has been built up by a number of governments of different colors and which has led to every fourth road in Sweden being judged to be in poor condition.

I thought of the debate we had in the autumn when I traveled home by train from Örebro towards Stockholm on Monday and was once again heavily delayed. It was the new year's worst – I was delayed by six hours.

When the budget bill for the current year was discussed, I heard criticism directed at the government. The criticism was that the government only favored the car and ignored the train. Based on Monday's less-than-pleasant experience, it may be appropriate to point out that an incredible amount is being done right now, which, among other things, causes the trains to be delayed. 1,700 maintenance works are being carried out, which is an all-time high on the railway side. Never before has such a large number of maintenance works been performed, even though more trains than ever are running on our tracks. I myself and others who enjoy taking the train must remind ourselves that these track works, even though they can cause one delay or another, are a prerequisite for us to have both reliability and punctuality on our railway in the future.

Everything that is happening now is possible because it has been ensured that there is increased capacity for implementation. One has private maintenance contractors, and one has allocated 18 billion to operation and maintenance. This means that one can both manage the basic maintenance and can begin to amortize the maintenance debt. I think that this is delivery for real.

Mr. Speaker! For one and a half years, I led the internal work within the Christian Democrats called society building or the society building committee. In May, when the party assembly made decisions on our proposals, we reached our goal. This resulted in 116 concrete proposals within the areas of economy, housing, infrastructure, energy, skills supply, and welfare with growth pain. The proposals will now begin to be communicated. I intended to highlight one of the proposals today, which I believe is of importance when we discuss Sweden's economic development.

I know that many in this chamber, not least among the Tidö parties, think of benchmarking when they hear me. It is something that I bring up from time to time. Perhaps it is in my DNA – I am the son of parents who were both self-employed and have heard the discussions and conversations about how one can attract more customers to the company and how one should manage the competition.

I have never been self-employed myself, but for about 15 years I was chairman of Örebro SK Bandy. Bandy is the most beautiful of winter sports; that is where the players are. As chairman of ÖSK Bandy, I had to work on making debits and credits balance, which was a good preparation for the Finance Committee. But I perhaps remember most of all the 15 years when I coached boys' and junior teams. Several of those guys have played, or play, in the Elitserien and have represented Sweden on national team assignments abroad. They were talented.

It did happen that we got beaten, and then I made it a habit to invite the opposing coach for a cup of coffee. I tried to find out how these guys, who were as old as my guys, could have gotten further in the development and why they did this better than we did. I wanted to know how they trained, how many times they trained and what exercises they had. Call it benchmarking, if you will.

In the private sector, benchmarking is completely self-evident. Constantly working to improve in order to create economic space is something that the public sector can also be inspired by, even if the conditions differ.

Focusing on development and better ways of working is crucial to securing the quality and long-term sustainability of the welfare system. When a municipality identifies what can be done cheaper or better, resources are freed up that can be reinvested in core activities. It also provides an opportunity to prioritize what is most important for the citizens, namely healthcare, school, and care. Municipalities and regions today provide a very large part of the welfare services that we citizens value and are – or will be – in need of.

We Christian Democrats therefore want the Riksdag to establish an audit of municipal activities, with the National Audit Office's work for state activities as a model, in order to provide support for and oversight of the municipal sector's efficiency work.

We Christian Democrats see great value in that the activities of the municipal sector are continuously reviewed and improved. Since 1993, the State has had a requirement for ongoing efficiency in the agencies' administrative costs. We believe that the municipalities should also work with constant development of their methods of work, but unlike a state-controlled efficiency requirement, we argue that it is the municipalities themselves that are best suited to decide how this work should be carried out. It is in the local context that the needs, the conditions, and the opportunities for improvement are clearest.

I also believe that letting each municipality take responsibility for its own efficiency promotes commitment and accuracy in the change process. It is as the Christian Democrats' first party leader, Birger Ekstedt, once said: In the municipalities, we build Sweden.

I would like to conclude by wishing the Speaker's Presidium, the civil servants, and not least the Finance Committee's fantastic staff and all colleagues in the Finance Committee a very nice summer!

(Applause)

In this speech, Cecilia Engström, Magnus Oscarsson, Kjell-Arne Ottosson and Larry Söder (all KD) concurred.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by, like my colleagues, already wishing everyone a pleasant summer. It is a special feeling to stand and debate the budget. We are usually among the last ones out here. The Riksdag already has a kind of summer holiday character when we take to the rostrum with these serious discussions about both figures and values.

I would like to once again thank both the staff of the Committee on Finance and our colleagues for a very fine parliamentary year. We have debated hard. Sometimes we have cooperated well. A big thank you!

Before I enter into the actual debate, I also want to say a few words about the situation in Ukraine, where there are very great needs today. There is a reason why the focus is now directed towards the conflict in the Middle East and the bombs raining down on people there, but we must not at any price forget that even more bombs are actually still raining over Ukraine. There is an acute need for support from Europe and not least support from Sweden here and now. Sweden has tripled the aid to Ukraine, and we both can and should lead the development to strengthen Ukraine in a situation where we fear that President Donald Trump and the American administration will not provide the support needed for Ukraine to be able to win the war. Putin shall not be rewarded for his bloody aggression.

I will now move on to the budget bill and the budget debate itself and, on behalf of the Center Party, will focus on issues that unfortunately have received quite little space so far in this budget debate: unemployment and what is the solution to unemployment, namely creating jobs in growing companies.

Sweden is, of course, a fantastic country with great resources, high prosperity and companies that conquer the world even when nationalists and protectionists in different countries put obstacles in their way. But we are also a country in an unemployment crisis. Unemployment is 8.7 percent. Half a million are unemployed – 513,000 people.

Many have highlighted life stories here today, and it has been very nice to listen to. I want to contribute to that by us reflecting on the figure 513,000 and all the human fates behind the figure. So many are exceptions. 55-plussare – as it so nicely is called; I am myself one such nowadays – who lose their jobs after a fairly long career are, for the first time in many, many years, due to the very high unemployment, no longer certain of quickly getting another job. It is a completely new situation for very many people in our country. Many, many young people do not get the start in life that they need, something that unfortunately is all too recurring in Sweden. Children who, unlike their schoolmates, do not see their parents go to work in the morning worry and feel the weight of this.

People are now unemployed longer and have a harder time getting back than before. What does that do to hundreds of thousands of people? What does it do to the breeding ground for crime in our country? What does it do to vulnerable people in our vulnerable areas? What does it do to the state's revenues for welfare, Mr. Speaker, when we, instead of receiving tens of billions from people who go to work, have to pay out tens of billions in benefits?

It is no longer possible to ignore the unemployment crisis in Sweden. It is not possible to avert one's gaze, look away and not talk about this anymore in a debate like this. Furthermore, the social and regional disparities are large. In some parts of the country, there is an enormous shortage of people, while in large parts of the country, there is high unemployment and enormous vulnerability.

Unemployment is now one of the highest in the Western world. Take this in – not just one of Europe's highest, but the Western world's highest! Unemployment has risen very steadily and clearly during these two and a half years. It happens to be a special political timing, but it is also a fact that unemployment under this government has risen by well over 100,000 people while it has fallen during the same period in the rest of the Western world.

Sweden is thus 3 percentage points, hundreds of thousands of people, above the average among the OECD countries. In countries such as the Netherlands and even in the USA under Trump, unemployment is half of what it is in Sweden. This cannot be explained away!

Even more serious is this because we know what it is that truly yields results when it comes to combating such a crisis of unemployment. We in Centerpartiet may be persistent in often repeating this, but it is by ensuring that small and growing companies, those that create four or five jobs, are given the opportunity to be the engine of the Swedish economy that we can defeat this unemployment crisis. Change is needed! We must stand up here in the chamber, in Swedish politics, for enterprise, creativity, job creation, and entrepreneurship, and believe in the dynamics and growth in society again.

We in the Center Party want to be concrete. The government has now time and again said that it stands up for jobs and growth. But it is a bit like the story of the Master Tailor who is supposed to sew a coat for his client. The first time he comes back and says that there was no coat. And there was also no real growth or unemployment policy, but instead it was decided that this is very practical: We can raise the costs and remove the reduced employer contributions for hiring young people in small companies, and we can remove the reduced sick pay responsibility. So there will be no coat this time, but maybe there will be a couple of trousers next time, because now we are going to appoint a growth commission.

In the story, the tailor then says that unfortunately, it didn't provide any trousers either. And the Growth Commission comes up with a lot of recommendations, but not much was done with them. It provided a small mitten.

But what about the gloves, Master Tailor? Now, there is a crisis in the world economy, something that has also been mentioned by the previous speaker. Our companies are having difficulty hiring, and the heaviest forecasters have lowered the growth forecasts by half a percentage point. The crisis is at the door. After two years of rising unemployment and increased problems, is it not time to act instead of raising costs?

No, then you come back in the budget with a little thumb. It has hardly been mentioned by anyone in the debate. It is a very nice thumb. It is an increased tax deduction. I like it very much, but it still only bid a thumb.

Here in the Center Party, we want to make a change of course. It is time to lower the costs of hiring. It is time to reduce the complications for Swedish companies.

It is time to go all out on competence-enhancing measures all the way. It is everything from a tough and heartfelt integration of those who do not have Swedish so that they get a job-Swedish that they can demonstrate so that they can enter society intensively, all the way to us lowering the employer contributions by 16 billion kronor up to the median wage of 35,600 kronor and furthermore for the first ten employees so that the small companies can grow. We must start doing something about this crisis.

We in the Center Party also stand for green growth. It is about lowering the electricity tax to increase wind power and making it possible for ordinary people to buy green cars.

We stand for doing something instead of just talking about the countryside. We now have large gaps in welfare, school, health care, and elderly care between city and country in our country. We want to invest fully in the countryside during the next period with 50 billion kronor so that we put money behind the words and truly prioritize the countryside.

To get resources for this and to kick-start growth, we must tackle unemployment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is time that we take the unemployment crisis seriously and do what concretely makes a difference.

It is about lowering costs for companies, reducing bureaucracy, increasing competence initiatives, and bringing unemployment down to decent levels again. I therefore move for approval of the Center Party's reservation against the government's proposal.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Based on the presentation and the policy that the Center Party has presented in its budget motion in the autumn and its spring budget motion, I am wondering where one can best achieve impact for one's policy.

Last week, during the party leader debate, Rickard Nordin, representing Centerpartiet, said: "Mr. Speaker! What is relevant is what one wants in Swedish politics, not who one wants it with and how one does it."

It made me wonder, react, and become a little hopeful. When I look at Centerpartiet's current budget motion and spring budget motion, it is clear that you are an odd bird together with V, S and MP.

If you are reasoning as Rickard Nordin says, I wonder if Martin Ådahl thinks in the same way. Would you not then gain traction for more of your politics together with liberal and conservative parties in the Riksdag?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think Member Cecilia Rönn is leaving the door open when she says that we should not do it together with the Liberals. That is exactly what we did together. That is also what is the striking difference.

When one has the will and the direction to tackle the structural problems in Sweden, to invest in the companies, to reduce unemployment and to reverse the extremely vulnerable social situation and the situation for growth that has been created by today's politics, it is important that one puts proposals for such a policy on the table.

When we did it together, the Liberals and the Centre Party, almost against all odds after the 2018 election, we pushed through 20 billion in tax cuts. It was then that unemployment went down.

It was not always the policy that the Social Democrats wanted to pursue. They had to yield parts of the corporate policy, the growth policy, and the job policy, which we thought in any case, to the Centre Party and the Liberals. This created a new direction for Sweden.

Today you are sitting together with those who on paper want all these things. But what has happened? You have raised taxes and costs for the companies. You have increased the sick pay responsibility for the smallest companies. You have raised the employer contributions for the vulnerable young people by 14 billion kronor.

I can really agree with Rickard Nordin. It is what one wants with the decisions, what proposals one puts on the table and, above all, what one stands up for that makes a difference.

Then the company also plays a certain role. It is quite obvious that the Sweden Democrats are not a growth-friendly and business-friendly party. You have ended up in bad company. But of course, it is what one stands for that is most important.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that we pushed through many good reforms in the January Agreement. It is also important to be able to take responsibility when it is needed.

With the agreement we are in now, the Tidö Agreement, together with the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Sverigedemokraterna, we get through very much important policy. We solve many large societal problems.

When one looks at the Centerpartiet's budget motion, one sees that it is much more similar to those on the bourgeois side than to those of their friends on the left side.

We are reforming the school fundamentally to bring back the knowledge school. I could only just now in a debate article in Aftonbladet read that your party leader is putting forward similar proposals.

We are laying the foundation for the climate transition. We have passed the growth support for small companies. We would like to continue to develop that. We are lowering the marginal taxes, and we have presented the largest research proposal ever.

We have also invested very much in regional vocational adult education, short courses at the university of applied sciences, and various types of adult education.

We give Arbetsförmedlingen and municipalities with high unemployment money so that more young people can get summer jobs. We have referred proposals for reduced corporate tax and reduced electricity tax.

We do many things both for a good business policy and for a growth policy so that we can get the wheels turning. Now it is a recession. In that case, it is important to invest both in the short and long term. We do that with short-term investments and many investments in the school.

My question remains: Is it not the case that the Center Party could get more of its policies through and that the Center Party should start thinking a bit more about substantive policy in order to gain traction in Swedish politics and not be a lame duck?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite know how to begin. We really want to include the Liberals in another constellation. At the same time, it pains me to bring up all these areas where we could have done so much together if you had chosen a better company.

Take the climate policy, which you are responsible for. In this situation, we have skyrocketing emissions at the same time as we have poor growth instead of strong growth and falling emissions.

You have completely given up on all the different climate proposals that would have made Sweden shine as a green example for the world and have not come up with anything else instead.

We can look at the school, as was mentioned. It is good to have the ambition. But at the same time, resources to the school are being reduced in real terms. Many schools should stand strong in this situation. Instead, they have been subjected to exclusion and, in some places, to crime among young people and even among children. The school is weakened.

