Guidelines for the economic policy and the budget policy and the Spring Budget Revision for 2026

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I will make it simple and move for approval of both of the two fantastic reports that we are going to debate today.

I would like to start by saying a few words to my colleague Cecilia Rönn, who has announced that she will not stand for re-election to the Riksdag. During this parliamentary term, we have sat in the Committee on Finance together. We have also managed to get stuck in an elevator together and sat there for an hour. However, I will above all remember your efforts in the Committee on Finance and in our Tidö cooperation, Cecilia, and all that you have been involved in and contributed to that has made the country better. Many thanks for that! I will miss you.

Madam Speaker! Summer is here with school graduations and hopefulness. However, not everything is good. Many have had it tough over the last few years with high inflation, high mortgage interest rates, and food that became more expensive. But more and more people actually see a brighter future now. That is heartening. One also sees a brighter outlook on one's own private finances.

Swedish growth is now picking up pace again, Madam Speaker, despite the anxiety we see in the world around us. The strength of the Swedish public finances and a very low public debt also mean that we can, to a large extent, protect Swedish households from that which other countries today find difficult to protect their populations from.

The spring budget amendment that will be decided upon later today must, of course, be seen as a whole. We have already made a considerable number of investments in the budget that we submitted for this year. We have lowered the tax on wages, pensions, and savings. We have lowered the tax on gasoline, on diesel, and on electricity. And we have lowered the food VAT, which came into effect on April 1 and appears to be working very well. It is putting pressure on food prices and ensuring that more and more people can afford food.

In the spring budget amendment that we are going to debate today, there is a reinforcement of an electricity subsidy. We continue to lower the price of gasoline and diesel. It is well-timed given what is happening in the Middle East. We also reinforce the electric car premium. We also invest in summer jobs and many other things in the budget for which a decision is to be made today.

Already next week, however, the next extra budget amendment will be presented in light of the unrest occurring in the world. There, we continue this work. We are lowering the price of gasoline and diesel by an additional 3 kronor per liter at the pump. We are making a major public transport investment during the year; those who use public transport will receive halved prices for monthly passes on public transport all over Sweden. We support Swedish agriculture, which is facing much higher costs as a result of the war in the Middle East. We are also implementing targeted support for Swedish aviation.

All that we do and have done does not, however, mean that many people have not had it tough. Many also continue to have it tough. The high inflation, which we inherited from the previous government, has of course affected Swedish households. War and unrest in the rest of the world also affect a small export-dependent country like Sweden.

It will not get any better, Madam Speaker, with a tax shock for hard-working people. Companies will not hire more if it becomes more expensive to hire. And at least ten kronor more per liter of petrol and diesel will not make things easier for those who need to commute to and from work or make ends meet. I also believe that mortgage tax and property tax will be longed for when one has already had it very tough.

Madam Speaker! In the international economic press, Sweden is increasingly highlighted as a positive example in these turbulent times. The German Finance Committee visited us in the Swedish Finance Committee just last week. They praised the Swedish growth and the low national debt.

Sweden is also highlighted in the international press. We are one of the nine countries in the world that has the highest credit ratings. When other countries' national debts are now skyrocketing, we can state that the Swedish national debt is therefore lower now than when the Social Democrats pushed through their last state budget. The Left parties' blackening of Sweden sometimes makes one believe that one is living in a parallel universe. It does not mean that people are not having a tough time, but the description that is being made is very far from the reality that many see.

What has happened over the last four years with Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister and Elisabeth Svantesson as Finance Minister? Swedish growth is picking up again. The national debt is, as mentioned, lower than when the Social Democrats pushed through their last state budget. Inflation is one of the lowest in the European Union. I believe it was the second lowest at the latest measurement.

It results in low mortgage rates in Sweden. If we just look at Norway, where the Social Democrats are in power, we see that the mortgage rates there are twice as high as in Sweden. Despite that, we see that the left-wing parties both want a mortgage tax and are talking about property tax again.

Unemployment is lower today than four years ago, according to the Public Employment Service. Despite a global recession, unemployment is lower. Statistics Sweden shows that 110,000 more people are employed today compared to four years ago. We have more taxpayers, and we have higher tax revenues.

Youth unemployment is, if we measure it in the same way as is done in the rest of the European Union, the second lowest in the EU. Despite that, we are of course not satisfied. We always want to be the best. Therefore, we are lowering the employer contribution this year. And in the budget that is to be decided upon today, we are making a targeted investment in summer jobs for young people. We of course want everyone who wants to work, even if one is a full-time student and even if one is studying at the upper secondary school, to have the opportunity to get a summer job.

Madam Speaker! Child poverty is at its lowest in ten years, according to Statistics Sweden.

We have over these four years increased the penalties and invested heavily in the police and the justice system. It has yielded results. The fatal shootings are halved, and serious crime is being pushed back in earnest.

We have significantly lowered fuel prices, from practically the most expensive fuel in the entire world to the cheapest in all of Western Europe.

It naturally makes things easier for everyone who is dependent on the car – everyone who needs to get to and from work and make ends meet, as I said. It is also good for the companies and Swedish agriculture, and it pushes back the inflationary tendencies that we can see all around the world.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party's black-painting aims to try to make the Swedish people believe that the situation in the country is much worse than it actually is. But even if all the criticism were true and they were right, in what way would tax increases ease the burden for hard-working people? In what way would it become easier for those who are dependent on the car if it becomes 10 kronor more expensive per liter to refuel? How are the Social Democrats, in a government where there are both Left Party members and Green Party members, in a reasonable way able to continue our work of pushing back the gross organized crime and the gangs? These parties, Madam Speaker, have voted against virtually every single increase in penalties.

This autumn's election represents two different directions for Sweden. We Moderates want to see a country where people feel there is a future where effort is rewarded and crime is punished, where prosperity becomes higher and where there are more jobs, because we make political reforms that go in that direction. It will become cheaper to hire, we lower thresholds and we lower taxes. It is about a Sweden where there are more jobs, where Swedish companies grow and where resources for welfare increase because we do the right things.

It is not, Madam Speaker, about dividing the existing growth, but about ensuring that growth increases, that the cake becomes larger and that people who work and strive can build a better future for themselves in our country. It is about being able to live on a salary and about actually being able to afford to live in a house, have a car, travel, and have some luxuries in life with a couple of salaries. That is what the vast majority of people I meet actually say. It applies particularly to young people who, when they dream of the future, dream of things that are both so simple and so difficult as to just be able to afford a home and have a little luxury in life.

In the Sweden that I envision, this becomes possible because we make political reforms, lower taxes, and lower thresholds. We ensure that all people who want and can work have the opportunity to participate and contribute. This is not made possible by raising taxes or making it more difficult for those who want to hire.

We on our side have said that during this parliamentary term, we have succeeded with the final reform which will be in place this summer, Madam Speaker. It means that those who have their children in preschool will receive further reductions in the maximum fee and have had 5,000 kronor more left in their pockets every month with all our reforms. It has been necessary, because it has been tough years. Now, ahead of the next parliamentary term, we give a similar promise to continue this journey – Swedish households shall become wealthier.

A left-wing government, Madam Speaker, will mean a tax shock for Swedish households. There will be no small adjustments at the margin. Right now, we see that the four parties that govern Sweden today have succeeded better than has been done in many other countries in our world. We no longer have the voters' support in the opinion polls, but it is the four parties in opposition that now appear to have the voters' confidence – it is, therefore, serious.

There will be four parties that are to cooperate, and we will get to listen to them today. They do not agree on much more than that they want to raise taxes. Opposed to this are the four parties that during this mandate period have had a policy that has facilitated things for people who have had it tough.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I have moved for approval of both proposals. I therefore intend that I do not need to do so again.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The most beautiful time of the year is here. Summer is just around the corner, and the lilacs are blooming. All around the country, proud parents see their children sing at the school graduation and organize summer coffee parties and farewells for educators and teachers. Students have begun to celebrate, not least in this city.

Sweden's young people face a country that has become harder to grow up in. It has become harder to take the step into adulthood and get the first job or afford the first home. We also know that many young people are suffering. Despite the fact that young people make an effort, society does not meet them in the same way as before.

Previously, every generation could hope to have it as good as or better than their parents, but that no longer feels like the case. Today's young people have grown up with very many crises one after another. There was the pandemic, there is war, there is a climate crisis, there is brutal gang crime, and there is mass unemployment and rising living costs.

In recent years, youth unemployment has skyrocketed, housing construction has plummeted, and mental ill-health among young people has spread. For many, the dream of a job, a home, and a family feels almost unattainable. Life with a villa, a Volvo, and a dog feels like a luxury. I am concerned about what happens to a society when young people do not see that the society cares. When they end up on the wrong track already at a young age, it can become very costly for us all. We Social Democrats want to reverse this development.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must not be a country that hands over today's problems to the next generation. We must take collective responsibility, and it is time to take Sweden's young people seriously. Sweden shall be a country where young people get better opportunities to build an independent life, where efforts pay off, and where it is possible to get a first job and a first home and feel confidence in the future. This requires a policy that ensures no young person starts their professional life in unemployment and that there are homes that young people can actually afford to live in.

We want to introduce a job contract for young people where every young person who needs it receives support regarding a job, an education, or an internship within three months. We have proposals for a trainee program for newly graduated students. We want to see summer jobs and a new relocation support to make it easier to move to the jobs. We want to build 10,000 new student housing units and ensure that more housing is built that ordinary people can afford to live in. These are some measures to give young people faith in the future again.

Madam Speaker! The SD government's mandate period has been somewhat of four lost years for Sweden and for the Swedish people. Growth has deteriorated, and Sweden has underperformed both compared to other countries and compared to how it was under previous governments. This means an enormous loss in GDP and a large shortfall of tax revenues. Unemployment has increased – half a million people are now unemployed. That is almost 100,000 more than when the mandate period began.

Unemployment is also reaching new groups that have traditionally had a strong foothold in the labor market, for example people with post-secondary education. In fact, unemployment is increasing most among highly educated men born in Sweden.

Unemployment is a major failure for the government. It is costly for Sweden as tax revenues are lost, but it is also costly for all those who are affected by unemployment when they have lost their jobs.

Furthermore, we have had a situation where prices have been high. The grocery bill, the rent, and the electricity bill weigh on the wallet. Many hard-working people have had it tough during this parliamentary term. Instead of standing on the side of ordinary people, the government has worsened the welfare system, made medicine more expensive, and refused to increase the child allowance during the cost crisis.

It has been a period of recession that we are now summarizing. I mean that the bad times have been prolonged because the government has failed to take Sweden out of the recession. Time and again, the government has presented rosy calculations, and almost as often their forecasts have been revised downwards when reality has caught up. We have had a government that planned for slightly better times, but its policies and results have resulted in something else.

For a long time we have heard that the Swedish economy is to be Trump-proof, even though most Swedes feel that we are affected by world events. They affect us in our lives. At the same time, the Finance Minister has now at the end said that Sweden's poor economic development is due precisely to Trump. I believe it is true, but it is also a bit nonsensical.

For the vast majority, it is obvious that the Swedish economy is not Trump-proof. It is obvious that the government has failed with the economic policy during the mandate period. Instead of strengthening ordinary people's finances so that consumption can get started, the very richest have received tax bonuses. Instead of investing in structural measures to increase growth and lower unemployment, temporary support has been provided.

In the spring budget that we are debating today, there are actually no structural measures that can turn around Sweden's negative development in the long term. Furthermore, the Sverigedemokraterna and the Moderaterna have emptied the state treasury. The Finance Minister has announced that there are practically no funds left for new reforms in the next mandate period. The money is gone. Despite this, the borrowing party continues.

The result will be the largest deficits in a generation. The cost of this is borne by hard-working families when the deficits lead to higher interest costs and less money for teachers in schools or nurses in healthcare. And when they lead to the general interest rates being raised, it will become more expensive for mortgages for everyone who owns their home.

This is not sustainable. Sweden needs a new direction.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats offer a completely different policy. We offer a completely different level of ambition, where we stop wasting Sweden's potential, stop the waste of taxpayers' money and put the Swedish people first. A Social Democratic government will take Sweden seriously.

We have three priorities for Sweden.

Firstly, we must accelerate the Swedish economy so that more people work and hard-working people get more money in their pockets. I believe in Sweden. Sweden's prosperity can grow. Unemployment can be pushed down.

A long-term, forward-looking industrial policy with structural growth reforms that lead to increased productivity, more jobs, increased growth, and ultimately higher wages is required. Instead of further tax cuts for those who earn the absolute most, we want to see an increased child and study allowance, cheaper medicines, free dental care for young people, and harder pressure for increased competition for both banks and food chains.

We also want to abolish the deductible so that all people who have to do the work at the job do not lose thousands of kronor if they have to stay home when they are sick.

We need to invest in society and in people, in our common infrastructure, in competence and in housing. It requires unity around common priorities. It requires new tools. We dare to point out the technologies that are particularly important for Sweden's competitiveness.

We want to see a Swedish growth pact, where the state and the business community join forces on these important issues. We want to see a broad energy agreement for cheaper, fossil-free electricity.

Sweden must be led by a government that works for Swedish industry, not against it, that gives Swedish companies the conditions to compete, that understands that more Swedish electric cars and trucks on Europe's roads means jobs and prosperity in Sweden, and that understands that industrial policy is about Sweden's ability to compete, export, and create jobs.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, we shall reverse the development in healthcare and schools so that waiting times are reduced and teachers get more time with the children. We want to introduce a floor for the funding of welfare, so that the general state grants are adjusted for inflation. This would provide better conditions for long-term planning.

We have shown, budget after budget, that we have a completely different ambition for Swedish welfare than the current government. In the spring budget, we also propose targeted investments in women's health and for better elderly care.

We want to see a primary school reform, so that the youngest children get a good start in school with more adults. And the profit leakage from the school must be stopped so that the money is actually used and goes to the students and teachers in the classroom. It is fully possible to hire thousands more teachers in primary school just with the overcompensation that independent schools receive today.

For the third, we shall restore safety. Gang crime continues to claim lives and spread fear in our country. More and more often, it is minors who commit these acts. It is evident that no government, neither the current nor previous, has succeeded in stopping the violence.

To achieve a change, we believe a completely new approach is required. It requires a state and a society that is capable of acting and that is capable of closing the HVB homes run by gang criminals. It requires a government that introduces mafia laws and that acts against the organized crime's companies and ensures that it becomes impossible for them to operate and earn money.

It requires a government that ensures that new recruitment is broken and that society is strong, so that there is a positive way forward for Sweden's young people. But measures are also needed to pinpoint and prevent young people from being drawn into gang crime.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a policy that takes Sweden seriously, that gets growth moving, pushes back unemployment and strengthens the finances of ordinary people.

Since this is the last regular budget debate for this parliamentary term, I would like to take the opportunity to express my thanks. I want to thank all colleagues in the Committee on Finance for good work and good camaraderie, even when we have disagreed. I wish all members who are leaving the Riksdag after this parliamentary term the best of luck with everything they intend to undertake.

I also want to thank our fantastic secretariat in the Committee on Finance, which performs an enormous amount of professional work to ensure that our work functions smoothly and leads to results.

I would finally like to thank the Riksdag Administration and, of course, the Speakers for their work during the parliamentary term.

I hope that everyone, when it matters, gets a very nice summer. Then we will see which of us meet again after the election in a new Riksdag.

With this, I move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservations: reservation 1 in FiU20 and reservation 1 in FiU21.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have maintained the very high pace of reform that we established already when we signed the Tidö Agreement. I cannot recall any government basis having had the same pace of reform as we within the Tidö parties have had during this mandate period, at least not in modern times.

The Social Democrats left behind an inflation of over 10 percent. We had to expend a significant amount of resources to combat that inflation. It was not easy, but it was necessary. And we have been successful. Inflation in Sweden is now the lowest in the entire EU. It is significantly lower than in the USA as well, in that regard.

An explanation for this is that we have pushed through lowered taxes on electricity and fuels and then in April also on food and groceries. One of the consequences of that, besides that it has become cheaper to fuel the car, pay the electricity bill and shop for food, is that the Riksbank has been able to more than halve the interest rate, from quite high 4 percent to more manageable 1.75 percent.

This is good news for everyone who has a mortgage. This should be contrasted with the Social Democrats' proposal for a specific punitive taxation on just the mortgage holders.

Our public debt measured as a share of GDP is one of the lowest in the entire EU. It is lower today than when Magdalena Andersson was Finance Minister. This is very good. It means that we have the opportunity to do things for the Swedish households.

It also means that, together with only nine other countries in the entire world, we have the absolute highest credit rating, AAA. This means that when we want to borrow on the capital market, we get much better interest terms than almost everyone else.

If one wants to switch from a balanced budget target to a deficit target, as parts of the opposition want, this will change quite quickly. The debt level will obviously increase if the goal is to run the state with a deficit. Our credit rating will fall. Interest rates will rise. Instead of making much-needed investments in defense, infrastructure, and elderly care, we will have to pay interest on a sharply increasing state debt. That would be directly unwise.

Growth in Sweden is among the highest in the EU. When we took over, we were at the bottom. We are significantly above the Eurozone countries in growth. It is not a coincidence but a result of the fact that we are largely doing the right things in economic policy.

Unemployment continues to fall. It has fallen every month since July last year, ten months in a row. At the same time, more than half of those registered at Arbetsförmedlingen are foreign-born, which means that unemployment still stands at a relatively high 6.5 percent. This is largely due to the previously pursued irresponsible immigration policy.

If we maintain a strict line regarding migration, we will also be able to solve integration. But that is based on the Tidö parties regaining confidence in the election.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, that the vast majority of relevant key figures point in the completely right direction. I would almost dare to claim that the single greatest threat to the Swedish economy is the opposition's bleak portrayal of the Swedish economy. They are out to create anxiety. They are simply disappointed that things are actually going significantly better for Sweden than for comparable EU countries.

When we have international delegations from other parliaments visiting here in the Riksdag, the picture is completely different. One can almost sense a kind of envy when they compare the state of the Swedish economy with that of their own country. Just as Edward Riedl said, we had members from the German Bundestag visiting just a week ago. Then it was clear that they had wished for our high growth and our low indebtedness instead of their low growth and high indebtedness.

The fact is also that the growth we have comes to everyone. We hear from the opposition – we heard it just now from Mikael Damberg – that it was only the high earners who received tax cuts. That is obviously not true, and they know it. Everyone knows it; the wage earners know it. Still, the opposition stands in debate after debate and claims that it is so.

Yes, we have lowered the marginal tax rate from approximately 55 to approximately 52 percent. That is good; the Sverigedemokraterna stand behind it. It means that the high earners still pay more than half of their income in tax, for 52 percent is reasonably more than half. There are, as is known, only 100 percent; Astrid Lindgren taught us that once upon a time. But the absolute majority of the tax cuts have been directed at completely ordinary, average wage earners and pensioners. It is not an opinion; it is simply a statement of fact.

We have lowered the income tax for ordinary wage earners and pensioners on three different occasions during this parliamentary term.

We have also lowered the tax for those who receive sickness and activity compensation so that they do not pay more in tax than wage earners.

We have carried out a historic reform of dental care. Now, older people, 67 years and upwards, pay only 10 percent of the reference price. A measure or operation that would have cost 5,000 kronor costs a more pleasant 500 kronor after this reform. It is a good reform; it is a fairer reform. Teeth are reasonably a part of the body, so there is no reason why teeth should not be covered by a corresponding high-cost protection like the rest of the body. We said that we would prioritize the elderly, and we have done so. The ambition for the next mandate period is to roll out this reform broadly, even among other age groups.

The fuel taxes are now at the EU's absolute minimum level, and last Thursday of last week we received a green light from the Council of Ministers to also go below the minimum level. What Magdalena Andersson said was completely impossible and would never happen has, therefore, happened. We will, of course, take advantage of that opportunity. This means that the price of gasoline and diesel on July 1, in about three weeks, will fall by an additional three kronor per liter at the pump. It will make a difference for ordinary people, especially together with everything else we have done to push down fuel prices.

The halved food VAT has had a full impact on prices in stores, which is the exact opposite of what the opposition claimed – that this would only benefit some already wealthy grocery retailer, who would cut out the middleman and increase their own margins. That is not what happened at all. This is a reform that we implemented for the sake of households, and it has also reached the households.

A typical family with two children and two working parents has received reinforcements of as much as 5,000 kronor every month as a direct result of the tax reliefs that we have decided on.

Oh, Madam Speaker, these are not reforms that primarily target high-income earners. These are examples of reforms that target ordinary wage earners, families with children, and pensioners. In fact, households with slightly lower incomes spend a larger proportion of their disposable income on buying food and fueling the car than high-income households, so I stand behind the distribution policy in what we have done from the Tidö parties' side by 100 percent.

We can also see that child poverty has decreased, whether we measure in numbers or in proportion, and we can see that income inequality has decreased. This is something that can be measured. These are quantifiable data.

Madam Speaker! I am genuinely concerned about what the consequences will be if Sweden were to get a strongly left-leaning government after the election this autumn.

Migration policy will be loosened. We will return to the chaos and disorder that existed previously. It will not facilitate integration.

New electricity production in the form of stable base load will not be realized. It will, all things being equal, result in more volatile and, above all, higher electricity prices.

Fuel will become more expensive. We are talking about at least ten kronor per liter. We had the highest diesel price in the entire world during the last parliamentary term.

These two things, that is, electricity and fuels, affect inflation in almost all other areas as well. They are input goods in almost all other production. And if you make it expensive to produce, it will eventually become expensive to consume. They are connected.

I do not want to return to the period of high inflation that the Social Democrats left behind, because then it doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor. High inflation hits everyone, without exception.

A reintroduced wealth tax will, despite its name, not only affect the wealthy. It will hit Swedish growth in the broadest sense very hard.

The Swedes are basically world-best at saving on the stock market. Almost 4 million Swedes have a so-called investment savings account, ISK. That capital is employed, normally also in Swedish companies. If one increases the taxation of that capital, it will move abroad. Then it will instead be employed in other countries' companies, and that would be an obvious competitive disadvantage for Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I am not entirely convinced that everyone has understood the consequences of the war that is now raging in Iran and parts of the Middle East. At least the opposition in here has not.

When the world market price of oil rises sharply, we counter by lowering the tax on fuels. On July 1, as stated, the price of both diesel and gasoline will fall by an additional three kronor at the pump. We know what the consequences would be for everyone who is dependent on the car and for the trucking companies if we had not done so.

When the price of artificial fertilizer rises so that farmers have a tough time and when food prices go up, well, then we counter with a special support for precisely Swedish agriculture and with halved food VAT to make it easier for ordinary families with children.

Then the opposition and even some self-appointed so-called experts – I do not need to mention any names – come and talk about election pork. This is a mocking rhetoric. It is a von oben-attitude that shows that one has no understanding whatsoever, let alone respect, for how the situation actually is for many households in the country. Not everyone actually lives within the Stockholm subway network, and it actually matters whether it costs 1,000 or 2,000 kronor to fuel the car. One can mock as much as one wants, but as I said, it only shows that one lacks both understanding and respect for the households.

We from our side will not leave the households in the lurch. We will continue to stand on the households' side, and when there is war and general unrest in our surrounding world, we will get through it together.

Madam Speaker! I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposals in both reports.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Oscar Sjöstedt, for the speech!

There is quite a lot that one wants to both state and ask about here, but we can begin with "the opposition's black-painting of the Swedish economy."

Much can be said about the economy. It is understandable that the government and the government-supporting parties want to praise it. But it is not as good as they want to make it appear, and in the previous election campaign, it was not the case that the opposition at that time tried to hold back their criticism or blackening.

We still hear from this rostrum things such as that it was the previous government that caused the high inflation in Sweden. That is anything but true, and I believe Oscar Sjöstedt knows that. Still, he stands here and makes it sound that way. I would say that if that were the case, then we would have had good precedents before.

What I want to ask is what Oscar Sjöstedt wants to say to his voters now, to those who in the last election cast their vote for his party so that they would get better. Now it sounds like that families with small economic margins are a problem that depends on what origin one has.

I know that very many people voted for the Sweden Democrats just because they believed they would get it better. Now we see how the government has lowered taxes, and mostly for the rich. The Sweden Democrats do not want to pretend about that either, but it is about a few hundred kronor for those who earn the least and a few thousand kronor a month for those who earn the most, purely in general.

I would like to ask what Oscar Sjöstedt has to say to those who voted for the Sverigedemokraterna so that they would get a better economy and a better life of their own. They did believe in the investments that the Sverigedemokraterna promised.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let us start from the beginning. I absolutely think there was reason to criticize the previous government because Sweden had high inflation.

Sweden had the highest diesel price in the entire world during the last parliamentary term. As I mentioned in my speech, the price of electricity and fuels also affects other inflation. It was no coincidence that Sweden had the highest diesel price. Some country always has the highest price, and that Sweden was the highest was due to the fact that we had incredibly high taxes and an accelerating so-called reduction obligation that drove up the prices. It affects inflation upwards. When we did the opposite and lowered the reduction obligation, inflation was lowered both as a direct effect and, to an approximately equal extent, as an indirect effect, that is to say that it trickled out to everything else.

I therefore absolutely think there is reason to say that the previous government bears a large part of the responsibility for that Sweden had high inflation.

It is a bit unclear which voter Janine Alm Ericson is after. We can state that we have lowered the tax very significantly for completely ordinary wage earners. We have also lowered the tax very significantly for pensioners and for those who have sickness and activity compensation. We have strengthened the akassan on two occasions. Depending on which individual voter it is that Janine Alm Ericson means, I would like to assert that he or she has received better and stronger purchasing power.

When we took over, no one was better off. At that time, inflation was so high that no one was better off, but everyone had lower purchasing power. Now we have changed that, so now people get higher purchasing power as inflation is lower in relation to incomes.

I would think it would be interesting to hear Janine Alm Ericson comment on what I touched upon in my speech when it comes to deficit targets. Sweden now, together with nine other countries, has the highest credit rating because we have such good debt levels.

If one does as Miljöpartiet wants and removes the balance target and introduces a deficit target – do you believe then that Sweden will remain with the highest credit rating? It would be interesting to hear that.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Oscar Sjöstedt, for the answer!

I am very happy to speak about Swedish debt and investments in the future.

Let me first just say something about inflation. Oscar Sjöstedt must have read the same diagrams as I did during the open hearings we have had with, among others, the Riksbank and the Fiscal Policy Council. If one reads the diagrams, one sees very clearly that our inflation in Sweden was at the same level as that in Europe because it was due to Putin's war in Ukraine. To not acknowledge that is to falsify history, I would like to say.

The voters who voted for the Sweden Democrats that I am talking about are, among others, those who are or have now become unemployed. The Sweden Democrats say that they have improved the unemployment insurance, but everyone who becomes unemployed and is unemployed for more days than the very first ones feels it on their skin how bad it becomes. People who are sick and need to buy their medicines notice how expensive and bad the system has become.

Oscar Sjöstedt spoke about the importance of understanding and respect for voters, and I truly agree with that. But now they are spreading a tax cut on gasoline and diesel to everyone, regardless of whether they need it or not. It does not go mostly to those who need it. If the Sverigedemokraterna truly championed the motorists in the countryside, they would have ensured that support was designed for them so that they could drive to work and take their children to extracurricular activities, but that is not what they have done.

If one does not have any policy of one's own, it seems that the only thing the right has to resort to is to blacken the opposition, and that is also what we hear here today.

When it comes to the debt, Miljöpartiet wants to see a very targeted investment budget over a few years to build Sweden stronger in the long run. It is also the total opposite of what the government is doing now: borrowing without financing. The money is indeed going to some things that are good, but also to more tax cuts for the wealthy. Is that really good policy, Oscar Sjöstedt?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Miljöpartiet takes a bit too lightly the matter of increasing its indebtedness.

We have seen other examples. We do not need to go further than Finland to see what happened when they started loosening the regulations there. It becomes a snowball rolling down a hill; it gets bigger and bigger. Finland is just one example. USA is another, where it is completely bizarre. It will crack sooner or later. Once you have opened Pandora's box, it easily becomes a snowball effect.

I do not have confidence that the Green Party would be able to make the right trade-offs and the right priorities to avoid such a situation. If we proceed in the way that the Green Party advocates, by virtue of the party choosing to stand outside of what became a six-party agreement on the fiscal framework, Madam Speaker, we will end up in a situation in 5, 10, 15, or 20 years where we are left with interest rates as the single largest budget item. How fun is that? It will thus not be elderly care, not trains and railways, and not the Armed Forces that are the largest, but interest rates. How fun is that, in the name of honesty?

I do not want us to end up in such a situation, and I urge Janine Alm Ericson to go back to her party and suggest that they rethink. It is probably quite wise not to have as an explicit goal to run with a deficit. It is a bad goal. But we do not agree – good.

There were, of course, global trends behind the inflation. My point is that if one had not pursued the extreme policy to drive up fuel prices with the reduction obligation and high taxes, Sweden would have had lower inflation during this period. It is completely obvious.

(JANINE ALM ERICSON (MP): No!)

Yes, that is true – a hundred percent obvious! When we reversed the reduction obligation, we saw instantly how inflation fell. It fell as a direct consequence of the reduction obligation, and it fell just as much as an indirect consequence of us changing the reduction obligation.