Once again: It only moved an inch. A real growth policy is missing. It hurts so much that we cannot do this together. We would also need a real rural policy for the whole country – not just a lot of words about it.

All this we could have done together, but instead it only received a thumbs down. If there is anyone who is a lame duck in any government – which truly makes me sad and not at all happy – it is unfortunately the Liberals in this Tidö government.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

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

Today we are debating the Committee on Finance's report on the guidelines for economic policy and budget policy. Our economic policy is aimed at equipping Sweden for the future and building competitiveness. It is about pushing back unemployment, offering the training that companies need, and enabling growth. It begins with the school, and it continues with the companies.

Why is economic policy so important then? Well, it is through a reasonable tax burden and through policies that encourage and enable entrepreneurship and growth that we get more tax money for the state, the regions, and the municipalities. It is with these funds that we can create a welfare – a safety net without holes for those who fall, so that one can land softly but not be held back.

It is with tax money that we can build a strong defense, a justice system that allows us to feel safe and free, and a strong welfare state that is strong in the right places and that does not interfere in what it should stay away from. These are the conditions needed to truly give all children in our country an honest chance – a chance to succeed in school, to get their dream job, to start a family, and to save up for their dream home.

It is with these conditions that all people seriously get a chance to shape their lives regardless of what background one has, where one lives or what gender one has. It should not matter where one comes from; it matters where one is going.

I and the Liberals want all children to be able to feel faith in the future and hope that their lives will become good and that they can finish school with passing grades and look forward to a nice summer vacation and their summer job which provides invaluable experiences. It is such a Sweden I want. Therefore, we need a responsible economic policy that promotes growth, entrepreneurship, education and work.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I want to begin with the school. The school is the foundation for the individual's freedom and Sweden's growth. For us liberals, the school always comes first. It is through a strong knowledge school that we secure people's freedom and Sweden's competitiveness. It is in the classrooms that the entrepreneurs, researchers, and skilled workers of the future are shaped. But it is still the case that thousands of students leave primary school without eligibility for upper secondary school. It is not only a betrayal of the children; it is also a waste of Sweden's future.

That is why we Liberals are driving reforms to re-establish the knowledge school. We want more teaching hours, the right to own textbooks, and a clear knowledge mandate in every school. We strengthen the status of the teaching profession, reform the grading system, reduce the administrative burden for teachers, and create peace and quiet in the classrooms. We stand firm that the state should take the primary responsibility for the school. Knowledge is important, and it should not depend on which zip code one has.

Mr. Speaker! School does not end at upper secondary school. In the wake of the recession, we see how unemployment is rising. At the same time, companies are crying out for competence and want to hire and grow. Therefore, we are making targeted investments in universities of applied sciences and short vocational-oriented educations that shall meet the companies' competence needs. These are educations that lead to jobs and which at the same time build Sweden's growth opportunities.

It is the companies that create the jobs. Therefore, a strong business sector is a prerequisite for both welfare and self-realization. The Liberals are pushing for a policy for strengthened competitiveness. We want lower taxes on work and entrepreneurship, simplified rules, and stronger incentives for innovation and investments.

We are now implementing tax cuts for research-intensive companies, we are improving the experts' tax, and we are creating favorable rules for employee options. We are lowering the tax for hiring for the smallest companies through the växa-support, and we are raising the turnover limit for VAT. We also want to continue developing the växa-support so that it will cover more. It is policy for jobs and increased productivity.

But it doesn't end there. We want to do even more. We want, for example, to lower the corporate tax, expand the growth support, as I said, and lower the electricity tax.

Competitiveness is also about access to energy at stable prices every day of the year and every hour. Here, the government's message is clear: New nuclear power shall be built, preferably in my home municipality Varberg at the Ringhals site. Here, the government's message is clear. Nuclear power must be there so that we can strengthen Swedish competitiveness. It strengthens the industry's opportunities and is crucial for the green transition.

Furthermore, the government is investing in important areas such as Klimatklivet and Industriklivet to help the business sector transition and make Sweden a fossil-free nation. It is through innovation and development that we can simultaneously strengthen our competitiveness, export smart solutions internationally, and phase out fossil fuels.

The green climate transition and economic growth go hand in hand. Everyone can contribute to the climate transition. It is done at the macro level and at the micro level. Therefore, I am pleased that the Liberals have pushed to enable and facilitate, for example, commuting by public transport, which is proposed in a memorandum in one of the tax referrals. It is about introducing a tax relief for the benefit of a period ticket for travel by public transport.

Sweden's future is determined by our ability to renew ourselves. We must both invest in research and attract foreign talents. Therefore, we ensured that the government has now presented the largest research bill with a focus on excellent research. The Liberals want to make Sweden a magnet for the world's best brains. It is about labor immigration, about simpler rules for researchers and startups, and about building a world-class education system.

Madam Speaker! Economic policy must simultaneously be long-term sustainable. The Government and the Liberals stand firm on the balance target, but at the same time, we see how exceptional geo- and security-political circumstances demand more from us. We must carry out major defense upgrades to meet NATO's goals and secure peace in Ukraine and all of Europe. Therefore, temporary deviations are necessary.

But it would never have been possible if it were not for Anne Wibble, the first female Finance Minister, who was also a member of the Folkpartiet. She took over the Swedish state finances, which had been driven to the bottom by a careless Social Democratic government with a rapidly increasing loan debt. She laid the foundation for the fiscal framework that we today say has served us well. She made tough but important decisions to sanitize and reform Sweden so that we later in the 90s could kick-start our economic growth and build a wealthier and stronger Sweden. It was Anne Wibble, not Göran Persson, who cleaned up the Swedish economy.

Madam Speaker! It has been a few tough years now with high inflation and interest rates and real wages that have decreased significantly. The Riksbank, the government, and the country's wage earners have taken a great responsibility to push back the inflation and return to normal levels again.

The government has, in the budgets we have presented so far, thought about what is important in the short term but also in the long term. We have supported the vulnerable households while simultaneously focusing on reforming the school, offering education for adults and improving the conditions for companies and for the climate transition. At the same time, we have managed to adhere to the fiscal framework.

The opposition has, in their speeches before me, black-painted most things. But when one analyzes their budgets, one sees that they vary significantly and that there are large expenditure increases, sometimes without concrete financing. To promise the moon and the stars to everyone while simultaneously presenting vague financing proposals such as bank tax and readiness tax is not serious. It is easy to criticize when one does not need to take responsibility for the whole, compromise with other parties, or follow the frameworks. The only thing we can say with certainty is that none of the opposition's proposals will become a reality.

Madam Speaker! Liberal policy is based on every individual's right to shape their own life. For that freedom to become real, it requires a school that equips every student, a society where it always pays to work, and a business sector that is given the conditions to grow.

We liberals know that prosperity is not created by the state trying to distribute what exists, but by people being given the opportunity to create more. Our economic policy is based on trust in the individual, respect for the power of the market, and the insight that knowledge is the key to both freedom and success.

Therefore, we stand behind this report. It is a policy that strengthens Sweden – through school and through companies.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Swedish households have been tested severely economically in recent years. We find ourselves in a prolonged recession, with major conflicts in the world. The anxiety characterizing the world economy as a result of the conflicts and Trump's new entry into politics also affects Sweden to a great extent. Unemployment has reached levels not seen since the aftermath of the financial crisis. Great uncertainty about the future makes households cautious, and the economy gains no momentum.

In this situation, a powerful economic policy was needed that could give people hope and faith in the future. The government is failing at that, to say the least.

The criticism from Min and Miljöpartiet against the government's economic policy consists mainly of three points.

Firstly, the government completely lacks a policy for people's safety in everyday life. I am not talking about crime fighting. Here, the government is taking a hard line, whether it works or not. Gangs must be removed from the streets and from our children. On that, we are in complete agreement. But now it seems to be more important to show strength than to take the right measures.

What I mean by security is also help for households in the cost crisis. Despite inflation and high interest rates, ordinary households have not received any help. Civil society has now for a long time warned that more and more people need help to put food on the table for their children and actually also have the means and opportunity to eat themselves.

The government does not seem to be listening to this. Soon, instead, they will lower the housing allowance even further by up to 2,000 kronor for the families who would need it the most. At the same time, Sweden's sick are forced to pay more for their medicines, which means that many cannot afford to take them. This naturally creates great suffering and, in the long run, even more costs for healthcare. This is quite obvious. That the government is currently choosing to move forward with these deteriorations is nothing other than shameful.

Miljöpartiet wants to strengthen equality in Sweden instead. Instead of the government's unfair tax cuts – unfair in the sense that the tax is lowered incredibly much more for those who already have more – we want to redistribute to reduce the gaps: better support for families with children through increased housing allowance and an extra child allowance.

Economic justice is the foundation for a sustainable society and a society that holds together. The government's policy benefits those who already have, but we want the resources to go to those who need them most.

Secondly, the government lacks a policy for the welfare system. It has been clear during the years since the Tidö government took office that the government has no ambition to strengthen the welfare system. What we have seen instead is a starvation diet. The queues are long, and it is difficult to get people to have the energy to stay in work. The only thing that has actually been done is an investigation into state governance, a proposal that has now been thrown in the wastebasket.

At the same time as the government is prioritizing large tax cuts for high-income earners, welfare is on its knees. There is a lack of money for schools, healthcare, and elderly care. Should it really be so in one of the world's richest countries?

Miljöpartiet wants to break this policy of cuts. We propose instead more money for healthcare, schools, and social services. Much needs to be done there so that we can achieve effective work to catch those young people who otherwise risk falling into the gangs' clutches, work that must take place together with the school and the police. Safety begins in a functioning everyday life. It is in the classroom and at the health center that it is decided whether Sweden holds together.

For the third time, the government fails in important future investments, particularly regarding the climate. In a situation where Sweden should be investing to meet the climate crisis, energy-efficient housing, expanding public transport, and creating green jobs, the government chooses cuts and fossil subsidies. It is serious.

Something that adds further weight to the burden is that Sweden, at the same time as we have had a weak economic development, has significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions. This is a direct consequence of the government's economic policy, which has increased the amount of fossil fuels in gasoline and diesel. Earlier this morning, the news came that emissions increased by 7 percent during 2024. It is actually completely insane.

I heard the member from the Liberals standing here and speaking about how proud they were that they were tackling the climate crisis, but it would be nice if it could also be shown in clear figures. Edward Riedl also just stood here in the speaker's chair and boasted about this. But the policy leads straight to ruin. It is purely economically irresponsible to brake the transition – not only for the climate but also for the jobs. Instead of acting as if there were no tomorrow, one could have invested for climate transition and jobs across the entire country.

It is exactly what we in Miljöpartiet propose. We propose historical investments in the climate transition: more money for public transport, energy efficiency of housing, climate-smart industries and green future jobs. Climate policy is also regional policy and jobs policy. These are investments that both reduce emissions and strengthen an economy that is currently limping.

But judge my surprise when the Moderates, instead of standing up for the business sector and investments in important future industries, bow to the Sweden Democrats and refrain from acting to save the battery manufacturing that could give Sweden and Europe control over an important piece of the transition. Obviously, it is not that important, at least not as important as keeping the Sweden Democrats in a good mood – and how they reason, we heard earlier from Oscar Sjöstedt in the speaker's chair.

But back to the climate. We must act on climate change. The situation is extremely serious, and if there is anyone in the government who believes in research and science, it is now time to raise their voice against the policy being pursued.

If the situation for the world is serious now, which is obvious to everyone, it will only get worse if we do not handle the climate crisis. Delaying a necessary investment in the future only undermines our opportunities to act forward. But there are actually no alternatives. Emissions must be reduced.

To summarize, Madam Speaker: We in Miljöpartiet want to see an effective and fair economic package based on three pillars – strengthened economy for households with small margins, a climate transition that creates jobs and companies, and powerful measures for those who are outside the labor market.

Today we have a very high unemployment rate, while at the same time many positions are not being filled because the unemployed lack the right competence. Imagine if the government, instead of chasing people with threats of poverty, had invested in offering education and training! Imagine what a win-win that would be!

Another obvious win-win would be to focus economic policy on making a just green transition. It would strengthen competitiveness as well as create new jobs and social development throughout the country. To expand the green alternatives, large investments in the future's carbon-neutral economy are needed right now, for example energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy. We all need that, and it is not throwing money into the sea.

If economic policy is directed towards favoring transport by train and public transport and making it possible for more people to switch to electric cars, then we lower emissions. It also creates jobs and confidence in the future. But emissions must also be reduced in other sectors. Therefore, we want to retain the aviation tax and introduce a tax on private jets.

A just transition means a transition away from the fossil-dependent society, and it goes hand in hand with a policy that levels life chances to make society more equal. Instead of increased subsidies in the deduction for renovation, the economic policy should be directed towards accurate measures that strengthen the economy for households with small margins through, as I said earlier, an extra payment of child and student grants and an increased supplement instead of a reduction of the housing allowance for families with children.

I am pleased that the Moderates now seem to see the suffering in Gaza. Perhaps we can get a decision in place regarding humanitarian aid through UNRWA, that is to say, the UNRWA that can do the job most effectively.

The government's own reform agenda points towards this, that is, efficiency. It is the opposite of what we see now. Sida seems to be directed from UD via SMS, and how much longer is this allowed to continue?

Right now it really looks dark, but together we can change it. We here in the chamber know that it is possible to build a better society, both for us who live now and for those who come after. With Miljöpartiet's economic policy, we will not only manage the climate transition, but we will also build a green society with jobs and faith in the future for both people and the environment.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 4.

I wish the Chamber, my colleagues and our wonderful secretariat a happy summer.

(Applause)

In this speech, Annika Hirvonen (MP) agreed.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! There is good and evil, right and wrong, those who do right and are right, those who are wrong and do wrong. Undoubtedly, that is so. But before certain things, however, all people are equal.

In a world characterized by increasing war and misery, it is almost difficult to stand here and take in what bottomless misery, suffering, and sorrow it is for many families around the world to say good night to their children without knowing if missiles will come during the night. It is difficult to take in, but that is how the world looks.