One does have a certain responsibility; one cannot escape that. But the majority of the responsibility lies, obviously, with Vladimir Putin. I naturally agree with that.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I listened to Oscar Sjöstedt's speech and reflected on one thing.

Something the member returns to is the historical revisionism regarding the welfare system. It is incredibly difficult for the Sweden Democrats to admit that they have actually worsened the welfare system during this mandate period. They have admittedly adjusted the ceiling upwards, but they have de facto scaled back the welfare system very powerfully.

I do not know if it is just because the Sweden Democrats do not really have the strength to stand for this, since they were so very clear in the last election campaign by promising not to lower the capital gains tax. Jimmie Åkesson went as far as to say that he would remove the Moderate government if it lowered the capital gains tax. Then it still became a deterioration.

My first question therefore concerns this. Oscar Sjöstedt surely knows what effects the lowered basic allowance has had for, for example, a childcare worker or a student assistant? How much less money in the wallet does a childcare worker get after four months of unemployment with the policy that the Sverigedemokraterna have pushed through? That is the first question.

The second question is about promises. It is interesting. Jimmie Åkesson has now said that the Sverigedemokraterna do not stand behind Elisabeth Svantesson as finance minister candidate. He means instead that Oscar Sjöstedt must be a potential finance minister candidate in this situation because the Sverigedemokraterna have said that they want much more influence in a coming government and a Tidösamarbete. Finance minister is definitely a post that the Sverigedemokraterna aspire to.

The question is: What can be promised this time? Will a Finance Minister named Oscar Sjöstedt push through a proposal to abolish the quarantine deduction in Sweden? Will the profit-taking in schools be stopped next mandate period if Oscar Sjöstedt is Finance Minister? Will the child allowance be increased next mandate period if Oscar Sjöstedt is Finance Minister? Or will it be like this mandate period – further tax cuts, which continue even this year, for those who earn over 67,000 kronor a month?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! My assessment is that we have collectively made a strengthening of the social security system. We have raised the ceiling on two occasions, and we have ensured that more people are covered by the social security system. All in all, it is strengthenings.

I do not know if I need to explain it to Mikael Damberg, but it is clear that everything has to do with parliamentary realities. We can state that the Social Democrats were unable to do this during eight years, and that was probably not because Mikael Damberg did not want to, but because of parliamentary realities.

It is clear that it would have looked a bit different if the Sweden Democrats had received 51 percent in the election; we can probably assume that. But we did not get that. We stand by what we have been able to do with the parliamentary reality that prevails, and we are quite satisfied with it. Overall, it is a reinforcement of the agreement.

The care deduction can also be discussed. The Social Democrats have therefore allocated 400 million kronor for this in their budget motion, when the actual cost of implementing the reform is 40 billion kronor, that is 40,000 million kronor. There are therefore two zeros missing. Zeros actually mean something, at least in such a context.

One has a rather high sense of self-importance in one's rhetoric regarding the care deduction, but one has, in fact, budgeted 1 percent of the total cost. 99 percent of the financing is missing. Then the counter-question must be: Where will the bill land? If one is only participating in financing 1 percent of the total cost, where will the remaining 99 percent land? Is it from tax increases that they should be taken? Is it from the entrepreneurs? Or are they just supposed to appear somewhere?

Before one has this high tail-wagging in the asylum issue, one must probably try to present a serious proposal where even a financing of 40 billion kronor is included.

Regarding ministerial portfolios, we do not intend to have that discussion here. It is a discussion we will have after the election.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! This cumulative effect for the sick pay is interesting. To begin with, what Oscar Sjöstedt says is not true. We also raised the ceiling in the sick pay during the pandemic. So, there is a historical revisionism even in this. The Social Democrats have many times raised the sick pay in great conflict with the right, so we do not need to argue about that.

The problem is that for the childcare worker, the cumulative effect is that they lose 2,750 kronor after four months. The childcare worker sees no cumulative effect in the form of a better salary. Perhaps that is the government parties' big problem: Their description of reality does not align with reality. It becomes too large a gap. One cannot say that they have improved the salary while a childcare worker loses 2,750 kronor a month, which is a lot of money for a childcare worker.

I believe that many of SD's voters thought that SD would de facto want to do something about the care deduction. Someone is paying the care deduction today. It is the police officer, the teacher, the childcare worker and the assistant nurse who today take from their salary because they cannot perform the work at home and must do it at work. We expect them to be at home when they are sick.

It is very interesting that SD, in the response, only tries to troll away these questions instead of standing by its traditional view that the care deduction hits hard-working people. Now it is the "Monday sickness" that is the big argument for the Sweden Democrats. It is a shift in the Sweden Democrats' view on the care deduction that I think the voters must take a stand on.

I look forward to having a substantial election debate on the care deduction before the election.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! To begin with: If one is a childcare worker, one hopefully has an income precisely because one is a childcare worker. In that regard, one is not affected by the allowance at all.

I am very happy to have discussions about the care deduction. We have done it a few times already, and I suspect we will need to do it a few more times before we go to the election on 13 September.

I received no sensible answer regarding the fact that in your budget motion you have dedicated 400 million kronor to a reform that costs 40 billion kronor. There are, therefore, two zeros missing there. It is not one hundred percent serious.

It is not the only oversight we have seen in the Social Democrats' budget motion. It is also claimed that they are investing a huge amount in the child allowance, but there they have miscalculated and have completely wrong figures in the tables. They simply do not add up. One is, therefore, a bit sloppy when it comes to working with their budget motions – but enough about that.

My question remains and is still quite relevant. If we have a reform that costs 40 billion kronor, we still have to start talking about financing. The Social Democrats have budgeted 400 million kronor. That is 1 percent. It is not particularly serious.

I am very happy to have the discussion. I agree with Mikael Damberg on certain points. This applies in particular to those professions where one basically is not allowed to go to work when one is a bit under the weather. One might feel: I'll manage. I'll endure. But one is not allowed to. One might work in elderly care with frail elderly people. One might work in healthcare with sick people who should not have to get a cold on top of everything else.

For those professional groups – when we talk about health and social care – I think it is super interesting to look at and move forward with the issue of parental leave. If one limits it to those groups, it also does not cost 40 billion kronor.

I agree here that there is a rather large injustice. One can say: I am a bit under the weather, but it's fine. I'm enduring it. I still get myself to work. But you are not allowed to do that, because the employer forbids it. Then we have a situation that is unfair, and it is an injustice that I do not like very much.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Oscar Sjöstedt seems to be a real joker today. Either he is just cheeky, or he cannot read his own budget table. Before the agreement on the economic framework has even started to apply, Oscar Sjöstedt and the government have already secured a larger deficit than the Vänsterpartiet proposed we should do through an investment goal. But perhaps that doesn't count when the money is used to lower the tax for the absolutely richest.

When Oscar Sjöstedt and the Sverigedemokraterna speak, it sounds like they want very much when it comes to the sickness insurance. At the same time, there is already an investigation regarding the karens, which Oscar Sjöstedt also brings up, but it has stalled. Nothing has happened with it during this entire period.

When the Left Party had influence, we pushed through new rules in the sickness insurance that granted the right to compensation. When the Sweden Democrats have influence, we are back at square one. The general wage fee accounts for a large part of the employees' social security contributions. After the Alliance's rule, the fee exploded in size, while the sickness insurance was emptied of hundreds of billions to finance enormous tax cuts that mostly went to the rich.

Now the government and SD have moved even more money from the employees' own insurance to the state treasury by raising the fee significantly. The money is thus taken from the sick and used for tax cuts for the richest.

My question to Oscar Sjöstedt is: Why do the Sweden Democrats contribute to people who are ill being cast out of the system and denied sickness allowance and sickness compensation?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not follow the majority of that at all. To begin with, I can only state that we had a parliamentary committee when it came to the fiscal framework – surplus targets, balance targets, and deficit targets. I note that two of the opposition parties did not want to be part of an agreement there. Six of the parties in this chamber, however, stand behind a balance target.

This problem does not disappear. The idea is also that your four parties are to somehow work together on the economic policy, and that is where my concern lies: What will happen then with this agreement? That is the one I am a bit worried about.

We see what happens in other countries that are a bit less stringent, so to speak, when it comes to these types of issues. The national debt increases, interest rates go up, the credit rating falls, and finally, the item in the state budget that is just interest explodes – the least fun appropriation to work with. It is an incredibly boring appropriation to spend a lot of money on.

I did not follow the reasoning that we should take money from the sick to lower taxes. I did not understand the connection there at all. I do not intend to address that either.

My view is that we have invested quite significantly in welfare. We have invested quite significantly in the municipal sector. We have invested quite significantly in the regions. One reason for this was that it was necessary. They had very sharply increasing expenditures during the high inflation period that we had to take over from the previous group.

Now we have gotten a handle on inflation. Now the expenditures for the municipal sector have fallen quite drastically. Then they can put money on what are their core tasks. Now they are in a much better position than when we took over.

My view is that we have allocated quite a lot of money to municipalities and regions, among other things to provide a sensible level within healthcare.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! If one is the economic spokesperson for Tidös largest party, one should be able to answer a simple question.

The ink has not yet dried on the agreement. The deficit is many times larger than what Vänsterpartiet proposed in our investment goal. It is outrageous. We cannot accept more deficit. Now the people of Danderyd must start paying their cleaning bills themselves after the election.

I will tell Oscar Sjöstedt what the general wage fee is. It is what has been set out on the payslip to show that employees pay a hidden tax, according to Svenskt Näringsliv. One might be right in that. The fee goes straight into the state treasury to finance all sorts of things, for example, the largest items in your budget – large tax cuts. That was the case during the Alliance period, and now it is increasing again.

From the beginning, the general wage contribution was incredibly small. It was introduced because of the EU fee. Today it is over 12 percent – almost 13 percent. This means that decisions are made to use a smaller sum of money in the budget for, for example, the sickness benefit and the sickness insurance. That is why we have so much less money. Workers' insurance is bankrupt because it is used for something else, and now even more money is being taken from there.

Why do the Sweden Democrats accept that the workers' sickness insurance continues to be emptied – just to lower taxes for the richest? It creates a wave of insurance withdrawals, as the Swedish Pensions Agency has made clear. Is it really right, Oscar Sjöstedt?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! If one is an economic-political spokesperson, it would be good if one could formulate a question, for the most part.

I know exactly what the general payroll tax is. This is the first time in the history of the universe that Vänsterpartiet has criticized that a tax has been raised. I did not know that there were proposals from Vänsterpartiet's side to lower the general payroll tax and to lower the employer contributions. That was a completely new development.

These two things obviously do not hang together. Sickness benefit has an entirely separate appropriation in the state budget. That correlation obviously does not exist in that way. If one is interested in lowering the payroll taxes, I believe it is possible to negotiate. That construction exists because the employer contributions on the total are supposed to be at 31.42 percent and not fluctuate all the time. Then there are eight or nine components in these percentages, and to make it manageable for the employers, one always tries to keep them at the same level.

Is it sensible or not? It is absolutely possible to discuss, but I am not sure about it. That is how it looks, at least.

Then there was the question of deficit targets and balance targets. I will come back to them. They are so relevant in all of this. If we have established explicit targets that we shall run the state with a deficit every year, viewed over a business cycle or however one wants to put it, we will within five, ten, fifteen or twenty years be sitting with much higher interest rates, on a much higher national debt and with a worse credit rating. Then we debate elderly care, infrastructure, defense, school and education – a thousand needs – but instead we sit and pay interest. How fun is that, in the name of honesty? Perhaps short-term fun, but hardly long-term.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! We have heard Oscar Sjöstedt be incredibly satisfied with the situation in the Swedish economy with 100,000 more unemployed. He is also incredibly satisfied with the state of the public finances, despite the Fiscal Policy Council issuing its harshest criticism ever against the 80 billion in unfunded expenditures in the large election pork budget.

I have a question for Oscar Sjöstedt. First and foremost, I perceived that the Sverigedemokraterna are interested in taking over the Ministry of Finance. Various analysts have over the last few days examined the 100–150 billion in election promises in your election manifesto – 2 percent of GDP. If Oscar Sjöstedt or any other finance minister intends to carry out the promises when you take over the Ministry of Finance, even though the money is exhausted according to the finance minister, it will double the deficit to 300 billion kronor, a good bit over 4 percent of Sweden's GDP; will Sweden be drawn into a deficit procedure in the EU?

Or are the promises in fact empty talk, which you never intend to finance?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have not the faintest idea what figure Martin Ådahl has cooked up this time. It is not a figure I recognize, in any case. We have not even presented any election manifesto from our side yet.

We are going to have a campaign conference this weekend. If Martin Ådahl is extremely bored, he can certainly watch SVT Forum and follow all the debates there. The idea is that we are going to hammer out a campaign platform, but it is not particularly concrete when it comes to economic promises. They will surely emerge eventually during the election campaign.

I have no idea what figures Martin Ådahl has cooked up here in the chamber this time, and therefore it is difficult to comment on them.

Things and objects are not worry-free. Many are having a tough time, and many are struggling. We know that. But we can still be glad that in all relevant key figures, Sweden ranks among the medal positions among comparable countries, for example, the EU. The debt level is among the lowest in the EU. We have lower debt than when Magdalena Andersson was Finance Minister. That is good, and even the Center Party can be glad that Sweden is not over-indebted?

It is true that unemployment is a problem, but at the same time we see bright signs there as well. Unemployment has fallen every single month since July last year. That makes at least ten months; we have not received the June statistics yet. At least ten months in a row, unemployment has fallen. That is good, isn't it? Even the Center Party can be happy about that, can't they?

Growth is now at the top. We were at the bottom of the EU's growth when we took over. Now we are at the top of the league. That is good, isn't it? Martin Ådahl and Centerpartiet can also be pleased by that, can't they?

Then there was the question of ministerial portfolios. That is definitely no discussion we will have in this forum. It is no discussion we will have before the election at all, but it is a discussion we will have after the election.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Excuse me! It is called a campaign platform. Your incredibly long list of huge, expensive promises, which you obviously have no plans whatsoever to finance – do they exist, or do they not?

Are there any ideas at all on how the 100 billion kronor will come together when you take over the Ministry of Finance? It hasn't gone so great so far. 373 billion in unfunded expenditures and deficits. Furthermore, there is harsh criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council.

Now, on top of that, there is all this talk about us being at the top of the growth league. Excuse me! We were at almost 3 percent growth before you took over. In the first quarter of this year, there was negative growth. In what way is it at the top? It is only in your forecasts that everything is at the top. It is the same hugely optimistic forecasts every year. There, they are at the top. Then they never happen. I don't know where all this "top" comes from and how damn good everything is. There is now an almost shocking unemployment figure of almost 10 percent. Then it was revised down, and now it is at 8.7 percent. How can that be good? It is twice as much as in Germany.

I return to my question, and it is important for many genuinely conservative voters. They want order and clarity in the public finances, and they see, just as Oscar Sjöstedt pointed out, tendencies similar to those in Finland, namely that the public finances are spiraling out of control and that there is no order and clarity. The Center Party has reported 10 billion less room for reform and a long series of sometimes tough savings. But the Sweden Democrats come with an incredibly long list of unfunded promises; you want to take over the Ministry of Finance and there are already huge deficits.

What will happen to the state finances when Oscar Sjöstedt and Jimmie Åkesson decide over Sweden during the next mandate period?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Martin Ådahl does not need to look at our own forecasts. He can look at the EU's forecasts and conclude that Sweden is at the top.

I still do not know what list Martin Ådahl is talking about. I can only state that we have historically been quite good at fighting our way through the election promises that we have given. We were clear in the last election campaign that we would prioritize fuel prices. We have since put an enormous amount of effort into that, and we have been extremely successful. We talked about making a dental care reform, and we have done that. It is in place and is very popular. We were going to get migration under control, and we feel that we have done that. We have a few decisions left to make here in this chamber, but overall, we have gotten migration under control. We said that we would overhaul the entire crime policy, and we have done that as well. So, we are probably quite good at fighting our way through our election promises.

From our side, we have been quite good at taking responsibility. It is very good if the Center Party is on that line as well. One must make tough decisions on the expenditure side and make tough prioritizations. I truly experience that we from the Sweden Democrats' side are doing that. There are plenty of examples of different types of savings proposals.

The list that Martin Ådahl is holding and talking about, which I myself am not aware of, I do not know where he cooked it up. It is clear that we will ensure that we do not have impossible election promises. It would only affect us ourselves in the end if we came up with a lot of ideas that then cannot be implemented. It would only become a great disappointment. Look instead at what we said before the last election that we would focus on and where we are now! We have a pretty good track record – one must still give us that.

We are not unfamiliar with prioritizing tough on the expenditure side of the state budget. On the contrary, it shall be a pleasure to do so.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! We were 18 in a shoebox on a motorway, ate a handful of warm gravel for breakfast and were whipped to sleep by our dad. What a luxury, one of the men in the sketch answers – I hope I am saying it correctly – Four Men in Yorkshire.

Madam Speaker! Now, thank goodness, there are only about 90 days left until election day. The accusations and exaggerations are raining down at such a pace and at such a level that it made me think of this classic sketch, performed by Monty Python, where four men compete in exaggerations.

Political representatives for the Tidö agreement who, before the final stretch of the election and given the observed opinion polls, still appeared as reasonably record-keeping people, albeit with wrong political priorities, have been transformed into a collection of lunatics on steroids. Do you have a troll account on X – throw yourself against the wall! Here comes Sweden's ministers. The tail's poorly articulated words in the comment sections have become talking points for the Prime Minister himself. Good heavens, Madam Speaker! If one doesn't have idiots in the attic but all the horses are at home, it is difficult to endure the Swedish election debate.

When the Left Party's budget for 2026 lowers the tax for everyone earning under 50,000, the Prime Minister starts raving about communism in Sunday's Agenda. But the fact is that the Left Party's budget has the same tax level as the Prime Minister's Tidö government had as recently as the year before. We lower the tax for ordinary people, who have had to take a backseat during the crisis. The rich, who have become richer during the crisis years, must instead contribute a little more. This is completely necessary for the welfare system to function better. We prioritize more money for healthcare, increased wages for those who toil in welfare professions, and reduced working hours. Therefore, we cannot afford to subsidize cleaning services. The residents of Danderyd must pay their own bills. It is more important for us that all elderly people who need it can receive good home care throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! The consolation is that the opposition is leading by a large margin and that we can soon switch to a new left-wing government. The Tidö government has tried everything, but it doesn't seem to be working on the voters. The unlucky ones have warned of tax shocks and that we will release all the criminals from prison. They have scared people with a dangerous leftward turn and threatened to distribute the ministerial posts to us red-greens. Finally, when they have tried everything else, one implements the Left Party's policy and finally halves the ticket prices in public transport.

Tidö probably appears most to people as an unfaithful partner who buys an expensive gold piece when it is already far too late. People don't fall for it, it seems.

One thing Tidö is right about, of course, is that we have not managed to gather a common alternative yet. Pity, I think, as I'm aware. Identity crises usually pass after the teenage years. Most people eventually find the answer to the question "Who am I?" But C is clearly partying like it's 2018. Today, however, I choose joy. This is, after all, better than doing a Simona Mohamsson and suddenly waking up one day and realizing that one identifies with Jimmie Åkesson.

Madam Speaker! In times of crisis, the burdens should be shared equally, but that has not been the case. Households have had to shoulder an all-too-large share of the cost. Those who work and toil have faced real wage cuts and can hardly afford their housing costs. Sweden was previously one of the world's most equal countries, with high employment, strong welfare, and redistribution. Today, we stand out in the direct opposite way, with the world's strongest concentration of wealth. During the same period that households have had to bear crisis bill after crisis bill, a few have become filthy rich.

Wall Street venture capitalists warn about the Swedish example. The Swedish right instead competes over who loves the billionaires the most. We shall fight poverty, not wealth, argues the Tidö government, and so they dump the job crisis on those affected by unemployment by lowering unemployment benefits. Åkesson seems most interested in ministerial posts and free parties. He doesn't care about the sick and the unemployed. Instead, he tries to impress Kristersson by drawing the Laffer curve in the party leadership debate like a good little boy.

But the winners are, of course, as usual, the Liberals. In pure desperation, they strangely choose to try to impress a target group so small that it wouldn't even be enough to take them over the threshold. Poverty has doubled. 100,000 more are unemployed. Growth is low and emissions are high. Then they come with the election promise of twice as many billionaires. The economists call the proposal ridiculous and point out that Sweden is already a tax haven for the wealthy. But that does not stop Sweden's smallest party from going all-in.

Madam Speaker! High productivity requires more job opportunities. We get a growing economy through investments, innovation, and the work of wage earners. Had a strong concentration of wealth in itself been God's gift to humanity, we would not have had low growth in the economy during the same period as the number of Swedish billionaires doubled. One earns from passive capital. With compound interest, one earns more money in sleep than a wage earner does during an entire working life. It is not hard work that pays off today.

Right-wing politics leads not only to increased inequalities but also to a less productive economy, fewer jobs, and fewer tax revenues to distribute. Sweden must stop coddling the richest. They should not be locked in by exceptions. Work capacity should instead be encouraged, as for everyone else. The government has pursued a policy that hampers innovation and investments. We must pivot now and favor those who contribute more to Swedish welfare, not those who build castles in the air and make quick cash. Speculation and greed do not require that much hard work. One can, for example, buy municipal properties and become a billionaire just by leasing them back to the public.

Madam Speaker! Yes, that is true.

Now it is time to tax the billionaires. Wallenberg thought that the Swedes had had it too good. It must be them he focused on. Sweden is actually below the EU average when it comes to the taxation of large fortunes; we have none.

Swedish child-rearing families are poor. Healthcare is near the breaking point, and war is raging in the surrounding area. In that case, those who have the most must also contribute and not be given a free ride when everyone else does their part. Never in life – then they take the Voien and flee the country, say the right-wing parties. What prejudices there are against the economic top tier, I say. It is clear that the food giants and "tech bros" step up just like everyone else.

And so we have the welfare companies. Why should entrepreneurs actually be in schools and care services? We must relieve them and take responsibility for welfare ourselves. Those who every time have guaranteed profit through taxpayers' money risk otherwise to become lazy. The welfare companies need to be encouraged to instead start real companies with their own money and earn money for their own machine. Therefore, we shall abolish the market school.

Madam Speaker! We can be honest with each other and state that there is also not much innovation or hard work behind the surplus profits of the food giants, the banks, and the electricity companies. It is just so easy – presto, it is done. One simply raises the prices and lets the customers pay – no more jobs and no increased productivity, just more clinking in the cash register for the owners and more expensive grocery bags and mortgages for the households.

In the best-case scenario, the government opens its wallet and offers bandages for the wounds through housing subsidies, electricity support, and interest deductions. Instead of fixing the poorly functioning markets and forcing prices down with increased competition, the government lets the taxpayers foot the bill – the state and capital. What a waste!

Madam Speaker! The Moderates are going to the election under the left-wing slogan justice – perhaps a last straw to try to save themselves in power. It will be a challenge to put lipstick on that pig, perhaps you think, when one governs the country with the fastest-growing economic inequalities.

But, do you understand, according to the Moderaterna, injustice is that some children grow up and get to go on mountain and sun holidays while other children do not go further than the apartment building's playground. In the name of justice, the benefits for the worst off shall be lowered. Only then can justice be dispensed for hard-working people. Low- and middle-income earners get nothing themselves, apart from the offer to rejoice that someone else, at least, has it much worse.

Reduced unemployment insurance should be seen as an investment. Those who do not receive sickness benefit should see life without compensation as an opportunity. When families with children lose the child allowance, it should lead to new class journeys.

The unjust benefit-dependent should make amends and not be locked in through increased housing allowances. For the righteous deduction-dependent, it is fair game to stack deductions on top of each other without feeling ashamed.

It is unfair, they think, that the one with the highest income should contribute more. It is equality itself that is the injustice. Efforts should pay off, they say, and in the name of justice, a minister with a monthly salary of 120,000 therefore receives a tax cut that gives back more per month than a mail carrier receives in an entire year. The Swedish model has been turned upside down, and today we are sending the money upwards.

Madam Speaker! Soon election day is here. Soon we can get a left-wing government that takes Sweden in a new direction. Vänsterpartiet is the guarantee that the election promises regarding abolished karensavdrag, increased pensions, high-cost protection in dental care, more time with the family and less time at work will be fulfilled.

If trust in politics is to be strengthened, it is not enough to just win. When you cast your vote for Vänsterpartiet, you must feel that it makes a difference – that it becomes fairer and better. The person who is ill receives the correct compensation. No teenager receives a deportation notice as a graduation present.

I cannot promise everything, but I can promise to do everything I can and a little more at the negotiating table so that Sweden will become stronger and more equal again.

I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 2 in report 20 and also of the Green Party's reservation 3 in report 21.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Ahead of the upcoming election in September, the narrative that voters perceive as best describing reality will be important for the election's outcome. I am thinking of the presidential candidate Ronald Reagan who in 1980 asked the question: Are you better off than you were four years ago? That is: Are you better off than you were four years ago? That we have somewhat different ways of describing reality is not particularly surprising.

I said in a speech on national day on Saturday that we are in troubled times. I am thinking, in particular, of the ongoing situation in Ukraine. But I am also thinking of the wars in the Middle East. I am thinking of tariffs, valuation conflicts, division, polarization, and uncertainty. And I am thinking that many have had and continue to have it tough economically.

But it is also equally true that Sweden has moved from the bottom tier in Europe when it comes to economic growth to being at the top. We have brought down the loathsome, dangerous inflation from 10 percent to the target level – yes, even below the target level of 2 percent. The healthcare queues have been reduced by 36 percent. On national day on Saturday, I said 30 percent, because that was the updated figure I had then.

We have the lowest tax burden in 50 years. We have one of the lowest national debts. And as we have heard before, Sweden is therefore one of nine countries that have the highest credit rating. We have halved the deadly gang violence since 2022. We have more police in outer service than ever before. Asylum immigration is the lowest since 1985, which means that we are creating much better conditions to achieve an integration of those who have already arrived here. The energy policy has been redirected with new nuclear power in focus – that is to say that we are to have emission-free electricity even when it is not blowing. And so, Statistics Sweden has stated that we have the lowest child poverty in ten years.

Both of these descriptions are true. My speech on Saturday was about faith in Sweden. It is not a faith that has to do with any kind of naive optimism, but something much deeper. It is my faith in and conviction that we can build Sweden both stronger, kinder and better.

Madam Speaker! In order to manage to build a stronger, wealthier and better Sweden, we must continue to guard the public finances. That we are one of the nine countries with the highest credit rating, AAA, among the major credit institutions is very important, and we must take care of that.

Our low public debt has also created a room for maneuver. This we will, among other things, get to discuss in a little over a week, when we are to debate the government's proposal for an extra amendment budget. We really hear from political colleagues out in Europe, regardless of political color, that our low debt and the economic growth that Sweden has are envied.

In my youth, when I was youth union chairman, I read a lot of different writings. I remember that I read some of Friedrich A von Hayek. He argued that politics is like gardening. We shall, therefore, set the rules, but we shall, as far as possible, avoid details. And then we shall let people and companies develop. So far, Hayek.

Moving on to the other part, besides that we shall keep our national debt in order, namely that we must enable more jobs. Nothing can be more important in the long run. If we are to succeed in that task, we must realize that new companies must be created, and the companies that exist must also be able to grow. This is absolutely crucial.

It is also about being able to compete, I think. Mikael Damberg was on this – that we in Sweden can compete when it comes to attracting investments and competence. Sweden shall be an attractive country – that is important. I do not believe this is achieved through proposals for maintained wages despite reduced working hours or by removing the quarantine deduction, on the contrary.

This brings me to the third part pointed out in our government bill, which we are also actually discussing today, namely that effort should pay off. This government has lowered the tax on work and pension for three years in a row. In combination with the subsidy reform that is now being successively implemented, the assessment is that structural unemployment – which, if I remember correctly, accounts for about 85 percent of unemployment – will now, for the first time in 20 years, trend downwards. This is very important and pleasing.

Madam Speaker! A great deal has been achieved during this parliamentary term. I will focus a little on what has happened within the health and medical care sector.

The reinforcement being made in the spring budget amendment that we are now discussing means that before the summer we will inject a quarter of a billion kronor to maintain healthcare capacity and meet the population's healthcare needs during the summer. That is one example. We know, however, that the summer does not only mean an opportunity for the staff, the fantastic healthcare staff, to have time for recovery and well-deserved leave. We also know that it creates major staffing problems. Agency staff has often been a necessity in order to be able to solve the staffing within healthcare.

Another example in the year-end budget is the new state grant of 327 million kronor to enable publicly funded IVF treatment. There, the number of attempts is now doubled from three to six. We know that involuntary infertility affects one in six couples, and with this, more can hold on to the hope of becoming parents.

A third part in this is that we are now rolling out a vaccination program for those aged 65 and over.

Madam Speaker! It is not about luck. It is absolutely not luck that we once again, with a Ministry of Health and Social Affairs under Christian Democratic leadership, are shortening the healthcare queues. The healthcare queues were halved under the Alliance government. Then they increased again during the eight years when the Social Democrats were in power, and now they have been shortened by 36 percent in less than four years.