The problems we, and other parts of the world that are not directly affected by the war, are hit by are small in comparison but still significant. There is a very uneasy and difficult situation in the world economy, and it undeniably also hits the European and Swedish economy with force.

Sometimes it is said that one should hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time, but that is not enough in these cases. We find ourselves in a very difficult and complicated situation. It is not only the restless and serious situation in our global environment that creates challenges here at home in Europe and in Sweden. Recently, we have gone through a period of high inflation.

Few things have such significant damaging effects on the economy and people's everyday lives as inflation, where the value of an entire working life is rapidly eroded and where the value of setting the clock and going to work in the morning is quickly eroded. For a long time, not only in Sweden but in large parts of the Western world and Europe, we have had difficulty reaching the growth levels, the economic improvement, that we have historically been used to. Here at home in Sweden, we have seen how in area after area we have lost control over what once upon a time was one of the world's safest and best countries.

It has been a question of a migration commitment that we have obviously not managed to fulfill. It has also been about that one has not put in sufficient effort and sufficient resources to meet the changes. The police have not been given sufficient powers or resources. One has not maintained control over such things as who is in the country or our population registry. The problems have simply accumulated. It has been a question of things that have happened around the world, things that we have not taken responsibility for in Sweden, and things that we together in our Western European democracies have not made the right decisions about.

Now we must solve this. Now we must be really good again. None of the problems will go away quickly or fix themselves. But it is possible to make better decisions now and in the future and gradually return to both a world and a country that functions the way we want them to.

Recently we have seen students with Swedish flags and singing – young people who place their hopes for a better future at their feet. They are beautiful images, happy memories and wonderful days.

Now many people have work ahead of them. It is a demanding time as people in elderly care shall try to offer that little extra to the elderly people who want to go out for a summer walk. Hospitals shall remain open. Roadworks shall now be carried out. Police shall gather around our entertainment venues and meeting places this summer to ensure that there is order and tidiness. There is also one or another who looks forward to a pleasant holiday.

There is something quite special about work, Madam Speaker. It is about being able to make one's own life better, to be able to provide for one's family and feel belonging and solidarity. It is also, of course, about all that one does for other people when one works through the services one performs, the walks that take place at the elderly care home, the hands, arms, and legs that are casted at the hospitals, the operations that are performed, teaching hours in school, students who get a better future, and roads that are to be built.

There is no other way out of the problems that exist, and there is no other way into a better future than for as many as possible to do as much as possible for each other and themselves through work.

This government has begun to tackle and solve Sweden's problems. We must re-evaluate the value of work. Nothing gets better by itself. It gets better because one does it better. In that case, it is important that those who do things get paid for the effort.

For an average family, we have lowered the tax by almost 23,000 kronor per year. It means a lot that one gets paid for the effort. For those who decide to take extra shifts, work harder, educate themselves further or devote more hours to their company, we have removed the tapering of the job tax credit. This means significant financial supplements for doing so.

We have also directed resources there where society's needs are greatest, that is to say, almost 50-percent increases during this period to the justice system's total resources. It is needed because our streets and squares and our lives have become less secure. Then politics must manage to prioritize resources and efforts to where the needs are greatest.

Even larger increases, but completely necessary ones, are occurring in the defense area against the backdrop of the very tiresome developments taking place in the world around us. We are also taking steps so that Sweden will function better in the future. Instead of decommissioning our base power, we are now taking steps to build new nuclear power in Sweden. We need to finance more new exciting companies that create jobs and higher wages. In that case, it is important that there is capital for it. We are improving the conditions for saving in investment savings accounts so that we can build further on one of Sweden's greatest strengths.

We are improving household finances, not only through lowered taxes and resources for those households that have the toughest economic margins but also by reducing the cost of refueling the car. It is necessary in order to be able to live in the whole country, take care of one's family, drop off one's children and visit one's mother at the nursing home, but also to dampen the cost development for Swedish companies.

It is therefore possible to reverse this development. It is not easy, but with hard work it is possible.

With this budget, we do what should be done in a cyclically difficult situation. We added 60 billion kronor in the autumn budget. We now added an additional 11.5 billion kronor. It is classic cyclical policy. It is about mitigating the effects of unemployment and giving more people the opportunity for a new start in everyday life through investments in education. It is about investing in road maintenance and infrastructure projects that create both employment and, in the long run, a better functioning country.

We are increasing the possibility of making rotavdrag to dampen the effects we see when construction has declined in a difficult economic situation.

We need to look up and continue to solve Sweden's large and long-term problems. Two things should dominate that challenge, Madam Speaker. One is to see and fully understand the great needs that Sweden faces when it comes to investments. Investments are needed in water and sewage systems. Investments are needed in new base power. And investments are needed in our military defense.

Then a policy is needed that is capable of prioritizing. If one does not do that, if one simultaneously promises everything to everyone or at least a lot to many, one risks not only losing the large investments that are needed; one also risks that inflation will return and again attack people's wallets.

If investments are one thing, the other thing is to heal Sweden. There are also the greatest economic gains to be made here. The best one can do for a country's economy is to move a person from needing benefits to being part of the contribution. I dare say that it is the single best thing one can do for a person's life, Madam Speaker. Moving people around between different residential areas or different schools does not solve any problems in the long term. But moving a human being from benefits and exclusion to work and community fundamentally improves a country.

We have not given up on the idea that Sweden can once again become a country with cohesion, community, and a shared vision that we can create a better future for ourselves. That is not the case today. It is time to see the problem in broad daylight. Sweden has drifted apart into a two-part world.

Those of us who belong and feel a sense of belonging have an idea that this is more than just a small place on earth, that Sweden is something. It doesn't matter where one was born, which god one believes in, or where in the country one lives. One can still feel that we are Sweden. We are certainly different from one another and have slightly different dreams, ambitions, and abilities, but we also have an idea of a community.

Since then, it has become the case that some people either do not feel that way at all or would like to feel that way but feel that it is a hopelessly difficult thing to achieve, that one cannot manage to get there. The biggest challenge we need to place before us is to put this country back together, to get all people to take the responsibility that is required and feel the sense of community that is needed.

In this, I want to particularly highlight equality between men and women. It is a particularly important challenge for Sweden moving forward. The exclusion we have strikes against equality for those who are affected. They had hoped for a new and good life in a new country with different rules, but they have become stuck, locked in apartments or at least in large or absolute dependence on the men in their vicinity. Those who find themselves there are as far from the Swedish idea of equality as one can get. Here, more interventions are needed. Here, counter-performance requirements are needed. Here, full-time activation is needed. Here, pathways into Swedish society are needed.

Women are also hit hardest by the consequences, such as school failures, unrest in schools, elderly care that does not function, and when crime has eaten its way into streets and squares and fear spreads in the residential areas. Then it is tough for all the women who feel fear about being out in their residential areas, who worry about their children, or who in other ways have their freedom and security curtailed.

Therefore, more measures were needed to combat exclusion, to strengthen equality both for those who find themselves in exclusion and for those who are affected by the consequences of exclusion.

We must also strengthen equality by ensuring that inflation does not return. Not in all, but in many families, it is women who take the greatest responsibility for the household economy. They plan so that the money will suffice for both food as well as pocket money, birthday presents, and the needs that exist in the family and in the extended family. If inflation returns, that task will become hopelessly difficult.

Many women are also single parents or have the lowest pensions. If inflation is allowed to return to the economy, it is their life conditions that will deteriorate the most.

We must also strike a harder blow for equality by ensuring that we have order and clarity in the public finances in times of need for large investments. If we lose control over the public finances, it will sooner or later become as it once was in Sweden; there will be large cuts in the welfare system, and that is where many women have their own livelihood and their own jobs.

If we lose control over public finances, it is first and foremost women's workplaces that will be affected through a worse working environment, fewer colleagues, and a tougher situation. But then we also get quality deteriorations in preschool and elderly care. And even though it shouldn't be so, we know that it is often women who need to step forward and take the greater unpaid responsibility if one is not quite sure that the quality is sufficient for the parents at the elderly home or for the children in childcare.

We thus have a major equality challenge ahead of us in combating exclusion, winning back security, ensuring that we can carry out large investments without inflation returning, and taking responsibility for public finances so that we can maintain high quality in our welfare services even when large investments in society need to be made.

To all the students who recently ran out and sang about the bright future that is ours, and to all of us, I want to say that a bright future is not ours but that we can make it ours.

We need to put all of Sweden to work. We need to take responsibility for the public finances. We need to ensure that important investments in the Swedish economy can be realized without inflation returning. We also, of course, need to ensure that we take responsibility for the cyclical situation. That is what our government bill and our previous budget bill aim for. We shall ensure that we make Sweden one of the world's best countries again.

With that, I wish everyone a happy summer.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Niklas Wykman! I can agree with much of what the Minister said, especially at the beginning.

I would like to take the opportunity to send a greeting and honor all those who keep society up and running in Sweden during the summer. It is a Sweden that we also want to keep in the future.

Just now, here this morning, we heard that emissions in Sweden have increased more than what was feared, even though it was bad enough. Now the figure is 7 percent. The Moderates went to the election on being the new climate party. Now we see that it was an obviously misleading message, given how reality looks.

I would like to know how the Moderates can pursue an economic policy that suggests that one simply does not care and that it is more important for government partners to be satisfied than to tackle the emissions.

If I know Niklas Wykman and the Moderaterna correctly, he will now start talking about nuclear power. We may disagree on that on a different level; it will come much later. What I would like to know is whether the Moderaterna and the government have any plan at all for how to lower emissions in the near term and reach the set goals for Sweden, Europe, and the world that we have jointly agreed upon.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by stating that I am convinced that Janine Alm Ericson has the best of intentions for the climate, for animals and nature, for Swedish welfare and for Swedish entrepreneurship. It is possible to reach different conclusions even with good intentions. I am not so sure that we are served by having a debate where we are always to question each other's intentions or come with sour or negative judgments. On the other hand, one can obviously be right or wrong on the facts and reach conclusions that others do not agree with. But I am completely convinced that Janine Alm Ericson has the best of intentions for Sweden with her political commitment to the environment, climate and all people.

I fundamentally see before me that two paths can be taken. I share the Green Party's assessment that emissions can be reduced, not least from the transport sector, by returning to the path where Sweden previously was. They raised the fuel taxes significantly and introduced the reduction obligation. This obviously had the intended effect. It became more expensive for companies to manage their transports – then one has to transport less. It became more expensive for parents to pick up their children from football practices, hockey practices, riding clubs, or wherever they were. One had to cut back on the trips to the nursing home where one was going to visit one's mother.

This works absolutely. The question is whether it is what we want. I do not want it. I think it is good that one can use the car to pick up one's children or visit one's parents at the elderly care home and that Swedish companies have good opportunities for transport. If one does not want to make that choice, one must consider how to do it instead.

Our answer to that question, even if Janine Alm Ericson does not agree with it, is electrification. It is a matter of being able to produce enough electricity so that we can gradually phase out the fossil-dependent carbon sources. Janine Alm Ericson may think it is a boring or tedious answer, but that is how it is. I do not want to punish Swedish families. I want to produce more electricity.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Niklas Wykman and I seem to agree on much today. Electrification is, of course, a key to making the climate transition. With that said, it must not be a question of a nuclear power investment that risks the Swedish economy. Although there has been a government proposition on what they want to see, there is a great deal that is uncertain there. But above all, this is needed in the near term. We have other answers for how we can obtain the electricity and the energy needed for the transition. One can think what one wants about it, but we assert that nuclear power is not necessary there and that it will come too late. With the government's proposal, one risks undermining other expanded infrastructure to get more electricity. It is serious.

Then Niklas Wykman takes up that Miljöpartiet wants to make things more expensive in order to be able to make the transition. Yes, that is classic economic steering. It is exactly what the government itself is doing, except then it concerns the labor market instead. One believes that it will become better for everyone if one lowers the opportunities for people to get into work. One does not help and does not support.

When we have done these things – raised the petrol taxes and brought more renewables into consideration – we have however always had a policy that helps at the other end. It has been about lowered basic deductions in the countryside and a changed travel deduction system. It is important not to only see one part but also the other.

Even though I might not have received a very clear answer, I still think it sounds like Niklas Wykman actually cares about climate emissions and will do what he can to reduce them.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! This exchange shows the Swedish people that they will face a crossroads the next time they vote. Either one votes for the sitting government and its support party, or one votes for Miljöpartiet. Depending on which of those receives the most support, people will receive very different prices when they refuel. It is clear and distinct that it is so, and people must make that choice.

I, this government, and the Sweden Democrats do not think we should go back to a situation where it should cost 30 kronor per liter when refueling or could even reach up to 40 kronor. We do not think it is a good cohesion policy. It creates other negative effects. It becomes too expensive for families to pick up from football practice, drive to the elderly home, or go to the grocery store and shop. We also do not think it is an effective climate policy. An effective policy should, of course, reach the goals but must also share the burdens in a fair way in society.

We will not choose that path. But I want to give Janine Alm Ericson credit in that one reduces emissions from this sector if one makes it impossible or very expensive for too many people to use those products.

We choose a different path forward instead. We shall replace fossil energy production with fossil-free electricity production. We have an important ambition to build new nuclear power. It is also important to expand other types of energy to manage this. But for one to be able to manage having more weather-dependent power in a functioning electricity system – we take wind power as an example – one needs sufficiently much base load to run the electricity system even when it is not blowing. Fundamentally, Sweden does not have problems with the electricity supply when it blows, but we have it when it is calm. Then one can build as many wind turbines as one wants – it does not solve that problem. Then more wind power can solve other problems.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for Niklas Wykman's opening comments on the global situation, the uncertainty, and the war. They provide perspective on the problems we have in Sweden. Further on in his speech, the Minister concludes that real and completely necessary decisions have been made for the period we are in. That is certainly a way to think, but I mean that the government during this entire mandate period has had some difficulty grasping what reality looks like.

Time and again, the government has thought that a turnaround is underway and that better times are coming soon, and so it has launched policies for that. But when the outcome has then been seen, it has been forced time and again to revise its growth forecast and revise upwards the forecast for unemployment. It has not turned out as the government thought. This budget is another example of that. Just three weeks after the spring budget was presented, the Ministry of Finance was forced to revise down the growth and revise up the unemployment again.