Furthermore, there is now, which this government has also appointed, a coordinator with the task to analyze and follow up on the work with healthcare queues and identify obstacles to cooperation and propose measures that can quickly increase accessibility. A reduction of the healthcare queues by 36 percent is undoubtedly something substantial, it is, but it does not mean that there is no work left to do. It is still people who are standing in healthcare queues.

Waiting lists in healthcare are not a law of nature, but it is gratifying that we have succeeded in shortening them. It also shows that it makes a difference who is in power.

I also want to take the opportunity to highlight something that is close to my heart, perhaps as a consequence of having worked as a priest for many years. It is that one gets to see another side, a side of human life – a side that is not presented on Facebook, Instagram, and everything else that social media is called now.

There are, in fact, people who cannot constantly go out on new experiences and vacations and cannot post selfies where they talk about how fantastically well they are doing. I am thinking of all those who experience that life has fallen apart. They have been struck by an anxiety that has sunk its claws into them so that they do not see any bright spots at all. They see only an endless darkness where no future exists.

Around us there are people who carry a strong sense of worry, sadness, grief, fear, anxiety and depression and perhaps even have thoughts of suicide, i.e., that suicide could be the solution to their situation. Despite the fact that we know mental illness is a real problem, answers are often missing as to why. Research and evidence are not where they should be. Therefore, every year I have submitted a motion in the Riksdag that we need to gain more knowledge and that, based on that knowledge, we should also take measures and implement the interventions that are needed.

But this government acts. My heart warms when I read about the strategy that bears the name It is about life. That vision deserves to be read aloud on a day like this when we talk mostly about crowns and cents. The vision is "a society that promotes good and equal health in the entire population, and where no one should have to end up in a situation where the only way out is perceived to be suicide."

The government has now made a decision on this national strategy. It is about creating a common and long-term direction for work on mental health and suicide prevention. A strategy has now been presented for that work for the coming ten years. I believe this is so incredibly important.

Madam Speaker! The presidential candidate Ronald Reagan thus asked the question: Are you better off than you were four years ago? He won the election. That is actually why I, even though the opinion polls show something else right now, continue to believe in an election victory for the Tidö parties. People are better off now than they were four years ago, and on election day they will give us the confidence to continue the work that has only just begun.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in both reports.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I am not 100 percent sure that everyone at this election will answer that they have what Reagan expressed it as: I’m better off than four years ago. During Ronald Reagan's term, there was low unemployment and high growth, but that has not really been the case now.

But I did not intend to focus on what sets us apart now. I was recently at a seminar hosted by Swedish heavy industry. It is about the forests, the mines, and the steel. There, people are a bit worried. They want us to do much more than this government has done for the green transition, which they want to lead, because they need more green energy.

Here comes the good part: They praised both Centerpartiet and Kristdemokraterna – the member's party colleague Camilla Brodin and the undersigned – because we are two parties that are prepared to make long-term, wise energy agreements across block boundaries.

Now my question to you, Hans Eklind: Can we fight together for a broad energy agreement, for the forest, for steel, and above all for the Swedish people? Your party leader has indeed called for this.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Forgive me, but I am a bit shocked by that question. It was a friendly question, Martin Ådahl.

Yes, absolutely! If Martin Ådahl has listened even the slightest bit to my party leader Ebba Busch, who is also the Minister for Energy, he also knows the answer. We see that there is a need for Sweden for broad agreements on issues important for the country. It has probably not escaped anyone that she has tried to champion this in the sitting government.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! That was a pleasant and positive confirmation! It gives hope for the future.

I believe we agree that at least the industry – which is making enormous efforts to move over to the fossil-free side and also believes that they can be leaders in that development throughout the world and also gain large competitive advantages through this – would welcome our two parties taking the lead in a real long-term energy settlement where we get much more fossil-free electricity, both in the near term, which we think has been somewhat lacking, and in the longer term.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Come over to us on this side of politics, Martin Ådahl! The mission that the Center Party gives itself by saying that one absolutely cannot cooperate with the Sweden Democrats results in that one must cooperate with parties that do not see the value of this at all with stable base load. Stable base load provides electricity to our industry. In the current situation, there are actually industries that have chosen not to establish themselves in Sweden because one cannot secure a stable energy supply.

We are completely in agreement in substance that this is needed. But then Martin Ådahl and Centerpartiet should also look for better partners to cooperate with than the cooperation partners they have informed the Swedish people about so far.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Dear listeners! The Minister for Finance is obviously back here.

I begin by moving for approval of all our reservations. I would also like to take this opportunity, here at the end of a parliamentary term, to thank our colleagues and the committee secretariat.

It should be bright times for Sweden – a time of hope. But it is unemployment, exclusion, emissions, deficits, deportations and a recovery that is always waiting just around the corner but never comes.

The government says that people are working too hard as Swedes, but 100,000 more Swedes have become unemployed. They say they are going to lower taxes on work, but they have raised the employer contributions. They have hardly lowered them back to the previous level at the end of the period. They say they stand for growth and are at the top of the growth. But GDP retreated at the beginning of the year.

When something is ultimately wrong, it is never the government's fault. It is the opposition's fault. Very often it is the immigrants' fault.

It is time for a timeout for Tidö, a permanent timeout. This is not working. Now Sweden must find its way back to the sensible and normal Sweden that we recognize. There, we of course eliminate the gangs and their senseless violence. We tackle the economic problems again with a wise and long-term growth policy, with growing small businesses. There we lead the technological race with startup companies and education. There we lead the climate transition, and our companies shine across the world again. It is also a Sweden where people are encouraged to contribute instead of draining. That Sweden, Madam Speaker, is not Åkesson's and – unfortunately – Kristersson's Sweden.

Before the 2022 election, Ulf Kristersson said that Europe's fourth highest unemployment should make the government unemployed. Today, Sweden has Europe's third highest unemployment. I know that Elisabeth Svantesson does not want to call this a crisis. It varies a bit from case to case, but the Tidö government cannot turn a blind eye to the crisis when half a million people are without jobs. 8.7 percent is not a good unemployment figure. It is double what it is in many other Western countries and much higher than it is in Germany, which was just mentioned.

Families are in crisis. People who have struggled and still lost their jobs are in crisis, and more and more people unfortunately remain outside the labor market for longer and longer. We have a very high, if not record-high, long-term unemployment. Over 70,000 children have seen their parents become unemployed during this period.

This affects all groups. I believe that many who today are raising their student caps have heard older friends, who only a few years earlier raised their student caps, tell how difficult it is to get a job, how long it takes.

Unemployment among graduates is increasing. Youth unemployment is increasing. Stop sugarcoating this! It cannot be explained away. It cannot be tricked away with numbers. People feel it directly. In that case, it is also not possible, as the government does regarding this budget, to stand by with arms crossed.

65 kronor per unemployed person is not an adequate answer to an unemployment crisis. We in Centerpartiet include 20,000 in our alternative for the unemployed – we will return to that. This also costs the state finances. Just the increase in unemployment during the Tidö government has cost the state finances more than 30 billion kronor. The difference in relation to the EU's average unemployment has doubled during this government. It costs us all. It costs the equivalent of 45 billion kronor – it is therefore about the difference in relation to the EU. This corresponds to 100,000 teachers, nursing assistants, and doctors. It actually corresponds to more than 500 kronor per month for each household – in lost welfare.

Madam Speaker! This must be a priority for the next Finance Minister: the jobs, the jobs, the jobs. I say it again: the jobs, the jobs, the jobs.

From and including September, we must work with this every morning, afternoon, and evening. It is about every single small café. They are the ones who create most of the jobs for young people when they enter the labor market. It is about the small companies. It is about every single small workshop, every single small startup, and every single large industry. It is about those who are considering hiring one more but who today are not sure if they can afford to do so. They shall know that help is on the way from Centerpartiet.

We will make it possible for you to grow as a human being or as an entrepreneur, so that you can flourish in your locality and so that you can ensure that one more person gets a job.

When hundreds of thousands of such companies do this, we strike down unemployment.

Yes, as was mentioned in the debate, 40 percent of the employer contribution is pure tax. With one hand, we are therefore penalizing when it comes to employing the people who are outside the labor market. With the other, we give them subsidies. It has only become worse and worse under this government. We cannot continue like this.

For everyone who earns up to 40,000 kronor – and in particular those who earn slightly less than that – we shall lower the income tax so that it always and without exception pays to move from benefits to work.

In this House of Parliament, the work line that has unfortunately been demolished by this government, which calls itself bourgeois, shall be restored. At the same time, many, many more shall get the chance to enter education programs that lead to the many professions where there is a great shortage. These are programs at vocational adult education and vocational upper secondary school and perhaps above all courses at universities and colleges, now that we have such a need given AI and the climate transition.

Transition study support is a rather complicated name for a fantastic thing: that one can study in the middle of life. This we shall transform into a much stronger knowledge exchange, where everyone can gear up and switch over to new educations. It is about having tailored educations for every Swede. That is the only way we can win.

Above all, the school shall shine like a temple in every village and every suburb. It shall not be as it is today: that every fifth, sixth child – unfortunately often boys and unfortunately often in small towns and in suburbs – is knocked out before the upper secondary education has been completed.

One must be able to move forward regardless of whether one prefers the theoretical or if one prefers the practical. We must also have a school where student health – and here I actually agree with the Christian Democrats – and BUP quickly take care of children who are suffering. It should not, as it does today, take months or years to get help. We shall have outreach and support teams, like in Finland. There are many students who are now going on summer break but who unfortunately have stayed at home because they have not managed to go to school. It is about seeking them out, helping them and giving them support so that they come back. We do not accept that this becomes a major societal problem.

Education and cultivation shall finally build our country again, as it was with the Alliance and with the January Agreement. The Centre Party will prioritize lower taxes when it comes to work and small businesses and much greater resources for education throughout the country.

There must be an end to people taking instead of contributing. It is about those who work, pay taxes, and behave correctly. It is about our colleagues and their children. Those who contribute to our welfare and create conditions for jobs shall not be deported from our country – period.

In Sweden, Swedish collective agreement wages shall apply for everyone, regardless of whether one is born abroad or born in Sweden. It is usually called the Swedish model. There should be no self-invented wage floors from Svantesson, Forssell, Åkesson and others in the Tidöre government. Teenagers who have grown up in our country, who want to build our country and who dream in Swedish shall not be deported by SD – period. This is also a billion-kronor cost that the government hides in its budget, contrary to all reasonable accounting principles. You are throwing out a lot of taxpayers from our country. If we are to invest in jobs, we must invest in the green.

This spring, Swedish households were suddenly caught in a vise with their eyes fixed on the Strait of Hormuz and that little screen at the gas pump where the price was skyrocketing. It was Trump, it was rockets from the ayatollahs, and the price jumped up and down like a yo-yo. The government had told us that as long as we got cheap diesel, everything would be resolved, especially in the countryside – until it no longer did.

Denmark sells twice as many electric cars as Sweden. Denmark! It's for the cat that Sweden makes electric cars! Volvo believes that next year and the year after are decisive. The factory has been mortgaged to be able to sell the world's best electric cars, and yet more electric cars are sold in Denmark. Almost 80 percent of all cars in Denmark are chargeable while it only applies to 40 percent of all new cars so far this year in Sweden. There are therefore twice as many chargeable cars in Denmark as in Sweden.

I read that the government so far this year has distributed 5,000 environmental bonuses for electric cars, plug-in hybrids and the like, both new and used, just as C has demanded. But it is only 5,000. How many new electric cars are covered by the Danish electric car benefit that makes more ordinary people choose an environmental car? 126,500 last year! That is hundreds of thousands more Danes who are not dependent on Trump and the Strait of Hormuz while millions of Swedes still are and need one lifeline after another in support.

I understand: We must help people. They must be able to get to work and drop the children off at school. It must work in the countryside. But we cannot just continue like this! Everyone must be able to afford it, as in Denmark – hvergang, as Niels Paarup-Petersen had said.

We must get out of the fossil dependency, Svantesson! Hundreds of thousands of Swedish families every year must get out of it! It must cost as little as 1,500 a month to lease a new or used electric car, and we must have electric trucks. We do make the world's best electric trucks. They are cheaper, and they are better. But we are not investing in them in the way the Chinese do with proper charging, proper and good bonuses, and support for the companies that invest in green and want to drive green.

It is a bit sweet that the government now, barely a hundred days before the election, has discovered something called public transport. Then perhaps one might even discover that there are also Swedish electric bicycles that people can ride to work.

But that is actually not enough. In the next parliamentary term, Madam Speaker, Swedish business shall lead the development in the world again. It shall shine as an example of green growth, where we stop the climate catastrophe. We shall get more green energy, faster permits and a green domestic market for our industry. We shall make broad agreements – there sits Hans Eklind from Kristdemokraterna – that Ebba Busch has offered.

It is time for a timeout for Tidö now! It is time for a sensible liberal center policy where jobs increase and emissions do not soar but go down, where welfare is strengthened across the entire country, where we stand for our strengths, small business and green growth.

Madam Speaker! Sweden can do more!

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not distrust the Center Party's ambitions. I have known Martin Ådahl well over these four years and know that he is an honorable person with good commitment and a good will to do good things.

What I distrust, Madam Speaker and all of you listening, is how one can be able to re-establish the work line and conduct bourgeois politics with the Left Party and the Green Party in government. It is a mystery to me, and that is what my question shall be about.

We could talk about youth unemployment, because if we measure in the same way as is done in the rest of the European Union, it is the second lowest in the entire European Union. If there are young people who want and can work but do not get a job, we of course always need to do more, lower thresholds, make it cheaper to hire and so on. On that, we are in complete agreement.

That is why we are lowering the employer contribution for young people, we are making a targeted summer job initiative and so on. We probably need to do even more. We cannot be satisfied just because we are second best – we must, of course, always be the best when it comes to jobs.

With that said, I still want to ask a question to Martin Ådahl and Centerpartiet, Madam Speaker. What does the political map look like? We have sat and listened to the other left-wing parties here. What does the political map look like for Centerpartiet, which wants to lower the thresholds and make it cheaper to hire when everything your coalition parties talk about is making it more expensive for companies to hire? How is Centerpartiet going to succeed with this maneuver and get the other left-wing parties to make it cheaper to hire when everything they talk about is the opposite?

That is what I want to know.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Even though I can truly appreciate Edward Riedl, who I truly believe has his heart in the right place and somewhere wants what we want, it is only to be noted how it has become during these four years. It has not become so.

I understand that one enters this election bubble, but both Edward Riedl and I know a lot of young people who are very worried about the high youth unemployment, not because they have read it on SCB's website but because they know a lot of people who do not get jobs and who have to continue studying, because that is the only economic alternative for them, even though they do not want to.