Shouldn't the effect, the result, and the outcome then give one pause for thought? We have had one of the lowest growth rates in all of Europe. We now have over 500,000 people who are unemployed. Can Niklas Wykman admit that some of the choices and priorities that have been made have not had the effect that was hoped for and perhaps have even been incorrect? It is about getting consumption started among Swedish households and ensuring that the Swedish economy grows again, so that we can bring down unemployment.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Absolutely – some choices of path have been wrong, and some decisions have not had the consequences that were desired. Many things have changed and unfortunately worsened in our global environment. We are navigating in a very fluid time. Just as Mikael Damberg points out, much has constantly moved towards the worse. We have a war in Ukraine that continues with great human suffering and with an impact on the world economy and raw material prices. We have the unrest that broke out in the Middle East and which is now a full-scale war.

If one could go back and make decisions retroactively with the hindsight of how the world has developed, one would obviously have done some things differently from the start. For example, I believe that Mikael Damberg would have ensured that one did not shut down a lot of nuclear reactors in Sweden during his time in government. I believe that Mikael Damberg today would see that as having been good, given what has happened in Russia and with European energy production. But unfortunately, that is not how reality works. We do not live with such a time machine.

The main direction for the government's policy is therefore always to take responsibility, have safety margins, safeguard public finances and ensure that we have good opportunities to act in the situations that arise. That is the core. Then, one must make the best possible decisions with the information one has.

Much has deteriorated in the world in a short time, and it has continued in that direction. We obviously need to meet this. That is why we in our budget proposal, but also in this spring budget, have cyclical measures that, for example, support people who become unemployed so that they get better opportunities for education, and support a construction industry that has it tough when interest rates have been high due to high inflation.

That is why we pursue that type of policy. But nothing becomes completely perfect. Nothing becomes completely right. But the basic orientation must always be that Sweden shall be governed with responsibility for the public finances, with safety margins and with the possibility to act.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! This matter of priorities is interesting. It is not the case that everything in this has been uncertain or unknown for the government.

I can give some examples of clear misprioritizations by the government. When unemployment rose, they began to cut back significantly on labor market policy and educational opportunities. That was wrong. When construction came to a grinding halt, they removed the investment support for building rental apartments. That was wrong. When ordinary families were hit hard by the cost crisis, they refused, as the only government in the Nordic countries, to increase the child allowance for all families with children. I mean that it was wrong.

Now we stand in a situation where the cost crisis is still afflicting Swedish households. I noted that the Minister wanted to speak about equality. I think that is good. But then one must consider which group in Sweden perhaps has it worst of all economically. Single parents with children have it very tough in this situation. Many of them are mothers.

From July 1, the government – despite the fact that rents have not gone down and food prices have not fallen and despite all the information one has – chooses to remove the extra housing supplement for the poorest families with children. At the same time, in this budget, one has had the means to lower the tax for people with high incomes. It is not taking equality seriously. And above all, it is not taking the children's situation seriously, because it is they who pay the price because the government can now remove up to 2,000 kronor a month from the poorest families with children in Sweden. Many of them are women. I think this is an incorrect prioritization.

Can Niklas Wykman say that it feels a bit bad in the stomach to go on summer vacation knowing that the poorest families with children will have it even worse in just a couple of weeks?

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! To prioritize is perhaps politics' most important task. To be able to make difficult priorities is central if one wants to lead a country and, over time, make it better. To promise a lot to many is easy. To be in opposition and say "more, faster, quicker and more expensive" is easy.

But I am proud that we here in the Riksdag have a cooperation between the government's parties and the Sverigedemokraterna that is capable of making the priorities required to reverse the development in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I am not surprised that Mikael Damberg and the Social Democrats are speaking so passionately in favor of subsidies and grants. It is easy to promise more to more people. But we must also ask ourselves: Is this what Sweden truly needs?

Sweden is a country that has been very clearly divided. It has, in an unfortunate way, become a "we" and a "they." The only way to solve this is through working together – that more people should be involved and contribute so that we break down the exclusion.

Is it then necessarily right to reduce the incentives to work and to increase the benefits for those who are not participating, or is it more right to allocate those resources to requirements and opportunities to enter the labor market and get a way into Swedish society?

During Mikael Damberg's time in the government and thereafter, Sweden and the Western world have had economic growth problems with low growth for many years. Does one then solve Sweden's problems by reducing the drivers for entrepreneurship, job creation, and investments?

It is easy to see people's needs. We prioritize helping those who have the greatest economic needs. But one must simultaneously understand what needs to be done to create a better future.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Wykman, for the speech! In many ways, I agree with what is said about it being work that builds the country and that we must have more people in work for community and growth and to be able to build a stronger welfare.

Of course, not everything that happens is the government's fault. One might not be able to influence who becomes president in the White House or what happens in our global environment. But one must still take responsibility for what one can influence and the priorities that are made. With what is being said here, the question remains how citizens are to feel a sense of belonging when they are held responsible for something that they have very little...

Oh, now it's a stalemate.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does anyone have their mobile phone on?)

I heard myself. It was scary. I am everywhere.

Citizens are held responsible for things that they have very little influence over. One cannot personally fix railway tracks or better communication. One cannot individually ensure that growth increases and that there are jobs to go to.

Of course one can influence some things, but my perception is that the balance in the politics being pursued today is that the government exempts itself from responsibility while citizens are burdened with responsibility for things that they actually have very little opportunity to influence. What is the government's task? What is the individual's task when it comes to creating jobs and growth? And what does the government want to do to create jobs and growth, other than to worsen the conditions for those who are unemployed?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! It was perhaps a consequence of the disturbing noise or perhaps a very clear-sighted moment from Ida Gabrielsson when she said: "I heard myself. It was scary." I hope that people listen to the debate and reflect a little on this.

Ida Gabrielsson raises a central and important issue about community and the feeling of belonging. It is perhaps our most important point in this situation.

Each person has, of course, a responsibility. One cannot simply shift the blame. There is nothing that says that just because one's life began in a certain way, one must attack other people, commit crimes, and be mean. The vast majority of those who have faced problems do not have a single thought of creating problems for others for that reason; rather, it is precisely the opposite. Very many whom I meet who have had it tough and difficult in life have concluded that they truly want to be decent and kind to others.

In Sweden, we have had the idea that it is okay to shift the blame and that it is a pity for those who commit crimes and create misery for others. It is good that we are now gradually putting that notion behind us. We cannot take Sweden forward and create a better country by giving a free pass to those who want to make their own problems everyone else's problems through crime and unrest.

Each person must, of course, step forward, take responsibility, and feel responsibility for themselves and for others. But it also requires that we together do things that create paths into Sweden, into Swedish society, and into community.

If I am to mention something, it is that in consideration of everyone feeling comfortable here, we may have been a bit anxious about signaling what is Sweden, our traditions, and our sense of togetherness. It has created a situation where many do not know at all what they are entering into and how to do it.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! It is wonderful to hear that the Minister is so open to hearing voices.

We must include everyone. But what I discussed was actually not the question that the Minister raised in his answer.

For example, I myself come from a family with a very high work ethic. My father had one sick day, and I believe that was when my sister was born in 1985. Then he was struck by cancer and became ill. The systems that exist, where one has worked to earn money for an insurance, should work then.

The single mothers that one meets here outside are currently being affected by you pulling the rug out from under them. I am thinking of the support that a housing allowance has provided during this very extreme time. They all have jobs and go to work. But when I simultaneously see how unemployment is skyrocketing, it is very difficult for me to understand why one should receive lower benefits going forward when one works as an assistant nurse or is a shop employee.

Politicians must do their part, and citizens and others must do their part. That is my view. What could the Minister himself have done so that prices in, for example, the food market would have decreased and that interest rates in the banking market would have become lower? It is also, of course, about what one can do oneself to transition and find new things to improve one's life. But it is the state and the government that have responsibility for the structural issues regarding growth and unemployment and for distributing the burdens of the crisis equitably. Does the Minister think that this has been achieved?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! For me, it is crystal clear that we need to do more to break exclusion in Sweden. It needs to be done with educational initiatives, drivers, demands, opportunities, and language. There are many factors here that need to be improved. But one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that demands must also be formulated. Those who have come here to Sweden are expected to contribute and do their best. Therefore, our rules must be rigged so that Sweden becomes a country and functions well.

Madam Speaker! Ida Gabrielsson lives perhaps in the imagination of the government's policy rather than in the reality of the government's policy. Great support but also relief has been directed to many of the families who have it toughest in Sweden and the households that have the smallest economic margins. That is the reality. For example, reinforcements in the a-kassa are being moved forward – not reductions, as Ida Gabrielsson claims.

What worries me about the united left's policy is the impact on public finances and what will ultimately happen to Sweden. If I have read the budgets correctly, it is as follows: the Social Democrats are to increase expenditures by 4.5 billion. Vänsterpartiet is to increase expenditures by over 12 billion. Miljöpartiet is to increase expenditures by 9 billion. And Centerpartiet is to reduce tax revenues by 21 billion. There is a complete disagreement regarding these different matters, what they should contain, which expenditure increases should be implemented, and which tax cuts should be implemented or which tax increases should be implemented.

If everyone were completely in disagreement regarding all of this, it would create a gigantic hole in the public finances – 4.5 billion from the Social Democrats, 12 billion from the Left Party and 21 billion in tax cuts from the Centre Party. It will affect Swedish welfare. It will affect equality.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It is undeniably a new situation to hear a Moderate minister, in particular from the Ministry of Finance, complain that the Center Party has proposals for tax cuts. These are new times now.

Madam Speaker! My question to the Minister in this situation is quite simply: Do you acknowledge that we have an unemployment crisis in Sweden when we have half a million unemployed and one of the Western world's highest unemployment rates? Do you acknowledge it? Do you acknowledge that it actually stands out in the Western world in that unemployment has gone up during the last few years under this government when it has otherwise gone down and that the gap between the OECD average and Sweden has increased significantly when it comes to unemployment?

Madam Speaker! My second question, in connection with this, is: Is it acknowledged that it is also a crisis for entrepreneurship when new business startups continue to decline while bankruptcies remain at extremely high levels?

If one feels that one can admit that these two crises actually exist, I wonder if one does not regret raising the employer contributions so powerfully, by many billions, without lowering the costs of hiring in any other way. Do you not regret that?

The continuation of this is naturally: Do you not also regret placing the responsibility for sick pay back on the very smallest companies, so that they find it difficult to hire? Do you not feel that it was a bit wrong in a crisis situation? Furthermore, the world economy has deteriorated sharply in a short time. And as the previous speaker has pointed out, one has, in an all-too optimistic direction, missed in its forecasts time after time after time after time.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! More needs to be done for companies in Sweden. Recently, a proposal has been presented, for example, regarding improved rules for small-scale companies – necessary. I am the first to sign on that costs need to be reduced. One can consider taxes.

But one cannot be so inward-looking and so focused on one's own party program that one can truly believe that individual tax changes are the decisive factor right now, in a situation where we have had very high inflation, where we have war all around our world, and where we in Sweden, which year after year had a migration commitment that was obviously unsustainable, now have a significant social exclusion to manage.

I am the first to both sign on to and work for us to improve the conditions for entrepreneurship and for us to reduce costs and improve tax conditions. But one cannot be so deeply inside one's own party program that one believes that all the problems we have in the world economy – it is war, threats of tariffs and what we see that, among other things, the American administration does in trade policy – have a simple solution in the Swedish tax system.

We need to reform the Swedish tax system. There is more to be done regarding jobs, entrepreneurship, education, and incentives – that is the fact. And that is what we shall do. But to believe that the problems we have in the economy are rooted in a changed or unchanged social security contribution or employer contribution is simply not a sound starting point, Martin Ådahl, for how one can view economic policy.

We have very serious problems. We must absolutely meet them with reforms, but when it comes to Swedish export companies, it is simply not possible to magic away the problems that exist in the world economy. They must be addressed with a responsible and well-considered policy and, above all, a policy that prioritizes.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it continues to be new times when it is now considered that lowering the costs for companies to hire is some kind of deepening of a Center Party party program and something that, to use the Minister's words, is not prioritized in a situation with a serious crisis. It is something else that is prioritized instead when this is seen as something negative and when one is prepared to stand firm on raising the costs for companies in a situation where there is a serious crisis.

When inflation is low, it is the government's merit. When it is high, it is the Riksbank's fault. That is how it usually is, and that is how it is again.

I will go through the reasons that the Minister mentioned. High inflation has been experienced by all countries. It has been fought down by many central banks. War affects us all equally. The government boasts very much about the fact that migration has gone down. All of this is things that have gone, so to speak, equally for everyone or even, according to your view, much better.

But unemployment has only gone up so powerfully in Sweden. In the European league, growth has only gone down in Sweden. It is largely only in Sweden that companies have had increased costs during this period. All other countries have invested in lowering their costs and increasing their competitiveness.

I do not perceive that the Minister recognizes that we have an unemployment crisis and a corporate crisis, or that one is prepared to do the powerful things required to turn the economy around with the classic bourgeois and liberal policy that I know Niklas Wykman stood for before he ended up in the Tidö context.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not object to the measures that Martin Ådahl presents. They have their merits. Then, of course, they must be weighed against other measures that can also make Sweden function better and the economy as a whole function better.

But Martin Ådahl's analysis of the economy is very superficial and is not suitable as a starting point for public finance decision-making.

Inflation has been high in all countries, so it is the same for everyone. No, it is not. Swedish households are much more indebted than in most other countries, and Swedish households have, to a much greater extent than in most other countries, variable mortgage rates, which means that it has a much greater impact on the Swedish economy than it does on the economies of some other countries when interest rates rise due to inflation. It is not the same for everyone. In Sweden, it looks different.

The migration problems are not the same for everyone. Few countries have had such a large migration commitment as Sweden has had. Even though this commitment is decreasing and immigration is decreasing, there is a large exclusion that it has generated remaining. A lot of people who have come to Sweden make fantastic contributions every day for themselves and for the country, but many people have also come to Sweden without entering Sweden. This is not the same for everyone, because we have received more people than other countries have.

Even though immigration is now decreasing, as has been said, the exclusion that has already been built up remains, and it furthermore generates itself because new generations grow up in families where the parents do not go to work or where there are social unrests or failures in the schools. Even if no new people come in from the outside, the problems we have continue, therefore.

Yes, Sweden shares some problems with the rest of the world, but we also have some unique problems.

Sweden can be improved, and that is what the government is working on. Large holes in the public finances are not the way forward.

(Applause)

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces great challenges, but we have also had important successes as a result of purposeful political work.

It cannot be denied that household finances are still under pressure. It is noticeable in everyday life, in conversations around the dinner table, and on the bank statement at the end of the month.

The Swedish economy has taken a beating from a long period of high inflation, but we are now beginning to see the first signs of recovery. Inflation has been pushed back, and that is no coincidence. It is the result of a policy aimed at protecting Swedish households and which prioritizes stability, recovery, and confidence in the future.

It may not be as fast as we would wish, and not all households have yet had a chance to experience the improvement. But we are moving in the right direction. That is something we should take note of. We are still in a recession. But we are not rootless, because we have a clear guideline. The Government and Sverigedemokraterna have consistently had a clear focus: to strengthen households, support the recovery, and re-establish the work principle. It is no small ambition, and it is a necessary transition.

Madam Speaker! We are constantly reminded of the many factors of uncertainty surrounding us. We see the terrible full-scale war in Ukraine. We see the conflicts flaring up in the Middle East. We see an uncertain world trade where no one really knows how the relationship between the USA and the rest of the world will develop, not least when it comes to tariffs and trade barriers. This affects us, directly and indirectly.

Unfortunately, growth in Sweden and in the entire EU has been weak while the USA is moving forward strongly. One might wonder why. One of the reasons is the EU's increasingly complex and bureaucratic regulatory framework. Every business owner who has tried to navigate these masses of regulations knows this. The Mario Draghi report certainly became an interesting eye-opener for many within the EU who have not seen the consequences of the increasing bureaucratization. Finally, it seems the EU has realized this and acted.

The business community needs breathing room. One of the regulatory simplifications that the Committee on Taxation has dealt with is a simplification of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM. The result is that 90 percent of the companies that would otherwise have been affected by this administrative burden are spared, while at the same time 99 percent of the emissions are hit by the fees. For Sweden's part, it means that 4,300 of the approximately 4,700 that would have been covered by CBAM now escape CBAM and can instead concentrate on their core business.

We have also addressed simplifications linked to pillar 2 and the global minimum taxation. These are simplifications that slightly ease the administration and the costs for large Swedish companies.

This is a crucial step to avoid stifling growth in the EU at a time when we need it most.

But more must be done. It is not enough to correct old mistakes. We must also ensure that new rules do not create new obstacles. We expect the government to continue to stand its ground in Brussels and stand up for Swedish companies, Swedish households, and Swedish competitiveness.

At the same time, the government's economic policy has already yielded clear results. While others have talked about justice, we have delivered relief. I will mention some of them. We have lowered income taxes for everyone who works, with a focus on low- and middle-income earners. An average worker has received an additional approximately 2,600 kronor in tax cuts this year. These are funds that directly benefit households and that make a difference in everyday life.

We have also lowered the highest marginal tax from 55 to 52 percent. We are thus a good way toward the goal that is both reasonable and fair: that one should be able to keep at least half of every extra krona earned.

We have also ensured that the costs of living and residing outside the major cities do not spiral out of control. A common family refueling their diesel car pays more than 450 kronor less per refueling today than before the 2022 election. With lower diesel prices, we also facilitate the Swedish food supply and lower food prices. This also results in lower transport costs and strengthened competitiveness. Sweden is a large and sparsely populated country, which means that transport will always be a necessity for Swedish growth and competitiveness. This makes a real difference, and it is real politics.

At the same time, we have also increased the level of deductions for travel to and from work for those who have no public transport to rely on when they travel to work. The previous deduction of 18.50 kronor per kilometer had not been changed since 2007. Now we have increased the deduction to 25 kronor per kilometer. It may not finance the entire car cost, but it still gives more people the opportunity to have reasonable costs for their travel to and from work.

We have also lowered the tax on savings in investment savings accounts. It is now possible to save up to 150,000 kronor tax-free. This is a reform that not only benefits the already wealthy but also strengthens the economic security and resilience of ordinary people. In a time when many have learned how quickly the situation can change, the opportunity to set aside a sum is more important than ever.

The construction industry has also been hit hard by weak demand, and to support the construction industry in the current economic situation, the latest measure from the government has been to temporarily increase the possibility for rot deduction from 30 to 50 percent.

Madam Speaker! We have done a lot, but we are not satisfied. It is about seeing reality as it is and continuing to work tirelessly for a policy that puts the Swedish people's economy first – for the sake of households, for the sake of the business sector, and for the sake of all of Sweden.

Finally, I would like to thank Madam Speaker and the Speaker's Office for your eminent way of leading the debates in the chamber. I also want to thank the Committee on Taxation's office and staff for your untiring work with us members. I would especially like to thank the Committee on Taxation's head of office, who will soon be enjoying the happy days of retirement. I also want to thank the members of the Committee on Taxation for the past year and for the good atmosphere, even if we do not always agree. I hereby wish everyone a very happy summer.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We are approaching the end of the parliamentary year. There has been a rather animated debate earlier in the Committee on Finance, so I actually hadn't intended to take the floor. But when the Sweden Democrats' Eric Westroth now gave a speech that tried to give the impression that they stand on the side of ordinary people, I must nevertheless let the member explain himself a bit.

I assert that we represent different interests. I am a Social Democrat. I represent broad groups of wage earners. This is reflected in the pursued policy, both in fiscal policy and in tax policy. I further assert that the Sweden Democrats and Eric Westroth represent completely different interests and do not look to the interests of the Swedish people first and foremost.

The member of the Social Democrats said in the speaker's chair that the marginal tax needs to be lowered so that ordinary people can keep at least half of their salary after tax. Therefore, I wonder if the member of the Social Democrats knows how much one must earn to pay 50 percent in tax.

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, that one is allowed to keep at least half of every krona one earns is a reasonable level. One can think whatever one wants about paying higher taxes. The Social Democrats are constantly pushing for higher taxes. I wonder: Will the Social Democrats be satisfied with 100 percent tax and that everyone earns the same amount net?

I find it difficult to imagine that there will be good growth in Sweden if one does not ensure that hard work, risk-taking, and education pay off, so that people spend a long time in school and get jobs with high salaries. It is about justice. It must pay off to work, increase one's salary, educate oneself, and take risks.

The Social Democrats want a significantly higher tax level than the current government together with the Sweden Democrats. That is where the major dividing line lies between us in the Committee on Taxation.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe the member is satisfied that he had a pre-written speech in the event of a rebuttal, as the member has no idea what one needs to earn to pay 50 percent in tax.

The marginal tax is the tax on the last earned krona. But if one is to reach the point of paying 50 percent tax on one's total income, it is something else. An employee in Sweden who today has an annual income of half a million kronor pays approximately 22 percent in tax. But if one is to pay at least half in tax on their entire income, one must have a monthly income of 560,000 kronor. It is an annual income of 6.7 million kronor that is required for one to pay more than 50 percent in tax.

It is those people that the right and the government, the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates, represent. They are not ordinary wage earners. They are not broad groups of wage earners. They are not ordinary people. They are the ones you represent. It became black and white in this exchange of remarks. Thank you for that!

(Applause)

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Madam Speaker! I hear that Member Niklas Karlsson is engaging in a fair amount of number-tinkering. I believe I was clear in my speech that it is about the last earned krona. It is of that I think it is reasonable that one is allowed to keep half.

It is about the extra effort when you go to work and work a little extra, work overtime or perhaps take on an additional job. In that case, you should get to keep half of the extra money you earn. It is to motivate people to put in a little extra effort.

I realize, of course, that in order to pay 50 percent on one's entire income, a very high income level is required, just as Niklas Karlsson says. But it is precisely that last little krona that one, instead of being at home, exerts oneself to earn, and thereby contributes to society and growth, that I think one should be allowed to keep half of.

I understand that the Social Democrats will not be satisfied with people paying 100 percent in tax so that the Social Democrats can then make the distribution according to their own ideological purposes, but I thank you very much for the exchange of remarks. We will see each other next parliamentary year.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by moving to approve the Social Democrats' reservation.

In a few days, it is finally Midsummer. It is now that the days are at their brightest and the evenings at their most beautiful. Summer is dressed in its finest attire, and each one of us gets to enjoy the summer night. I myself have the opportunity to see the sun set over the Öresund and the moon stand guard over Ven. It is a time that, in its beauty, can in some ways also embody our social solidarity. You know that glue that holds the social contract together both in good times and in times of crisis.

When Sweden has been tested time and again, we have faced challenges that have strained both our endurance and our cohesion. It is in such times that it is decided what kind of society we want to be and whether we stand up for one another or leave each one to their own fate.

Madam Speaker! In Harry Martinson's novel Nässlorna blomma, we encounter a reality that today may feel foreign but which was once everyday life for many. In the story of the parish boy Martin Tomasson, we follow a child who is tossed between farms, without security and without a voice, in a society where poverty was a fate one could seldom escape. It is a depiction of a time when abandonment was systematic, not an exception. Children were auctioned off, and welfare was neither self-evident nor organized. But it is also a story of an irrepressible will to survive and of human strength to still seek the light in existence.

It was from that reality and the darkness that Martinson so poignantly depicted that a new vision for society emerged. It was indeed in this Sweden, a country characterized by inequality and social insecurity, that social democracy began its long journey of reform. Bit by bit, reform by reform, the society where Martin Tomasson was abandoned was transformed into a society where every child would have a right to security.

A folkhemstanke emerged, where society would no longer stand by and watch but become a guarantor of welfare and human dignity. Thus, Sweden was built strong. Thus, Sweden was built justly. It happened reform by reform with universal and equal suffrage, statutory vacation, child allowance, expansion of and right to childcare, universal preschool, universal health insurance, decent pensions, and much, much more.

Madam Speaker! This is the practical policy expression of a simple and common-good principle: Common affairs we finance jointly and take responsibility for together. It is this principle that constitutes the very core of our social contract and that which upholds the Swedish and Scandinavian welfare model. It is precisely this that I, as a Social Democrat, advocate for.

This model has never been about charity, but about freedom, about giving people the tools to free themselves from the shackles of economic subordination, and about ensuring that no one – regardless of background or exchange – should have to be left out of school, healthcare, or care. In a truly equal society, life's most important needs should not be determined by your wallet.

Welfare is also about something more, about us as a society sharing responsibility so that individual individuals do not have to bear the heaviest burden alone. By organizing our collective care, we prevent families from breaking down under the burden of caring for loved ones full-time because they cannot afford help. We create time. We create security. We create freedom.

Madam Speaker! This does not seem to apply to everyone in the new, beautiful and lovely Sweden. At the same time as we Social Democrats want to defend and deepen the Swedish welfare model, we see how another view of society is fighting against it. There, the common good is pushed aside, there, market logic is allowed to govern the welfare's resources, and there, those who already have the most get even more.

At the same time, unemployment in Sweden is at a record level. Sweden's economic growth is at the bottom of Europe. We are in the process of financing a gigantic upgrade of our defense, a necessity because Russia's war in Ukraine threatens peace in Europe. These are times that require responsibility, cohesion, and solidarity.

But what is the government doing? When food prices have increased by 30 percent and the proportion of poor people has doubled since 2021, the right chooses to worsen conditions for those who have it hardest in order to be able to finance tax cuts for those who have it best. We see a work principle without work. We see a housing policy without housing. We see a growth policy without growth. For every societal challenge and every societal problem, the government's recurring answer is another tax cut. This is a political choice. It is no coincidence.

In light of this, the right now worries, and not least Prime Minister Kristersson, about hearing an echo from the past. If the right now hears a Social Democrat who wants to continue this nation-building, the answer is yes. If the right now sees a Social Democrat who wants to make it better for ordinary people and broad groups of wage earners, the answer is yes. If the right now hears a Social Democrat who wants to strengthen the general welfare, raise the quality and increase accessibility, the answer is yes.

So these are the contrasts in Swedish politics. In light of this, one can also wonder why the demand for fair distribution has such a hard time gaining traction with Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by saying that when we now look back at the Sweden that Harry Martinson depicts in Nässlorna blomma, we do not only see a child's death. We see a society that has not taken responsibility for its weakest. But we also see why a change was necessary and what lay at its foundation. Politics is, in fact, to want. But it is also to choose.

We Social Democrats choose a Sweden where we stick together and where resources are redistributed to create security, create freedom and create faith in the future for everyone. It is that Sweden we believe in, and it is that Sweden we will continue to fight for.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! When I heard Member Karlsson begin, I thought my stepfather's cousin Ebbe Schön had appeared and was going to talk about Midsummer. But that is not what happened.

I had expected that Karlsson might perhaps bring up the tax issues. The member has been in politics for a long time. In 1991, the then Folkpartiet and the Socialdemokrater reached an agreement on the tax system. It was very good, because it was a holistic approach to tax policy.

The fundamental thing about it was that middle- or low-income earners should pay at most 30 percent in tax. Today, few do so because most municipal taxes are above 30 kronor. The idea was that high-income earners should pay a maximum of 50 percent in tax. They would have half left. Today we are not even there; at the top, we are at 52–53 percent.

My question to Member Karlsson is: Do you consider the principle that the Social Democrats and the then Folkpartiet had regarding 30 percent and 50 percent to be good principles that one could build a new tax system on?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It was a very modest and kind question but also in some way deeply serious intellectually speaking. It deserves to be discussed in the chamber of the Riksdag.

If the member had read the Social Democrats' committee motion, he would have seen that the answer is there. We write that the principles that governed and formed the basis for the tax reform that we implemented in the early 90s should be reinstated. The answer is therefore yes.