I think like this: The Moderates have the world's simplest solution to this. If only Ulf Kristersson, constantly, is not to become Prime Minister in Åkesson's government, then one could reach a more sensible centrist policy. But I have understood that it is totally impossible.

Then one must see where one can find other solutions to be able to do so. I can only repeat that we will under no circumstances accept a government where Vänsterpartiet sits. They shall not sit there. I am very disappointed that you accept a government where Sverigedemokraterna sit and that you give them the position of Finance Minister.

Can we manage it? Of course we can manage it. The Centre Party are the ones who have managed it. In the Alliance and in the January Agreement, we have pushed through major tax cuts, most recently in the January Agreement with 20 billion on jobs and entrepreneurship. It has taken us through crises, lowered unemployment, and increased growth.

Of course we can manage it again! It will happen, as long as we let go of Tidö and move towards a sensible liberal environmental policy where we do not mortgage the entire shop on Sverigedemokraterna and other fringe parties.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by stating that Martin Ådahl does not want to talk about Statistics Sweden and their statistics. There we can see in black and white that we in Sweden have the second lowest youth unemployment if we measure as in the rest of Europe.

I mean that it is dangerous to try to scare people into believing that it is in some other way. Does that mean I do not meet young people who are worried about the future? Absolutely not. I also meet worried people, and you contribute to that worry by saying that things are in a different way than they actually are.

With that said: As long as there are people who are unemployed but who want to work, the politics can never settle down. Then we need to lower taxes and make it easier and cheaper for companies to hire – conduct bourgeois politics, pursue a work-line as Martin Ådahl talks about. I just believe that there are greater opportunities to do it together with other bourgeois parties than to try to get Left Party members and Green Party members to conduct bourgeois politics. I believe that it is quite difficult, and we have seen that before.

I do not doubt the Center Party's ambitions, but I listen to what the parties to the left actually say they want to do. None of that is in any way in the direction that the Center Party speaks warmly for. I think much of what Martin Ådahl has said from the rostrum sounds wise. I just do not understand how it is going to work with people who want exactly the opposite.

I believe that many voters will eventually ask themselves that question: How can the Centre Party conduct the most liberal right-wing policy together with a group that is far to the left? I do not understand that, and I do not think that Martin Ådahl answers that question either, Madam Speaker. He is welcome to do so if he can.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! According to SCB, unemployment in Sweden is 8.7 percent, and I am not the only one raising this criticism. In addition to ordinary people, Svenskt Näringsliv's own chief economist has criticized this numerical trickery. He points out that the number of young people who are studying but seeking jobs and actually prefer to get a job – which is something we might recognize – is very high in Sweden. Several countries offer the possibility of being unemployed while studying. This applies to, for example, the Netherlands, but there, the unemployment among those who study is one-third as high as in Sweden.

If you look deeply into the statistics, you see the major problem Sweden has with youth unemployment. These are people who cannot start their lives at all, start earning their own wages and become what you call hard-working. Furthermore, the unemployment is broad and reaches very many groups right now. Once again: Talk to the economists, not with me, and perhaps with those who experience this in reality.

Again: You can be intimidated as much as you want with this and that, but the Center Party has delivered. I believe that is important for the voters. They want this real liberal and sensible thing. They do not want, as Edward Riedl says, to seek out far-flung other alternatives. They want the sensible, normal, liberal alternative, which does not deport people, which invests in the green, makes it better for small businesses and makes it possible to defeat unemployment. That is what the voters want. They naturally do not get that with Tidö and the Sverigedemokraterna. We stand here as the guarantee that it works. It has been proven in one society after another, and we will do it again.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

Economic policy is not just about figures. It is about people's opportunities and about what kind of society we want to build and leave behind. It is about whether we believe in development or stagnation, whether we believe in openness, and whether we want to look backward or forward.

The Liberals choose faith in the future. We believe in knowledge. We believe in work. We believe in research, innovation and entrepreneurship. We believe in people's creativity. We believe in a Sweden that grows by embracing the world, not by turning inward.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's prosperity was not built by chance. It was not built by fear. It was not built by protectionism. It was not built by us closing the door to the rest of the world. It was built by education, engineering expertise, export companies, researchers, teachers, skilled workers and people who came here to Sweden with knowledge, will and ambition. It was built by a country that understood that a small nation in northern Europe never becomes strong by isolating itself, but by being wiser, more open and better than others.

Sweden's prosperity was built by popular education, universities, workshop floors, laboratories, classrooms, drawing boards, research environments, trade with the rest of the world, and international cooperation. It was built by people who were given the chance to grow and who, in turn, built Sweden stronger. That is also why this spring budget must be understood as more than a collection of individual reforms. It is part of a direction and a narrative that Sweden shall be a knowledge nation even in the future.

Everything begins in school, where children first learn to read, write, and count. It is there that curiosity becomes knowledge. It is there that class journeys begin. It is there that freedom takes shape. For the Liberals, school is never just an activity among others. School is society's most important institution of freedom.

When children learn to read properly, the world opens up. When they encounter books, the mind opens. When they receive study time, clear expectations, and instruction from qualified, skilled teachers, they do not only get better results; they also get greater life opportunities. Therefore, it is important to stick to the path of knowledge. And that, Mr. Speaker, is something we have done in every budget we have presented during this parliamentary term.

During the mandate period, we have restored the textbook, strengthened school libraries, and realigned school policy towards knowledge, safety, and study. The Riksdag has said yes to the government's bill on strengthened access to teaching materials and a strengthened right to staffed school libraries, proceeded with introducing a mobile-free school from the autumn of 2026, and decided to regulate teachers' teaching time.

In the budget for 2026, the knowledge grant was also strengthened. In this spring budget, we continue on the same path with language breakfast, more homework help, and more money for books.

Language, reading, and knowledge are the foundation of everything. For the student who does not grasp the language early, almost all subjects become more difficult. For the student who does not have books at home, school becomes even more important. For the student who cannot get help with homework at home, society must step forward more clearly and earlier. That is what a liberal school policy looks like: more language, more reading, more support at the right time, and greater faith in every student's ability.

Mr. Speaker! The knowledge chain does not end in primary school. It starts in preschool and primary school and continues in upper secondary school and vocational training, higher education and universities, and within research. Sweden will not become richer by being able to do less. Sweden will not become greener by researching less. Sweden will not become safer by educating fewer engineers, teachers, nurses, and people with specialized expertise – on the contrary.

Sweden needs growth. That is how we can secure the welfare, become competitive and make a faster climate transition. Then we must invest even more in human capital. Therefore, the government has also during the mandate period expanded the roads to work and further studies.

The government has reinforced the pilot with national vocational training at the upper secondary level for adults. We have extended it until 2028. We have also significantly expanded the university college (yrkeshögskolan) during this parliamentary term. In addition, there are initiatives for language-strengthening measures at folk high schools, short courses for professionals, special training, and master's programs with an EU focus.

Mr. Speaker! Investments in school and more paths to employment and livelihood in combination with a focus on learning Swedish are also crucial for integration, because integration is about becoming a part of our community and our society. In that case, one needs to learn the Swedish language, receive an education if one needs it, and take a step into the labor market. That is why the labor line and the education line go hand in hand. That is also why the labor immigration is important. Sweden was never rich because we kept people out. Sweden became rich because people came here and contributed with hands, brains, ideas, and experience. So we must think that way today as well.

A country that wants to be a knowledge nation cannot signal that competence from the rest of the world is a problem. In a time of global competition for talent, Sweden must be at the forefront and be a country where people want to research, work, invest, and build their future. Therefore, we must clearly signal that we need you and welcome you to come here, take root, and build both family and companies together with us.

Mr. Speaker! Research is another part of the same story, for a country that stops researching will soon begin to fall behind. A country that falls behind technically will also fall behind economically. Therefore, I am proud that we have chosen technological optimism and have presented a historic research proposal during this parliamentary term. The investments in research are the way to increased competitiveness, security, climate work, and social development. The green transition will be carried by more knowledge, research, engineering expertise, electrification, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

Those who believe that climate policy succeeds by talking down and stopping growth have misunderstood both the climate challenge and the economy. That is why the investments during this mandate period on electrification and more nuclear power as the basis for our climate transition, with existing hydropower and renewable electricity production as a complement, are so important.

Mr. Speaker! A strong Sweden also requires a strong Europe. Sweden has never become stronger by the world becoming weaker. Sweden benefits from peace, free trade, open markets, and functioning international rules. Therefore, EU cooperation and international trade are so important.

That is also why the support for Ukraine is crucial. When Ukraine defends its freedom, it is not only defending its own country but also the idea of a Europe where democracy is worth protecting, where borders are not moved by violence and where freedom must not be taken for granted.

Mr. Speaker! I mean that Sweden must take the next step in European cooperation and introduce the euro – not for the sake of symbolic politics, but because Sweden is a deeply European country. Our trade, our competitiveness, and our future are closely intertwined with Europe's. Sweden should sit where the decisions are shaped, not stand beside. For liberals, Europe is a part of Sweden's strength.

The Liberals have been proactive in lowering the tax burden for both private individuals and companies during this mandate period. It is reasonable that one should be able to keep as much as possible of one's own salary and that one should be able to decide for oneself what one wants to spend one's money on. The Liberals know that high marginal taxes, which Sweden has, are harmful to growth and education. We have pushed them down further during the mandate period. It is good but not enough.

Furthermore, the Liberals have fulfilled their 2022 election promise of 300,000 kronor tax-free for ISK savings. That is something I am very proud of. A buffer is a security and an important freedom.

Mr. Speaker! A society is not measured only in GDP, exports or investments, but it is also measured in the scope of freedom. A country that does not take advantage of women's education, labor, entrepreneurship and leadership becomes poorer than it needs to be. Economic equality is not a side issue, but it is something that creates growth. When more women can work full-time, build careers, start companies and get a return on their education, all of Sweden grows.

In the same way, LSS is not only a welfare issue but also a freedom issue. For liberals, LSS is about self-determination, dignity, and the right to live one's own life. A free society must be a society where those who need support do not become less free but instead receive better conditions to study, work, participate, and live like others. It is precisely there that liberalism is truly tested. Do we defend every person's right to grow, choose, and participate?

The Liberals have during this mandate period pushed for an increase of the assistance allowance. It has been completely necessary, but it is in the next step completely crucial that the assistance allowance is adjusted upwards every year so that it is no longer eroded. This needs to be prioritized as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker! There are those who speak of the economy as if it were decoupled from ideas. I believe on the contrary that economic policy is policy of ideas. A policy that invests in the school, strengthens vocational training, expands higher education, believes in research, embraces innovation, defends openness and sticks to the work line will make Sweden richer, not just in money but also in opportunities.

That is why we fight for knowledge. That is why we defend trade, EU cooperation and international openness. That is why we believe in climate transition through technology and development, not by turning back the clock.

Mr. Speaker! This is my last budget debate in the Riksdag and my last debate in general. Therefore, I would like to conclude a bit more personally.

I leave the Riksdag with the same conviction as when I arrived here: Sweden is a fantastic country, but Sweden must never take its prosperity for granted. It must be built and defended again and again – in the classrooms, in the vocational training, at the universities, in the research environments, in the companies, and in the meetings with the rest of the world. It must happen through equality and opportunities for everyone, regardless of where they started their life's journey. It is built through the courage to choose the future over nostalgia.

I believe in a Sweden where every child in all of Sweden's classrooms can crack the code of reading, read their first book, proceed to higher studies, become an engineer, researcher, entrepreneur or teacher, and then themselves be involved in building the next chapter in our country.

I believe in a Sweden where people who come here to work and contribute are given the opportunity to do so and are welcomed with openness, support, and expectations. I believe in a Sweden that has faith in the future and faith in every person's unique ability and that meets it with knowledge, work, and freedom.

I believe in a Sweden that continues to be open to the rest of the world, to ideas and to people. That is the Sweden I want to build, and that is why I became politically active.

With this, I would like to extend a big thank you to all the staff at the Finance Committee's office, who have truly facilitated the work for all of us members and helped us in every way when we have needed help.

I also want to extend a big thank you to all my colleagues in the Committee on Finance. It has been both educational, interesting, and fun to work with you during these years. I believe that we, despite our differences of opinion, have taken a great responsibility for Sweden during nearly four years that have been very eventful and challenging.

Good luck in the election campaign!

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! As Cecilia Rönn herself said, if this is not the final debate, it is in any case one of the absolute last. I truly want to take this opportunity to thank Cecilia Rönn for her time in the Committee on Finance. Personally, I greatly appreciate that she is a person who, ultimately, always stands up for principles and for the enterprise she herself has been a part of.

I can personally regret that she will not play a larger role in politics moving forward; I believe that she could have achieved great things. I hope that she will come back.

Now I want – and I believe it is common to everyone in the committee – to simply thank Cecilia Rönn for these years in the Finance Committee and for all the important things that she and we have achieved together.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks for that, Martin! It has been very exciting and fun to get to know you and to work together.

I think the trip that several of us in the Committee on Finance made to Ukraine was very important and rewarding. It is just one of the important things that we have done together.

Thank you very much for the kind words!

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking Cecilia Rönn for having been an important liberal voice and a fine colleague in the committee. It has been a pleasure to have her here, and I hope that we see each other in other contexts in the future.

Without painting the picture too dark, we can state that Sweden finds itself in a vulnerable position. Much depends on events in the outside world that are difficult for a Swedish government to directly influence, but some parts are simply due to bad economic policy. We find ourselves in an undeservedly bad position because for four years we have had a government that is more obsessed with lowering taxes for the rich than with building Sweden stronger.

We still have high unemployment. Many households live with small margins. Municipalities and regions struggle to make the finances balance. At the same time, we see how the climate crisis is accelerating, how extreme weather is becoming more common, and how international uncertainty is increasing.

In such a situation, one would want to have a government that meets the problems we face with an economic policy that provides reduced emissions and which ensures that more adults get a job to go to, more students pass in school, and more sick people get to see the doctor within a reasonable time.

Unfortunately, that is not the kind of government we have. Instead, we have a government that, in a panic over poor opinion polls, sprinkles out temporary tax cuts and a Prime Minister who is angry and shifts the blame. It is not leadership that impresses when one should be building security instead of, as now, making Sweden even more vulnerable to crises.

The government's spring budget proposal is depressing. Instead of presenting proposals at the eleventh hour that would actually strengthen Swedish competitiveness and make everyday life easier for ordinary people, they come up with a collection of short-sighted measures without direction.

Furthermore, they want to invest in nuclear power, which will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions. How much, no one knows yet. But we know that it will have to be paid for by our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Miljöpartiet says no to that.