If the Liberals or the Liberal Party are interested in making an agreement and can convince their other colleagues in the government and the Sweden Democrats to sit down and find broad solutions, we will participate in the deliberations and take responsibility for a new agreement.

I believe that in that case it is important that we think about which principles we had and that they should also apply in a new agreement: uniformity and neutrality. With the exceptions that have emerged since the tax reform in the 90s, it is those with large wealth, assets, and capital who have received the large tax cuts. If one is to rectify this, one must also dare to tackle it.

The voter groups and the interests that the Liberal Party and Ekegren represent, you must dare to take a conflict with and say that the situation is not reasonable. If one has such large assets and such large fortunes, one must probably contribute a bit more. If we start there, the whole thing can become really good.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! What you are saying, Niklas Karlsson, does not correspond with reality. The problem is that the Social Democrats say as you do now, but in practical politics, they invent one tax after another. It is to be dog tax, readiness tax, and defense tax. It is masses of different taxes that make it so that one never reaches the fundamental goal. That is the problem.

Intellectually speaking, I believe you believe what you say. You were even in a debate yesterday, which some of us listened to, where you expressed yourself very wisely and reflectively. But the problem is that the Social Democrats in practical politics always do something else, because one has pressure from one's party congresses. That is when it becomes a problem.

(Applause)

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind everyone to address each other by name or as "the member", not with "you".

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! When we look at the three years that we have lived with Ekegren's government, we see that there have been even more departures from the principle we decided on in the 90s. That is what we Social Democrats have to hold ourselves to when we sit in opposition. Some parts we think are good, and other parts we think are less good. But we also say that we could restore parts of the principles of unity and neutrality through, for example, a bank tax.

The bank tax is not another concession. The bank tax can be used to achieve neutrality if one chooses to formulate the bank tax so that it is directed towards, for example, capital.

Our proposals do not necessarily have to be a departure from the principles of the 90s tax reform. They can even be a means of returning to them.

On the other hand, the discussions we are having now are discussions about individual taxes. That is a concern, because it is not in the exchanges of remarks or in the Riksdag's rostrum that we find broad agreements. They require time, they require patience, and they require that we sit down and reason in depth and lay all things on the table.

If it is to work, we must start by addressing capital taxation above all else. Ekegren, the Liberals, and the right-wing government must be able to stomach it. I think we start there.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Now is the most beautiful time of the year, and by that I do not primarily mean today's tax debate. Summer has begun, and the students have run out and sung about their happy day and the brightening future. We who sit here in the chamber have the responsibility to create the conditions for the youth's expectations of a bright future to be fulfilled.

The world situation is certainly not helpful at the moment; two full-scale wars are ongoing. This is, of course, primarily a humanitarian and human catastrophe for all the people affected in these countries. But it also affects the world economy and thus the economic policy we need to pursue here at home. On top of this, a tariff and trade war is ongoing that no one knows how it will end.

Those who have listened to the debate from the beginning have surely noted that different parties have different solutions. Some advocate for the benefit line, but we Moderates stand by the work line. That it should pay to work and to have worked is an important principle. Work is good for us humans. It gives us an income and security. Work is much more than money in the bank account every month. Work develops us and gives us colleagues and a context. It contributes significantly to our self-esteem.

Humanity's innate sense of the importance of work to survive has traditionally been very strong in Sweden, just as in our Nordic neighboring countries. This is likely an effect of it having been necessary to survive in this cold and inaccessible place. It is no coincidence that one of the first questions asked when meeting someone in Sweden is "What do you do for work?"

The welfare we have in Sweden has been built by people who go to work every day, work hard, solve complicated work tasks, and contribute to the common good by paying taxes. Miners, truck drivers, nurses, teachers, waiters, software developers, tradespeople – all, with highly varied tasks, contribute.

For the government, it is fundamental to restore the value of work. It is only when more people work that our economy grows and our prosperity increases. It also creates increased resources for schools, healthcare, care, the justice system, defense, and everything else important by increasing tax revenues.

That is why the government deliberately uses tax policy to increase the incentives for work and self-sufficiency. Sweden now has the lowest tax burden since 1975. Taxes have been lowered on several occasions, and an average family with a police officer and a nurse will keep 23,000 kronor more per year, if one counts the effects of both this year's and last year's budget bill.

The loosening of the tapering of the job tax credit has upset many on the left wing and been described as a gift to the rich – a description that is directly incorrect. It lacks any connection to reality, because it is not about some small exclusive group of rich people, but about civil engineers, nurses, and everyone else who has invested in education or works hard in other demanding professions. It is also an absurd way to express oneself. A lower tax is never a gift, but simply means that one takes less from those who have earned their money through hard work.

"A gift to the rich" is a description that is as baseless as it is incorrect.

Three years ago, the state Institute for Labour Market and Education Policy Evaluation conducted an evaluation of the effect of the tapering of the job tax credit. The evaluation showed that those affected by the tapering chose to work less, and as a result, the state lost tax revenue. The tapering of the job tax credit survived for eight years.

It is worth reflecting on how large tax revenues did not benefit the welfare state during this time, as well as reminding who introduced the tapering. It was the Social Democrats' then Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson who thought that those who earned more than 50,000 kronor a month should not be entitled to the tax reliefs that other earners were able to benefit from through the job tax credit. It is also worth remembering that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet wanted to set the limit even lower, to 40,000 and 30,000 kronor respectively.

That the left never learns from its mistakes! Judging by the fierce criticism, one can suspect that the tapering will be reintroduced if the parties on the left wing win the next election.

Madam Speaker! Companies have an important role for Sweden's prosperity. They create jobs, drive innovations and are an engine in the Swedish economy. Therefore, the government is working to make it easier and more profitable to run companies.

A referral to the Council on Legislation was recently presented with proposals that will simplify the tax rules for shareholders in small companies. It is a very welcome proposal which means that over 60,000 entrepreneurs will receive a tax reduction, but above all, that the regulatory burden is reduced by more than one-third.

In this context, I should perhaps remind that when Magdalena Andersson was Finance Minister, a proposal was presented in this area that would have increased the tax for the affected entrepreneurs without the regulatory burden being reduced in any significant extent. Better yet, this was stopped by a united opposition, and instead we now get a well-elaborated proposal that improves things for our entrepreneurs. Given that there are approximately 450,000 directly owned small businesses in Sweden, and that 60 percent of all limited companies in Sweden are small businesses, this is a long-awaited and significant reform for the business sector.

Madam Speaker! The temporary increase of the rotavdrag from 30 to 50 percent until the end of the year has been welcomed by the construction industry. The idea behind the increase is to save jobs in a tough time, which the low economic cycle undeniably entails. Hopefully, many private individuals will take the opportunity to carry out a renovation or extension, repair or repaint – yes, everything that they have postponed during the previous cost crisis with high inflation and high interest rates. That the Moderate-led government has dealt with inflation has been completely decisive in getting these works moving, but through the increase of the rotavdrag, this effect is further reinforced.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that the government's policy creates incentives to educate oneself and work hard and to invest in entrepreneurship and innovations, which provides good conditions for economic growth and increased prosperity. It is only in this way that we strengthen Sweden and make both Sweden and the Swedes wealthier.

Finally, I would like to wish the Presidium, the members of the tax committee's staff, and of course all members and colleagues in the tax committee a nice summer.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet and Moderaterna have different priorities in many areas of economic policy. But one aspect that Boriana Åberg emphasized in her speech is something we agree on, and that is that it is valuable for people to have the opportunity to work.

I was nevertheless surprised that we could listen to a speech that mainly dealt with the value of work without it ever being mentioned that we are now at an unemployment rate of 10 percent.

Unemployment is increasing at the same time as the government is making very large tax cuts, which obviously are not having the effect that the government itself should reasonably wish for. For example, 17.5 billion went straight to reduced taxes on fossil fuels – reduced tax on fossil in the middle of a climate crisis – while unemployment in Sweden is increasing. There is a long line of other measures that could have been taken to invest in more people getting into work. But the government chose not to prioritize that.

If we look at what has been promised for the future, we see that they are promising gigantic tax cuts for people who trade with various things in venture capital companies, i.e., million-dollar tax cuts to a few truly wealthy people. The government's priorities and Boriane's speech do not hang together.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I just want to say that I have an ear infection, so I am hearing a bit poorly. I hope that I have understood Annika Hirvonen's claims correctly.

I can say that I miss the old Miljöpartiet. When Miljöpartiet was formed, it was a liberal party. There was, of course, much harmony with nature, but also free schools and other things. Now we see that Miljöpartiet has moved in a rather strange direction. Nowadays it is a pure left-wing party, which tries to divide the cohesion that exists in the country by portraying civil engineers, nurses, and others as a very small clique of wealthy people.

Yes, we are concerned about the unemployment that exists. That is why funds are allocated for more training places. Jobs do exist; it is just that those who are unemployed do not match the needs that the employers have. This is largely due to Annika Hirvonen's party, which has always been in favor of a very large and unbridled migration, which has attracted people here who are illiterate in their own language, have difficulty learning Swedish, and are not at all attractive on the labor market. So, before Annika Hirvonen criticizes the government, perhaps she should take a look at her own contribution to today's situation.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Personally, I do not long for the time when we all perhaps dreamed that the friskola reform would contribute to more parent cooperatives in the countryside. We see the reality now: It is large listed companies that trade with the children's school and feast on tax money instead of ensuring that there are enough student assistants in the classrooms so that all children can learn to read, write, and count as they need to. I await the day when the Moderaterna join the majority of their own voters and the Swedish people, who realize that it is time to throw out these people who chase money instead of having a focus on education in the Swedish school system. But, Madam Speaker, perhaps it was Boriana Åberg's non-answer to my assertions and questions.

I tried to point out the contrast. It is said that one wants to invest in jobs and that it is important for people to get into work, but instead, several billion are spent on tax cuts on fossil fuels that could have been invested in getting more people into jobs. I find that interesting.

Boriana Åberg deliberately misunderstands and pretends to have heard that we claim there are very few civil engineers in Sweden. No, that was not what I said. I criticized that the government wants to make multi-billion tax cuts for a few individuals who work with trading venture capital. They want to change the so-called carried interest regulations so that some of the absolutely highest-paid will get even more.

Instead of deliberately misunderstanding and instead of blaming all problems on immigrants, I think the government should focus on combating unemployment and ensuring that ordinary people can afford the necessities.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Since I am an immigrant myself, I refrain from blaming all problems on immigrants.

I blame those who have lured immigrants here with unrealistic promises. I recently read that now that Northvolt is going bankrupt, there are 192 cleaners who have come here from Bangladesh and from Syria. They have brought their families here. They are here as labor migrants. Now they are unemployed, and they are probably deeply in debt to have been able to come to Sweden. Then I wonder what policy Annika Hirvonen has been involved in driving when those hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in Sweden did not wish to take these cleaning jobs, but it has been necessary to bring in people from third countries who now stand completely abandoned.

I wonder why Annika Hirvonen doesn't know why the restaurant industry and cleaning companies are screaming for people and why people are not interested in taking these jobs? I can say that the answer is that the benefits are often so much higher that it does not pay to take a job in the restaurant industry, in the cleaning industry, or in the taxi industry. It is something that Annika Hirvonen seems to think is good. One stands for a left-wing policy.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Summer has finally arrived, and soon it will be vacation time for many Swedes. Summer and holidays make one think of swimming, perhaps a trip abroad, a cottage holiday, Liseberg and lots of activities. Parents finally get time to be with their children. Or?

So it is not for everyone. Far too many in our Sweden cannot afford to do anything on vacation, and it is the families with children who have it the hardest.

The Salvation Army has just released a report on how families with children are faring over the summer. Half of all families with children are worried about food costs when the children cannot eat lunch at school. Every fifth child is at home all summer, and many single parents are worried that the children have too little to do. "I also want to swim and play. But mom says we can't afford bus tickets to the beach." So says eleven-year-old Nora in the survey.

The government is proud that it is lowering the tax for those who work, while letting those who are on sick leave or unemployed pay a higher tax. What is the result? Well, every third child of parents who are unemployed or on sick leave will be at home all summer without planned activities. Camps and colonies are out of the question.

This, however, does not concern our governing right-wing majority. As long as high-income earners get better finances, the government is satisfied – despite the fact that growing up without adult presence and meaningful activities increases the risks of children ending up in isolation or, in the worst case, being drawn into destructive environments and crime. But that, either, does not concern the government, because harsher punishments and prison abroad solve the problem. The children's perspective is conspicuous by its absence.

On July 1, the right-wing majority is removing the higher housing allowance that was introduced to help those who have it hardest. The probability that families with children will be able to treat themselves to that little extra in the summer becomes even smaller in one fell swoop. Rents are rising, but the housing allowance has not been increased. No increases are announced in the spring budget either. Food prices are skyrocketing, but the child allowance remains still. No increases are announced for the child allowance in 2026 either.

In February this year, 29 percent of all single parents with low income reported that they had difficulty eating enough to feel full. At the same time last year, it was 20 percent. Half of all single parents with low income have, at one or more occasions, not been able to afford to buy nutritious food for themselves and their children.

While the single mother who has two low-wage jobs to support herself and her children cannot even afford a bus ticket to the beach, the Prime Minister receives a modest salary increase of 6,000 kronor per month. The single mother and others with housing allowance will be deprived of the additional amount, as the government sees an economic brightening.

Yes, it is an economic brightening for the government, where everyone has received pay raises. For the children growing up in families where the money does not suffice for nutritious food even when school is open, there is no economic brightening. On the contrary, more have fallen into material and social poverty under this government. At the same time, the ministers and other high-income earners receive both a pay raise and a tax cut.

Thanks to the income increase in the form of reduced tax, households have the opportunity to increase their consumption and at the same time continue to have high savings, the government notes in the spring budget. It is not the single parent that the government means then. They are completely forgotten in the spring budget.

The government had the chance to both increase and extend the supplementary amount and thereby be able to give families with children a better life, but they chose not to. The government could have increased the child allowance but chose not to do that either. The government could have made things easier for families with children but chose not to.