Sweden needs cheap electricity here and now, not expensive electricity at any point in the future. The government's dreams of nuclear power have also put spokes in the wheels of the expansion of renewable energy. Miljöpartiet has time and again presented proposals that, in the near future, could provide Swedes with clean and cheap electricity. But the government has said no. They have put all their eggs in the nuclear power basket and completely failed to drive a green transition.

When Sweden needs a climate transition, we instead get increased emissions. The government repeats with a fool's persistence the feat of making Sweden poorer and more vulnerable through its recurring tax cuts on diesel and gasoline. It is bad policy. It is expensive for the treasury, inefficient as support for families with small margins who need the car, and it is also harmful to the climate. It costs billions but makes very little difference for those who truly have it hard. Those who drive a lot and can afford large cars get the most. The single mother who takes the bus to work does not get a single krona.

Those who lack a car do not receive a reduced cost for transport – in any case not in the budget we are now debating, because when it was made, the government did not realize that many Swedes also depend on public transport. There are therefore no such proposals in this budget.

Using many billions to subsidize fossil fuels is neither fair economic policy nor good economic policy for transition and reduced emissions.

The government is also actively undermining the market for electric vehicles, which risks our competitiveness and makes us more dependent on imported oil at a time when the world around us is becoming increasingly uncertain. Every time the oil price rises due to conflicts in the world, Swedish companies and households become more vulnerable. The solution is not to lock Sweden into fossil fuel dependency, but to make us less dependent on fossil fuels.

That is why Miljöpartiet wants large investments in public transport, electrification, and climate-smart transport. But we also want to provide support to those who need the car, not least in Sweden's rural and sparsely populated areas. It is them we should support, not city dwellers who can easily take the bus to work.

The crisis needs to be met in more than one way, and we have several times presented a broad palette of measures that would together benefit Swedes' wallets, Sweden's resilience, and our climate work – all at the same time.

We want to see a transport support that will reach the households in rural areas who do not have the means or opportunity to use public transport and who have low incomes. Our transport support of 2,900 SEK per year and adult would provide significantly more in the wallet to those households who are truly dependent on the car and have been hit hard by the skyrocketing prices than the government's initiative on reduced tax on gasoline and diesel, which provides a couple of hundred kronor per year.

In addition to the transport support, we already wanted to see a halved price for public transport in the entire country in this budget. The government has now complied with this and presented proposals for it. It is good that the government has listened to Miljöpartiet, but the initiative needs to be more long-term. In the long run, Miljöpartiet wants to see a Sweden card where one travels with public transport and regional transport across the entire country for 499 kronor.

In addition to wanting to invest in transport support and lower prices in public transport, we want everyone to be able to afford an electric car, and we therefore present an electric car offensive for leasing, purchase, and charging of electric cars. It would give almost four times as many households the opportunity to switch to an electric car next mandate period compared to the government's policy.

We also want to build up a strong domestic production of sustainable biofuels so that production can be quadrupled and Sweden can become self-sufficient.

Mr. Speaker! We have many times heard the government say that they prioritize households and the hard-working people in our country. But which households are it actually that are prioritized? Throughout the entire mandate period, the government has chosen to allocate large resources to tax cuts that primarily benefit those who are already best off. Sometimes the argument is used that it creates jobs. But it is obviously not an effective job-creation policy given the record-high unemployment. Sometimes the argument is used that they have lowered the tax most for those with the lowest incomes. Yes, they have, if you calculate in percentages. But that is exactly where it goes completely wrong. When a person with a low salary gets a few hundred kronor in tax cuts at best, a high-income earner gets thousands. It is unfair and inefficient. And at the same time as this tax policy is pursued, child poverty is growing. The gaps are widening, and more families are forced to turn over every krona.

So it does not have to be. Miljöpartiet makes a different prioritization. We want to strengthen the finances of families with children. In the autumn, we proposed a 350 kronor increase in child allowance per child, and now we are proposing a single-parent supplement of 800 kronor per child. That would provide a supplement of 2,300 for a parent with two children. It would be a real and important supplement in very many households now that many testify that they cannot afford to buy clothes or to put food on the table for the whole family.

Mr. Speaker! The government's economic policy also misses what should be the most important thing: to meet the recession and unemployment with future investments. Historically, Sweden has built its way out of crises, and we should do so now as well. If we are to create more jobs, reach the climate goals and strengthen our competitiveness, a rapid and powerful green transition of the industry, the energy system and the infrastructure is required.

It is about investments in things such as railways, power grids, energy storage, energy efficiency in heavy industry, material recycling and carbon capture. These are investments that provide great societal benefits but where private capital is not enough to go all the way. Therefore, the state must be involved and share the risk, mobilize investments and ensure that the transition actually happens at the pace that is required.

When the Green Party was in government, Sweden was well on its way to reaching its environmental and climate goals. Since then, the development has reversed, and with the government's policy, emissions from the transport sector have turned sharply upwards. In recent years, they have also put a total stop to electrification, placed obstacles in the way of the industry's transition, and completely neglected the work of producing cheaper electricity.

We must now restart the green industrial transition as soon as possible. It is important policy for reduced emissions and strengthened competitiveness. Miljöpartiet therefore proposes green tax credits to stimulate the business sector's green transition for more jobs and reduced emissions. Such tax credits already exist in Finland, if anyone wants to take a closer look at them.

The tax credits, together with reinforced industrial steps, climate steps, and a new state green investment bank, can provide powerful incentives to accelerate the industry's transition to fossil-free. This is an important piece of the puzzle to ensure that there are conditions in Sweden to make the investments required for business and industry to be able to stay at the forefront.

Mr. Speaker! A great deal has already been discussed regarding the fiscal framework in today's debate. What the Green Party wants to see are strict investments in the climate transition. It builds Sweden stronger for the future and reduces future costs.

Regardless of how it sounds here today, the government wants to borrow money to finance lower taxes for the wealthy and temporary tax cuts, without any plans for the future. We believe that borrowed money should instead be used for investments that strengthen Sweden over time so that households and companies can rely on the trains running on time and that electricity is cheap and renewable.

We want to see investments that reduce emissions and at the same time make Sweden richer, safer, and more resilient. It is the difference between thinking ahead to the next opinion poll and thinking ahead to the next generation.

As I have said many times, Sweden needs an economic policy that lowers emissions, increases equality, and takes people's anxiety seriously, because Sweden needs more than temporary tax cuts before the election. We need faith in the future, we need a functioning welfare state, and we need jobs. We simply need to know that the government has a plan. That plan, this government has not delivered.

The Green Party's message is clear: We want to break the recession and restore climate and environmental policy by investing in the green transition. We want to reduce inequalities and support households with small margins while simultaneously strengthening welfare. We simply want to build a Sweden that stands stronger in the face of future challenges. Sweden deserves better than short-term tax cuts and increased emissions. Sweden wins with green politics that invest in the future.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 4 in FiU20 and reservation 3 in FiU21.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Janine Alm Ericson, for the speech!

There are some things in the supplementary budget. We are adding 500 million kronor, among other things, so that government agencies can choose fossil-free and electric alternatives. So, there are things and matters.

I thought I would be nice and take the floor from Member Janine Alm Ericson so that she gets the opportunity to answer a question that I have asked her previously.

The starting point for my reasoning is that we Christian Democrats say that Sweden should not have stricter and tougher environmental goals than what is in the EU. We have been clear about this. Behind this lie a number of different observations: Sweden has the lowest emissions per person in the EU. We have an almost entirely fossil-free electricity production. Our total emissions have decreased by 63 percent since the 1970s. 90 percent of all emissions from own home heating are gone. We have one of the world's most environmentally smart agricultures. Emissions from our car fleet have decreased despite it having grown. We have a forest whose growth makes it bind approximately 40 years of Swedish emissions.

With all this said, my question to the member has concerned one of the major sources of revenue for Vladimir Putin, alongside oil and gas, namely the production of mineral fertilizer. We could do that here in Sweden. We also have the rare earth metals that are required; they are found in Sweden. We could do it here ourselves, but if we do, the consequence would reasonably be that we do not reach the Swedish environmental goals.

I would therefore like to ask the question again to the MP from Miljöpartiet: What is most important for Miljöpartiet? Is it that we reach the Swedish environmental goals, or is it – in this case – that we produce mineral fertilizer in Sweden, which we can do in a much more climate-smart way than what is done in Russia? The Earth's climate would probably benefit from Sweden and not Russia doing it.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Hans Eklind, for the question!

It is always fun for an environmentalist to discuss climate and environment, especially when it concerns this government, which has increased emissions, primarily from transport.

It is true that we in Sweden are in a very good position. Among other things, we use very little fossil fuel in the heating of our houses. That is because Miljöpartiet demanded investments in that when we were partners to the government a long time ago. It was a policy that made people throw out their old oil boilers and instead install heat exchangers and other things that have made us stronger. That is also important to remember.

Sweden's figures are good, but the consumption emissions are not included there. There is, therefore, a huge bias here that one chooses not to see. At the same time, we know that Swedish industry is a very large emitter. When it comes to steel production, we see that Industriklivet has ensured that we may now get a steel production without carbon.

Unfortunately, that development has become much more sluggish with this government. It surprises me, because regardless of what one might think about a right-wing government, one did not think it would put obstacles in the way of the industry's innovative power and for strengthening Swedish competitiveness.

Naturally, all politics is full of difficult trade-offs. It is clear that we should not buy mineral fertilizer from Putin, if we can avoid it, but we need to look at the whole. We believe that Sweden should be at the forefront when it comes to the climate transition in Europe, because we are in a very good position. And Swedish companies are in a very good position in terms of competitiveness, if we let them be. I do not see that our environmental policy would prevent us from putting a stop to Putin.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The question was whether we should produce mineral fertilizer in Sweden if it means that we do not reach the Swedish environmental goals. These do seem to be very important for Miljöpartiet.

That we must solve this internationally was one of my basic arguments when I once argued for a Swedish membership in the EC, as it was called then. Environmental pollution, after all, knows no national borders.

One can look at this regarding the climate, which the Green Party very much likes to talk about. I prepared some figures ahead of this debate, and there one can see that the EU today accounts for 6 percent of the world's emissions, while Sweden accounts for 1 per mille.

India's increase in emissions alone has nullified, that is, completely eaten up, all the improvements EU has made, which is quite a lot. Since 2005, the EU has reduced its emissions by 33 percent. At the same time, emissions have increased by 28 percent on a global level.

A major source of emissions is the use of coal power. Furthermore, this was what was used in Germany when they prematurely decommissioned nuclear power, something that Miljöpartiet thinks is extremely good and which has led to 45 percent higher electricity prices in southern Sweden. When Germany got rid of nuclear power, they had to start up the coal power plants when there was so-called dunkelflaute, that is to say, dark doldrums, and when it neither blows nor shines. That had to be done when they were forced to produce energy.

My question is: Can Miljöpartiet also see that there is no point in ceasing to focus on the per mille that causes the emissions? If there is a climate and environmental problem that we must address, is it not more useful to attack where the problem de facto exists? And then it is not Swedish car traffic that is the main problem, even if it sounds that way when Miljöpartiet speaks.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think it sounds like the Green Party thinks that Swedish car traffic is the most important thing to reduce emissions, even if one would like to make it sound that way. We think that the most important thing to address the climate issue is to reduce fossil emissions. I do not think anyone has anything else to say about that.

I do not know if Hans Eklind has heard the expression many small streams. It means that even if each small part may seem insignificantly small, they can become something very large when they are gathered. So it is with the climate emissions.

We are absolutely not the largest emitters. There are other countries that have significantly more to do, but in order to be able to assert this with emphasis, one must have swept clean in front of one's own door and ensured that one oneself is not part of all those small streams.

The Christian Democrats are speaking from a position where they have, in fact, increased Sweden's emissions. They stand here and try to make it sound like they care about climate and the environment, but we don't see that in the policy, even though I appreciate that Hans Eklind seems to have a personal commitment.

In order for us to reduce emissions, we have major international agreements, including within the UN, the same UN that the Christian Democrats have now been involved in cutting the funding for to a large extent. UNDP has been left almost entirely without. It is they who help countries to meet their goals according to the Paris Agreement.

One can absolutely stand here, and that is what we shall do. We can cooperate on not trading with Putin's Russia. We should have stopped doing that a long time ago. Instead, we can have a common European cooperation also on things that are difficult. But to cut back on the UN and then say that it is strange that we do not reach the climate goals and that others should do more, I think sounds false.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is several of the colleagues in here who have raised the issue. You see them everywhere. They are happy and young. Their eyes shine. They are taking their graduation exams these days.

I will not spend all my time here being nostalgic – just a little. It was exactly 40 years ago that I graduated from high school in Östersund. It was in the happy 80s. I remember how nice it was to leave school behind and run into adulthood, even though one had no idea at all what it would be about. One perhaps thought that one was quite an adult already.

There was still an optimism and a belief in the future among those generations that I unfortunately observe that not all students graduating today feel. It is perhaps not so strange with years of refugee crisis, pandemic, war in our vicinity, high inflation and much, much else.

Today's young people have grown up with different crises that we have had to manage in different ways, here and in other parts of Europe. This reminds me of something very important, Mr. Speaker, and that is that crises must not obscure the view of what lies further ahead.

It is naturally every government's and parliament's task to be able to handle crises. That is what we have done here together. During the last parliamentary term, it was the pandemic that we cooperated on.

A situation with both high inflation and a restless and turbulent world must, of course, be managed, but at the same time, one must keep one's eyes fixed further ahead.

When I go to work in the mornings, Mr. Speaker, it is the young people who I have in mind. Sweden must also be better in 10, 15, and 20 years, and everyone who graduates must still be able to feel a sense of faith in the future.

Mr. Speaker! Rarely has it been more urgent to discuss and debate the guidelines, the direction, for the economic policy ahead, as we do here today. The Riksdag had the same debate a year ago, and one can state that a great deal has happened since then.

Then we were a few months into Trump's trade war, and since then much has happened. The war in the Middle East naturally affects all people in that area, but it also affects the global economy to a very large extent. Particularly countries that have an energy mix of a lot of oil and gas are affected.

Even countries like Sweden are affected, even if we fare better than many others because we have significantly more fossil-free energy. We are affected indirectly through higher prices and increased costs.

Mr. Speaker! There have been many unpredictabilities over the past year. There has been unpredictable leadership, not only in the USA but also in other countries, something that I pointed out when I was in Washington in April.

This unpredictable leadership comes with a cost. It comes with a cost for countries, most of all the poorest. But it also comes with a cost for citizens in the Nordic countries and in the European countries. The uncertainty creates higher unemployment, caution with investments, and of course now also increased prices.

We are working according to a clear plan, Mr. Speaker. We started already nearly four years ago when we were to present the first budget. At that time, I received quite a lot of criticism that it was cautious and restrained. But for us and for me, it was very important that we pushed down inflation.