Vänsterpartiet proposes both an extension of the supplementary amount and extra payments of the housing allowance in June and July. Additionally, we propose two extra child allowances in June and July as well as a holiday allowance for all children in primary school. For us, it is important that children are able to eat until they are full even when the school canteen is closed and that as many as possible should be able to afford a nutritious holiday week.

Mr. Speaker! Since the government took office after the 2022 election, it has pursued the line that the best it can do to combat inflation and ease the burden of the cost crisis for households is: nothing – except when it comes to high-income earners. It has been stated that it is precisely they who need to be compensated. Taxes have been lowered for those who earn the most, while low-income earners have not even received a tax cut that compensates for the cost increases.

At the same time as the government and the Sweden Democrats are lowering taxes, they are also planning to borrow to expand the defense. the Left Party proposes a defense tax on capital and on the highest incomes to finance the increased ongoing costs. Only the government's tax cuts this year correspond to 33 billion kronor.

If Sweden borrows for defense, the tax cuts cannot continue, and the richest must be part of the payment. A loan financing should cover important investments in total defense, such as railways and the electricity grid.

Last year, the big banks made a combined profit of 126 billion. A bank tax on the banks' excess profits would mean a significant improvement of the state finances, but the most important thing is still to press down the banks' profits so that ordinary people get better interest rates.

The government has no proposals that make it cheaper to be Swedish – only a belief that the economy will improve. Admittedly, there are no concrete proposals for lowering income taxes in the spring budget, but the direction means that one cannot rule out that the government plans to lower high-income earners' taxes even further – while simultaneously borrowing. It is a policy that is not sustainable.

In the spring budget, the government announces a number of smaller tax cuts of a specific tax character. I will return to these in the autumn budget, when the proposals have been investigated.

Tax should be paid according to ability to pay, and welfare should be provided according to need. Sweden needs a new tax policy that prioritizes redistribution, climate, and welfare – a tax policy that lowers interest rates and electricity prices instead of favoring high-income earners and climate-damaging emissions.

Mr. Speaker! July 1 is an important date. On that day, our ministers receive a substantial salary increase, while low-income earners lose the supplementary amount in the housing allowance and the sick have to pay more for their medicine. It is a date that clearly shows which side this government stands on.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Speaker, the Riksdag Chancellery, and my colleagues in the committee and the committee secretariat a happy Midsummer. I also wish all families with children a happy summer by moving to approve the Left Party's reservation 2.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We began this parliamentary term in a situation characterized by a pandemic, increasing violence, and high inflation. Step by step, the government has regained control over the economy, and the will for reform continues.

Tax revenues are the foundation of our common welfare. This presupposes that people work. It is not high tax rates that strengthen welfare, but more people working. Therefore, the Christian Democrats pursue a policy where work must always pay off. This means lower taxes on work, especially for low-income earners and for older people who choose to continue working. A clear work incentive is crucial both for the individual and for the economy.

Mr. Speaker! We meet the recession with structural reforms – not with short-term subsidies. The work line must be re-established, and a subsidy reform is necessary so that more people can enter employment. It needs to pay off better to move from subsidies to jobs. We are building an economy that promotes work – for responsibility, diligence, and cohesion.

At the same time, we are strengthening the business climate. Sweden has over 1 million companies, of which 99 percent are small businesses. Four out of five jobs are created there. It is therefore crucial to reduce red tape, lower costs, and give room for companies to grow. We are doing that now through the so-called growth support. We are expanding it from one to two employees and also raising the ceiling in the wage level.

Through the Christian Democrats' work, a simplification council and an implementation council have been appointed. The rules shall become fewer and simpler, and it shall become easier to run businesses in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We say no to high capital taxes that risk driving away investments. Instead, we prioritize reforms that attract capital, promote entrepreneurship, and strengthen Swedish competitiveness both nationally and internationally. That the first 150,000 kronor in an ISK are tax-free is therefore very good. It will stimulate and facilitate saving in funds and shares. Thus, people's security and freedom will increase.

Mr. Speaker! Politics must also meet our greatest societal challenges. It is about combating organized crime, increasing the number of qualified teachers, shortening healthcare queues, improving mental health, strengthening the energy supply, and reinforcing the total defense. All of this requires a sound fiscal policy, and that is the line this government stands for.

We have seen that income tax cuts lead to more people in work. It strengthens the tax base and thus also the welfare. This is visible in the development of the tax capacity per inhabitant. We will continue to push for further cuts, not least for those who have the very lowest wages.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats believe in Sweden as our common home. Here, everyone gets a chance to work, start businesses, educate themselves, and contribute. It is a Sweden where we take responsibility for the whole and build a society that holds together. A responsible economic policy is the foundation for this to be possible.

I vote in favor of the Finance Committee's proposal and wish everyone a good summer.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we receive reports that Swedish climate emissions are increasing more than in 15 years. At the same time, the Swedish economy is performing very poorly.

From Sweden having held the lead in the international climate negotiations and shown how one can combine a flourishing economy and competitive companies with an offensive climate policy where emissions are going down, and from us being on track to reach the climate goals that Sweden has signed on to through the Paris Agreement, we have now moved to the back seat – into the corner. Our emissions are increasing while the economy is doing very poorly. We thus have a record number of bankruptcies in Sweden, and unemployment stands at 10 percent.

The government's policy is about making it cheaper to emit fossil fuels with surgical precision while failing to address the increasing unemployment. They are indeed lowering taxes for those who have the most, but in a time of crisis – when it is a crisis both for the climate and for households, where low-income earners cannot afford to put food on the table every day of the month – and in a global situation like this, a different policy was needed.

The Christian Democrats need to take responsibility for the historical task facing our generation, namely the climate.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Annika Hirvonen!

Climate is an important issue, but it is also the case that we must have people with us. Who is it that we exist for? What do we gain in the long run if people do not feel that they can live in the society that we create? We need a popular anchoring.

That is why the Christian Democrats support a climate policy that reduces emissions while simultaneously taking into account people's everyday lives, especially in rural areas and among low-income earners. The government has chosen not to stand idly by but to do things over and do them right. We have, for example, significantly lowered the reduction obligation, not to slow down the climate transition but to create a reasonable balance. The alternative advocated by the Green Party would have hit hard against families with children, retirees, and entrepreneurs in the countryside – those who have no alternative to the car.

We are simultaneously investing in climate-friendly infrastructure. Earlier in the debate, it was mentioned that never before have so many investments been made in the railway as this summer. One must live with the fact that there will be more delays in traffic this summer because maintenance work is ongoing. It is something we are proud of and that we do as an investment for the future. The Christian Democrats, with their Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson, have been proactive regarding this.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As a leader of a country, one cannot capitulate and say that there is no support for meeting the climate goals. As a leader, one must work to create popular support. As a leader, one must show which direction one is heading and strive to get people on board, not bury one's head in the sand and pretend that we do not need to take action. We must, in fact, transition.

There are alternatives. If one wants to support families with children, one can increase the child allowance, as Miljöpartiet proposes, instead of lowering the price of specifically fossil fuels. One can increase the housing supplement instead of removing it, as Kristdemokraterna is now doing. If one wants to support people in rural areas, one can invest in lower taxes for those who live in rural areas. If one wants to support pensioners with low incomes, one can invest more money in those groups.

The billions that the government has invested in cheaper fossil fuels could have been distributed to people in many other ways. One could have even lowered the taxes for those with the lowest incomes by as much as one instead chose to spend on lowered prices for just that fossil fuel. It is here that the government misses the chance to transition – to make the climate transition now – and simultaneously support households in a cost crisis. It is possible to choose, but instead, one has started a culture war against climate policy.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

The greatest challenge of climate policy is not the lack of goals but the lack of anchoring. The Christian Democrats will not deliberately contribute to a climate policy that creates divides, which affects people in the countryside and which eliminates Swedish jobs. We want a transition where everyone can participate.

We see that the lowered reduction obligation and lowered fuel prices have actually lowered the price at the pump by 500 kronor at each refueling. It is not the same thing as an increase in the child allowance by 250 kronor or what the increase is at now; it is slightly different in the opposition's various budgets. That increase would not have done much good for the person who also has to refuel their car several times a month to get to work, to the children's training, or to grandma's house to visit.

Inflation is also something that we have truly fought, and it has caused the price of both food and other things to go down for ordinary people. But fuel prices also drive inflation for food prices, because everything must be transported. Therefore, the reduction obligation and fuel prices are so incredibly important for ordinary people's economy. And that is exactly what leadership is: to hold together both the climate goals and the sense of community.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Soon "Den blomstertid nu kommer" will also sound in the Riksdag.

When the members of the Riksdag's equivalent of the countryside's cattle release can be witnessed in the chamber in an hour, the future is perhaps more uncertain than it has been in a long time. Our lives, our livelihoods, and our way of stepping out into this flowering time are contrasted against rocket launches, mining, destroyed homes, and extinguished lives. The world is in pieces on fire, and we are affected on many levels. Our economy is also not unaffected. Our priorities are affected to the highest degree by how the world moves.

Today, the House will decide on the Finance Committee's report Guidelines for the economic policy and the budget policy. We in the Center Party agree with the goals expressed but reserve ourselves against several of the measures and steps that are proposed.

Centerpartiet wants to see clearer priorities for jobs and entrepreneurship, for the countryside, and for the climate. Now is the time to build strength in our country. Now is the time to build from the bottom up and to take responsibility for our cohesion and our place in the world. Centerpartiet believes that sharper priorities are required, especially when it comes to tax policy, green transition, the countryside, and justice.

Mr. Speaker! The Committee on Finance notes that Sweden is in a prolonged recession. Uncertainties in trade and GDP are combined with continued high unemployment. Unemployment, in particular, may be the most important issue to address. Unemployment in Sweden is one of the highest in Europe, and the government stands without answers.

Centerpartiet wants to see a reform pace. It must become easier to hire, and we must have a much better matching on the labor market between the unemployed and the competence required for the jobs. The measures for transition and education should be strengthened, among other things by doubling the national vocational trainings, increasing the possibility for further education and to move where the jobs are, increasing the places at the university college and vocational adult education, and introducing internship and education as an integration measure.

Mr. Speaker! On some points, we welcome the government's tax policy. It is good with generally lowered taxes on labor and an increased job deduction; it creates incentives. But unfortunately, the toolbox echoes all too empty. We want to see more measures, and tailored measures, to build Sweden stronger from the bottom up.

Firstly, we want to see tax cuts aimed at those who have the worst margins, several times larger than what the government proposed in the spring budget motion and aimed at entry-level jobs. For low-wage earners, the difference between work and benefits is often too small to make a decisive difference. We therefore propose larger deductions and clearer ladders, so that it always pays to work. If unemployment is to be tackled, the economic thresholds from both the individuals' and the companies' sides need to be lowered. This is absolutely central.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we want to see a tax shift that both strengthens Sweden's climate work and acts as growth-promoting. We want to see a systematic green tax shift. Make it more expensive with fossil oil that comes from Russia or Iran, and simultaneously lower the tax on work and entrepreneurship!

It is about our security, our self-sufficiency, our environment and our growth. It is possible to have a tax policy that is win-win-win-win. Let us, while we are on the subject, talk about win-power!

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we want to strengthen Sweden's regions so that tax revenues from local energy production, for example from wind power, stay where they are created. Today, the greatest injustice in Sweden is not that between suburb and city center but that between countryside and city. It is noticeable, not least in resources and results in school.

If we do not have a tax policy that allows all of Sweden to grow, we will polarize our society even more. We will then see much weaker cohesion and poorer economic development. Furthermore, in Sweden, we only manage to produce half of the food that we consume, unlike our Nordic neighbors. This is not only bad for the countryside but also for the total defense capability in the entire country and for the food prices in the grocery stores.

Mr. Speaker! If we want to achieve results on the goals within the economic policy that the government sets out – lower unemployment, support for households and strategic investments – we must use the tools as wisely as possible within the budget framework. This means that we need to prioritize investments that have a high multiplier effect. We must prioritize jobs, climate, education and a Sweden that grows in the whole country.

Our recipe is not complicated, but it reconciles both the government's, the Sweden Democrats', and the Social Democrats' views on the strong state vis-à-vis the individual person. We do not want planned economy in the energy system. We do not want to nationalize healthcare or school. Instead, we build society from the bottom up. The Center Party's policy is based on a strong belief in the human being and thus on the power of decentralization to build us strong.

We in the Center Party say: Strengthen small and medium-sized enterprises with tax reliefs and bureaucratic simplifications! Exercise a tax policy that strengthens from below, so that it always pays to work and so that the value of the countryside's resources stays there to a greater extent!

Mr. Speaker! Finally, now that it is summer time and the flowering season is approaching, I would like to send a summer greeting to the Speaker's Presidium, my colleagues in the Riksdag, and the staff: With gentle and lively warmth to all that has been dead, put away your screens and have it so good now!

(Applause)

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Mr. Speaker! Without a doubt, the Centre Party is the most exciting party right now. It feels roughly like watching my favorite program På spåret. One can ask the question: Where are you headed?

Looking at the various supplementary motions that have been submitted, one notices that you from the Center Party want to implement several expenditure increases, but as Minister Wykman noted, you are quite eager to lower taxes. You have three friends in the opposition who absolutely do not want to lower any taxes, but rather want to raise taxes very significantly. On one side, there are therefore three parties that want to raise taxes significantly. On the other side is the Center Party, which wants to lower taxes. The strange thing is that you in the Center Party, in many economic issues, stand to the right of the Moderates and the Liberals – you are almost true market liberals.

Let us look forward toward the election. A red-green government is presumably your main alternative. If a red-green government is formed, which taxes are you prepared to implement in order to be part of such a government?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Where are we headed? Where is the Swedish Riksdag's most interesting party headed? I understand that many wonder about that. It is very interesting how this has transformed in recent years. The Center Party has gone from being a party in the narrow middle to being a party that is courted from all sides. It is possibly a bit more pleasant to be a member of the Center Party right now than it was a couple of years ago.

The beauty of the crow's song is that Centerpartiet has only one prime ministerial candidate. Her name is Anna-Karin Hatt.

We are now in a period where we are developing our policy for jobs, business, the climate, and the countryside. We will seek as much support as possible from the broad groups of voters. When we find out the election result, we will know which parties will be interesting for us to cooperate with and which parties will think we are interesting to cooperate with.

The Center Party is indeed a centrist party. Sometimes one could say that we lean to the right in economic policy, as the member mentioned, and to the left in social policy. Perhaps it is even the case that the classic right-left scale captures the Center Party's soul in a rather poor way, because the Center Party has voters and sympathizers who are located in many different places on this scale. Perhaps one should start from what I mentioned last in my speech – the belief in the power of decentralization and the belief in the human being, which is our identity – rather than from a right-left scale that is strictly directed towards one side or the other.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! That was a very funny contribution from Ådahl in Lerum, but I did not receive an answer to a single question.

Annie Lööf also thought she would become Prime Minister and lead the broad center, but that didn't really go so well. Anna-Karin Hatt can be lively and fun, a bit carefree even, and certainly a good person. But she will never become Prime Minister. There are only two Prime Minister candidates. That's how honest we can still be.

My question remains because I did not receive an answer to it: Which taxes are you prepared to raise in order to be part of a red-green government? That question must be asked, and it must also have an answer.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I may not be surprised, but it is still somewhat surprising to debate prime ministerial candidates with another party that, after all, does not have such great self-confidence that one wants to push forward their own party leader for that post. I think that is all parties' ultimate goal: to get the post of Prime Minister.

So that is it for the Center Party. That is our goal. Whether it is realistic now is a completely different question.

Ekegren also mentions that there are actually only two prime ministerial candidates. Has Ekegren considered how his friends in the Sverigedemokraterna reason? Could it be that the Sverigedemokraterna would gladly see Jimmie Åkesson as prime minister? In that case, we have three prime ministerial candidates. Or could it be that there are eight prime ministerial candidates here in the chamber?

For our part, and with the self-confidence that I believe one should have within a party, we want to develop our policy and attract as much support as possible for it. I will not be able here, Madam Speaker, to answer questions or negotiate on individual taxes, individual tax rates, and other individual matters in politics. That is something that must crystallize after the voters have spoken.

We are very clear about what we want with our policy. We have said that our focus will be on job-strengthening measures, on reducing unemployment, on strengthening small business ownership, and on having a climate policy that allows us to both reduce emissions and increase growth. We also, of course, want to reduce the largest gap we have in Sweden: the one between the countryside and the city.

Yes, Mr. Ekegren, I am confident in our direction.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! Today, we in the Committee on Taxation will also debate the Committee on Finance's report on guidelines for economic policy. It is perhaps not so strange; fiscal policy and tax policy are intimately connected with one another, and without taxes, there would not be much money to finance our common commitments. In my speech, I will focus heavily on the tax issues.

Ahead of the 2026 budget bill, the government has referred many tax proposals, a total of twelve, in order to be able to make a collective assessment of tax proposals with budgetary effects. These include, among others, a reduced energy tax on electricity, tax relief for travel by public transport, and tax-free charging of electric vehicles at the workplace.

Madam Speaker! After a review of the opposition's follow-up motions, I can summarize the four proposals with increased expenditures for the state and several increased taxes, even though they vary in different directions.

The Social Democrats will raise taxes, but it is unclear in what way and by how much. But based on what the Social Democrats propose in the follow-up motion and what decisions have been taken at the Social Democrats' congress, we can expect large tax increases. They speak of high-income earners, but in practice, that usually means that everyone who pays tax will get a tax increase.

Centerpartiet differs from the other parties with large cost increases but no proposals for large tax increases as far as I can see. Minister Wykman stated that Centerpartiet rather wants to lower taxes. It is therefore very difficult for an outsider to see how the four opposition parties can agree on a common tax policy.

From an international perspective, we have a robust tax system. Yesterday, many of us were at a seminar based on the book *Experternas guide till skattegalaxen*. Twelve voices on the need for a tax reform. The authors addressed, among other things, many of the issues that we have debated in the chamber earlier this spring, for example, different VAT rates and many excise taxes that are not so easy to understand and apply in practice. We have four VAT levels: 25, 12, and 6 percent, and the VAT exemption. Sweden also has, from one perspective, high taxes on labor.

The authors of the book state that the tax reform pushed through by the then Folkpartiet – current Liberalerna – and the Socialdemokratern in 1991 lasted for a year. Since then, it has been scribbled away. The idea was 30 percent tax for low- and middle-income earners and 50 percent for high-income earners. One was supposed to keep half. Today, none of that message is actually reached. We have higher taxes. Many isolated decisions have been made, and no one has taken a stand on the whole.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals' view is that we must take a holistic approach to taxes and create a robust system where we have taken a stand on the whole, a tax system where at least the principles should be able to function across party lines – even though I believe it will be difficult to reach an agreement on the levels. If the political parties agree on the basic principles, it would create predictability for companies and private individuals. It is time to begin this work with a tax reform not too far into the future.

Madam Speaker! We are now undergoing major changes that can affect our tax system. Digitalization is proceeding at a rapid pace. An international company can be active in a country without being physically present. How should these companies be taxed?

It is easy today to have staff in another country perform work for Swedish companies. How will this affect how we tax professionals in Sweden?

AI development will most likely reduce the need for personnel in many occupations. We do not know today which jobs will disappear, which will increase, or which new jobs will be created. How will this affect the taxes on labor?

How should the taxation of companies be carried out in a world where many companies operate in many countries?

There are, therefore, many issues to highlight and investigate in order to create a better tax system.

With this, I wish to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report. I also, of course, wish to convey a wish for a happy Midsummer to the Speaker's Bureau and the, in my opinion, very pleasant staff who work with the Committee on Taxation.

I would also like to extend a big thank you to my colleagues in the Committee on Taxation. I can gladly admit that when I was to become a Member of Parliament, the Committee on Taxation was not my first priority. But if I were to receive a request to change committees, I would not want to do so. It is very pleasant and rewarding, and we work with very important issues in the Committee on Taxation. A happy Midsummer to you!

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If we stay on track, so to speak, I would like to ask the same question to Anders Ekegren that he himself just asked of the Center Party. Where are you headed?

The Liberals have now been responsible for Sweden's climate policy for three years. We are heading towards increased emissions. In 2024, emissions increased more than they have in 15 years. We are also heading towards increased unemployment. The economy is stalling. The number of bankruptcies is at a record high.

The Liberals are spending a lot of time and effort these days reflecting on their own future and which parties the Liberals can join a government with. I am concerned that focus is not being placed on reaching Sweden's climate goals.

All the billions that have been spent on increasing emissions could instead have been used to support vulnerable households. It is about families with children, pensioners, people who are too ill to work, people in rural areas and farmers whom we need to strengthen in order to strengthen Sweden's self-sufficiency of food.

Instead, the Liberals are now waging a kind of culture war against climate policy. At the same time, the poorest families with children cannot afford to put food on the table every day of the month, also for the adults in the family.

My question is: Where are you headed? Shall we continue in the Liberals' direction?

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is very pleasant that I, as an old Gothenburger, can spread Gothenburg humor and that På spåret will be given such a large place in our debates in the chamber. It is a good start.

The members of the committee ask questions about many different areas. We can start with the climate. I believe you made quite a few mistakes when we ended up with prices of 30 kronor for diesel and gasoline.

I do not only stay in the Stockholm area but also stay quite a lot in western Sweden. The policy you implemented fits for Södermalm, but it does not fit for people who live in rural areas or where there is no developed public transport. If I were a member of the Green Party, I probably would not show myself in certain areas. There was simply no popular anchoring. That was the big problem.

I am a bit surprised when the member says: Why aren't a lot of different compensatory measures being implemented? Miljöpartiet sat in the government until it became too difficult and you jumped out. You in Miljöpartiet would have had the opportunity to implement all those different things that you think we should implement.

I will without doubt say that unemployment is a major problem. We have a recession that is becoming entrenched. Just as Minister Wykman said, the government has implemented several different measures to address it.

I would like to say that the big problem is the concern over interest rates and all of Trump's antics. It leads to people not daring to invest.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet would have implemented a different policy to support households when oil prices skyrocketed following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Miljöpartiet had ensured to help households in rural areas transition away from fossil fuel dependency through investments in, for example, electric cars and leasing checks also for households with lower incomes.

The faster we ensure that people throughout Sweden get rid of their dependence on fossil fuels, the better they will cope the next time there is a global situation where oil prices skyrocket.

We must remember that it is not only Putin who sits and makes money from our dependence on fossil fuels. The leaders in Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia do as well. They are not such cozy guys, to summarize.

It is important for households in Sweden, but also for global security, that we become independent of fossil fuels. It is strategically important.

Sweden can be at the forefront. Sweden can once again show that we can take the lead in the climate transition. We can show that it is possible to combine economic development and competitive companies with a green transition. Then we can truly reap the greatest rewards for our own country and also for the world.

We face enormous challenges as the climate becomes warmer. It has consequences far beyond the crises we see today.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would actually like to ask you a question, but I will have to do that in another debate. You have no possibility of answering the question.

We can obviously be in complete agreement that very many of the people you mentioned are deeply unsympathetic. You could have added a person who causes huge concerns.

It is a bit wrong to say that no climate work is being carried out. We humans perform climate work every day. Changes are occurring.

It is still the case that citizens are buying electric cars or plug-in hybrids. A lot of different changes occur when people install heat pumps. I am myself such a person.

Of course, a lot of energy efficiencies are occurring out in the companies. It is not that no work is being done, but a number of different things are happening.

Now I have received some speaking time. I want to emphasize that it is very difficult to do anything about the situation. The government has, in fact, succeeded in lowering inflation, which is to the great advantage of very many.

What is really the problem, and one notices this when speaking with both private individuals and companies, is the concern about the interest rates. Now they went down today, which perhaps creates some positive impulses. The big problem is the uncertainty. What will Trump do?

Now we do not only have a war between Israel and Palestine. Now we also have a war between Israel and Iran. How it will end, none of us know.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since we have a bit of a friendly week this week in the Speaker's Bureau, I will not point out how many times the word "you" was used.)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall decide on the guidelines for the economic policy and the budget policy for next year. We in Miljöpartiet have presented an offensive policy that unites the climate transition with a fair economic policy, where those who have it the toughest actually get what is needed for the economy to balance.

Many have had it tough in recent years. A report from among others Majblomman shows that single parents, despite working, have not always been able to afford to put food on the table for themselves. They have prioritized the children. At the same time, reports are coming in showing that we have a record number of bankruptcies and an unemployment rate that is rising. Now it is up to 10 percent. The economic development is not particularly bright, and climate emissions are increasing more than they have during a 15-year period.

For three years now, we have seen how the Tidö parties have governed Sweden in exactly this direction. I find it hard to believe that many are satisfied. We also see that the opinion polls are really bad for the government base. I believe that most feel that this did not get better. It did not get better for me, it did not get better for society's most vulnerable, and it did not get better for the Swedish economy. Above all, I believe that many of us are disappointed that Sweden has taken off the leader's jersey in the global climate work. Sweden's voice for peace and for the world's most vulnerable has also become increasingly weaker.

The tax policy, which we work on in the Committee on Taxation, covers a great deal. It is about how we should tax fairly between those who work, those who have retired, and those who, due to a disability, will never again be able to support themselves through work. It is about an egalitarian policy that reduces the gaps between those who own the most and those who earn the least. It is about making it worthwhile to work. It is about a tax policy that reduces emissions instead of making it much cheaper to emit.

I am astonished when I observe the Tidö parties' policy. In the climate area, it appears that one is against exactly everything that has contributed to reducing emissions, at least if we look at the tax side.

When one wants to support households, there are many ways. One can increase the child benefit or the support for them in the countryside. Some might prefer to lower the tax for those with low incomes. But the government's policy has been to lower the tax for those who own the most and earn the most and the tax on emissions from fossil fuels. It is a policy that increases emissions and the economic gaps.

The government recently referred a very remarkable tax cut proposal for a small group of people who trade in venture capital. A few individuals would receive millions if this tax policy were to pass, while we will soon see how the most vulnerable families with children become even poorer when the supplement to the housing allowance is removed.

Mr. Speaker, the rents have not become cheaper. Food is still very expensive. Everyone who can rejoice at the interest rate cut today because they own their home gets a relief right now, but for those who rent, there will now be less left in the wallet.

Summer vacation is just around the corner, and for many children, it is the best time of the year. When I visited a school in Alvesta, I met a principal who told me about the student council at her school, where over 60 percent of the children live in economic hardship – child poverty. The student council had been asked to wish for what they wanted extra investment in, and they said: Could we perhaps also get lunch at the school graduation so that we don't have to be hungry on that specific day? The principal ensured that there was hot dog with bread twice a year, at the school graduations.

There are many families with children out there who do not get fed when the school lunch disappears during the summer holidays – and this in one of the world's most fantastic countries and one of the world's richest countries. It is a country where the government has had the means to lower the tax for those who have the highest incomes and a country where the tax on climate emissions has been lowered.

Tax policy is ultimately about what we choose from all that we want and all that we would wish for. Economics is the study of managing limited resources. We from the Miljöpartiets side understand that one may want lower taxes even when one has quite high incomes. But now we need to prioritize the families with children where the children wish that the principal could serve lunch at the school graduation so that they can avoid going hungry.

When we unite a tax policy for equality with a climate policy where we also invest in the households that need support to transition away from the dependence on fossil fuels, we can also ensure that Sweden takes back a leading position in the climate transition. We can invest in making it affordable for people to lease an electric car, even in rural areas. We can ensure that we make public transport cheaper with a Sverigekort.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of the Green Party's reservation.

I also want to wish us all a happy summer. We must remember what a fantastic privilege it is for many of us who can afford it, which many families with children in Sweden lack this summer.

(Applause)

In this speech, Emma Berginger, Camilla Hansén, Katarina Luhr, Jan Riise, Jacob Risberg, Nils Seye Larsen, Malte Tängmark Roos and Ulrika Westerlund (all MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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