The high inflation was the biggest problem for most Swedes and Swedish companies. Prices spiraled and continued to do so. Mortgage costs naturally hit those with small incomes the hardest. But even for middle-income earners who had a high mortgage, this was very noticeable.

To work with that plan, to press down inflation, and now also take the steps forward is both to facilitate things for people in a difficult situation and to build long-term.

All of this coincides, Mr. Speaker. The recession is due to a low domestic demand. We want to see higher consumption. It is understandable that many are worried because of what is happening. We do what we can, we four parties, to create security.

An increased demand in the economy is about more Swedes shopping, more Swedes leaving their bicycle for repair, if they don't do it themselves, more Swedes buying a bun and coffee, and more perhaps going on a trip here in Sweden. When more people shop, the economy gets moving, and many of the small companies also get an increased demand.

This is what we do in the short term. In this year's budget, we lowered the preschool fee and halved the food VAT. We are lowering taxes on work again for the third year in a row and doing the same for pensions.

Furthermore, we have lowered the tax for those who have an ISK, which is now very popular across Europe. I am actually going to Poland on Friday to speak with the Polish minister. There, they have introduced ISK. Swedes, from left to right, whether they live high up in the north or far down in the south, do not just save, but they invest and receive a portion of the return. At the same time, capital enters the market.

These are some examples of what we have done, along with many other examples that my colleagues from the Tidö parties have mentioned before.

We are moving forward. The plan that I have before my eyes every day is actually about a few different parts. It is first and foremost about continuing to safeguard the public finances.

Sweden stands strong in international contexts. We have a low public debt. We now need to arm and build a defense together. We as a government have decided to have a fiscal policy that gives momentum to the economy and that will break the recession, and then we have the opportunity to do so.

Another very important part is, of course, the jobs policy. It is about strengthening entrepreneurship. This applies to both large companies and smaller companies. We ensure that the large companies, step by step, get better conditions, with R&D deductions and with the experts' tax.

It is also about the infrastructure becoming much better. Both railways and roads will begin to be renovated and built in the years ahead. This affects the companies, and it affects the households to a large extent.

We see, as said, that many smaller companies have had it tough. It is one of the reasons why we now have an expansive budget so that the economy can get moving.

It is also about breaking the recession, which is the absolute most important thing right now. If we do that, we can also see a completely different turn in unemployment and in the economic situation. It is important for the Swedish economy but also for the Swedes' economy.

Another important part in the long term, not just for a few months ahead, is the public investments that Sweden is now making. It is 6 percent of GDP that is being spent on public investments. These are enormous sums that we are now spending on infrastructure, the justice system, and defense. These are not isolated events. Within these areas, many will work, build, and operate. This creates opportunities.

The defense industry creates opportunities. I visited Saab in Karlskoga, where a woman who previously worked in preschool was now working with assembling the equipment needed in countries that are to defend themselves or that are in war.

A lot is happening. These funds do a lot for Swedish jobs in different ways. That is what we want to continue with. It is about investments, facilitating for the companies, and keeping the economy in order so that one finances the permanent reforms that one wants to make during the next mandate period. It is also, of course, about the third part: that effort should pay off better.

The upcoming election, Mr. Speaker, is a referendum on higher or lower taxes. It is a referendum on whether one should continue – and wants to continue – to strengthen the work line or whether one should undermine it.

Several parties in here have voted no to the subsidy reform that we have presented. It is an important reform, with qualification for welfare, with subsidy ceilings and with activity requirements. The three parts together are the fundamental basis for a work line.

It is only by strengthening the work line, together with a business policy that makes companies want to grow and stay here, that our Swedish economy can grow. These parts are therefore a prerequisite.

That there are now parties that want to raise taxes but absolutely do not want to talk about it, so be it. I believe that the Swedish people know roughly which parties are afraid of their tax money and which parties are happy to raise taxes as soon as a problem needs to be solved.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a good position, but just like many other countries, we have a tough situation. This government, together with the Sweden Democrats, wants to do everything we can every day to ensure that the Swedish people are protected from the worst hits. We will never be able to compensate for all the challenges and all the problems, but we have the strength and the opportunity to alleviate them. When this also coincides with the fact that we are now ensuring that the recovery continues – it has been ongoing for a while now – and that the recession is truly broken, we will, of course, do that.

I perceive that the vast majority of parties here in the Swedish Riksdag say yes to very many of the things that the Riksdag is to decide on today.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for these four years; this is the end of the parliamentary term. I want to thank the Riksdag – both the Speaker's Office and the Finance Committee's office – for a fantastic job. Thanks also to all members in all eight parties. This is a fantastic place, and it is from here that financial power actually originates. I hope that we can all get a few days, or weeks, of rest.

From the depths of my heart, I want to thank you all very specially for the support that we together make and give to Ukraine! It is so important – enormously important – that we stand together in difficult times. The Ukrainians notice it, and you know that it makes a difference every day in the fight for European freedom. Thank you for this!

I hope I haven't forgotten to thank anyone now.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for Finance, who repeatedly throughout the entire mandate period has come here and debated economic policy with us. It is very much appreciated, and even though we disagree on much, we actually also agree on much. This applies not least to the support for Ukraine but also to other things. This gives Sweden a strength in, for example, the defense buildup.

We are now approaching a final assessment of the government's policy, and I must say that I am somewhat surprised that a Moderate-led government has allowed the development to have gone in the direction that we have seen. I am, of course, not talking about the tax cuts for the wealthy that we have seen, for that is classic Moderate and right-wing policy – even though it has not proven to work.

I would like to ask the Minister for Finance how it has been possible to betray the Swedish companies. We heard in the Minister for Finance's speech that perhaps that is not how one sees it oneself, but we can read about this in the newspapers every day, and we who meet with companies know that the halt of the green transition in the industry has truly been to the disadvantage of Sweden.

I would therefore like to ask how it is that the Finance Minister and this government have turned a deaf ear when Svenskt Näringsliv has warned that the policy risks Swedish competitiveness. Most recently, it concerned electric vehicles, when the fossil taxes are lowered further. How could the Moderaterna betray the companies in the middle of the transition?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Janine Alm Ericson, for the questions! If you conduct a poll among just business owners in Sweden, we will probably be a bit higher than Miljöpartiet – and not by a small amount either.

I will answer the question. These four years, as I said, we have fought inflation, and now that it is fought, we have seen to it to make long-term important investments that the business community has shouted for for many years. It is about historical infrastructure investments and about investments to make Sweden safer and more secure.

As the member knows, we have doubled the defense appropriations in recent years, and we have ensured that we now get a better energy system. When it comes to security issues in general, we have addressed these in a way that has never been done by anyone else, and it is very important for the companies.

During these four years, I have had many conversations with both small business owners and large corporate leaders about what is needed in Sweden for the country to be competitive. One can say that there are some things that work well. It is the innovative power – we are seen as one of the most innovative countries in the EU and even in the world. We now have tax levels that are reasonable, even though I would like to have lower taxes. One example is the corporate tax.

We have very many good prerequisites. We have strong research and development, and we have, as I said, an energy system that we are now expanding. All of this is a prerequisite for long-term perspective.

When it comes to the smaller companies that I fought for in opposition during the pandemic, many have had a tough journey during these years. That is why it is so important for me to break the recession. It is important to me that households and people dare to invest forward, because even though many are having a tough time, there are also many who now have savings. When they start shopping from small businesses, call for electricians, take a small trip in Sweden, or whatever it is they do, an increased demand is created and the businesses can continue. All of this is a wheel that turns.

Now the speaking time has ended, so I will continue later.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer!

We agree on the issue that the recession needs to be broken. That is what is needed to build a stronger Sweden moving forward and for more people to have a job to go to, and we see that the green industrial transition is a very important part of that. A discussion is also ongoing at the European level about the fact that we collectively need to strengthen Europe, and we want to see how Sweden can do its very best there.

It is actually very sad to see how much was in motion and how much then backed off when this government took office and did not continue the policy for transition that the previous government had established. It would have been very simple.

I note, just as the Minister for Finance does, that we have good conditions in Sweden – and it is these that we need to continue to utilize – but besides the halt of the green transition in industry, companies do testify to a difficulty in obtaining competence. It does not matter whether it is large companies or small companies, for it is a constant issue.

We still have a good situation in Sweden. We have many who want to educate themselves and be involved and contribute, but unfortunately, we also have a government that throws out labor that we would so very much need. Now, something has been introduced regarding the teenage deportations, but I do not know if one can say that it becomes better when people have to leave Sweden when they are 21. They have grown up here and educated themselves and could eventually be a part of the Swedish success story.

At the same time, we know that the Swedish birth rate is decreasing. We will have fewer workers in the future. How do the Moderaterna intend for this equation to add up when you kick out fully capable people and at the same time cannot deliver competence to the industry?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the last question is that we need a well-functioning labor immigration. There is no doubt about that at all, and that is what we agree on. It means that together with a low and regulated immigration, we shall have an open, good, and competitive labor immigration.

Regarding what Janine Alm Ericson raises concerning teenagers, I just want to say that that was an old piece of legislation from a time when I was not in the government but others were, but we are now ensuring that this is changed, because effort should pay off.

I see the member shaking his head, but yes, we are plugging a hole that arose. But we are loosening it a bit.

I just want to find out what it is that Janine Alm Ericson wants to go back to when it comes to climate policy. Is it the increased reduction obligation? It was very expensive for many business owners in Sweden previously. An electric car premium exists now for those who live in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas, and when it comes to trucks and light trucks, we have an initiative on that.

It is not the case that this government is not doing things, so what does one want to go back to? Should we have made large investments in Northvolt? What is it we do in our policy that hinders the green transition?

I completely share the view that the discussion in the EU has lost its balance. Many, for example Volvo, are adapting and are at the forefront, and then the rug is pulled out in many ways. In that regard, we are having discussions with both Volvo and the Commission to find a balance. Sweden is not the only country in the EU that has vehicle manufacturing; many other countries do as well. This is therefore pulling in different directions, and it is unfortunate when one does not get to know the long-term rules of the game.

Fundamentally, Sweden is a fantastic country. We are at the forefront in this area – companies do it, politics does it, and Swedish households do it. I do not, therefore, think that we have anything to be ashamed of on that specific point, but on the other hand, we shall of course continue to ensure that Sweden is a country that attracts investments – even green ones.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Finance for the fact that we finally – at last – are getting the Jas 39 Gripen to Ukraine and together can help Ukraine in their fight for the freedom of all of Europe. We should admittedly double the budget framework for Ukraine, but I still want to say: A big thank you for that effort!

I will also take the opportunity to ask two questions to Elisabeth Svantesson.

One is more general. I read in DN that the Finance Minister is unsure whether Sweden is in a crisis. Therefore, I ask: Is it not a crisis when we have half a million unemployed, a record number of bankruptcies, and a growth and recovery that never comes? The forecasts are being revised. Is it not, after all, a crisis? But perhaps that explains why one only allocates 65 kronor per unemployed person in the extra supplementary budget – and otherwise only 100 million kronor to strengthen the electric car bonus that is being discussed, which only a few people receive. That is my first question.

My second question is more specific. With your policy, Elisabeth Svantesson – or perhaps I should say SD's policy, which you allow – hundreds, and probably even thousands, of people who work, pay taxes, and behave correctly will be deported. Why is the cost of that not included in your budget? There is talk of hundreds of thousands of kronor, or at least tens of thousands, to recruit anew – and above all, it becomes very much money in lost tax revenues when you deport hard-working people en masse.

This is a billion-kronor bill for your deportation policy that is not taken into account in your budget at all. Should this not be included as a cost if one is serious about the state finances?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Martin Ådahl, who I know is a reasonably good economist, knows how to report and what to report in a budget. Therefore, I drop the question, because the answer is quite obvious.

It is not that Sweden does not have labor migration. We shall have labor migration, because we will need it. It shall be regulated and fulfill the function it is intended to fulfill, and of course, we will constantly follow up on this in different ways towards companies and employers so that we achieve the right balance.

I will, however, never, as Martin Ådahl, defend that people came here and earned 13,000 kronor a month – that people were exploited and ended up in the shadow society. That was the big problem. Then one can always discuss exact wage levels, but 13,000 kronor a month is to throw people from other countries to the wolves. So it was, however liberal one thinks one is or how responsible Martin Ådahl thinks he is.

The second question was whether we are in a crisis. We are in a recession, and we have an energy crisis in the world. Regardless of whether Sweden is in a crisis or not, my focus is on breaking the recession and ensuring that the recovery – for even if Martin Ådahl did not know it, we have a recovery – continues. My focus lies on ensuring that more people get into work and that the economy turns around.

That we use the strength in the economy as we do now, that is to say through large investments, will of course lead to more jobs ahead. The subsidy reform that has now been launched will also play a role, and the tax cuts – I have thus lowered the tax for three years in a row for people who work – play a role. It matters that we lower the costs of employing young people, and so on.

We are in a tough situation; Martin Ådahl can call it a crisis or not. Policy must be directed at the problems we see, and the problems we see are that the recession is prolonged because of what is happening in Iran and because of a very unpredictable leadership in the world. Sweden is faring better than the vast majority of countries, even if Martin Ådahl and others here in the chamber do not want to admit it. We do, but I am not satisfied with that. More people should come into work, and more jobs should be created and grow in Sweden.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! We begin with this matter regarding the costs for you deporting people who work and pay tax, Elisabeth Svantesson.

It is about hard-working people. It is a great human cost for them and their families, completely unnecessarily, but it is also something that must be included in the budget. The municipalities receive costs according to the funding principle when you create costs for Sweden and the state finances. To simply ignore this and pretend that nothing is happening when you deport taxpayers, I think is completely unserious.

Speaking of trying to push this forward and saying that we would be satisfied with wages of 13,000: We want collectively agreed wages for everyone who works in Sweden, according to the Swedish model. We do not want any makeshift wages from Finance Minister Svantesson, from Åkesson, from Johan Forssell, or from anyone else. Is it that hard? The parties in the labor market set the wages, and those who come here shall have the same wages as everyone else.

Instead, you should deport people who have these collective agreement wages en masse. These are people who work in Sweden and pay tax. How can this be the labor line? Can we not just agree that we should put a stop to this madness? We should, of course, have an orderly migration policy and an orderly labor migration, but this is wrong.

When it comes to whether it is a crisis or not, it just becomes more unclear every time. We have crisis packages, but it is not because it is a crisis, but because we have a very long recession – which only exists in Sweden, under the Tidö government, and which just continues and continues. The recovery never really comes. How are we supposed to have it? It is no wonder that there is no real crisis policy, that only 65 kronor is invested per unemployed person, and that there is no investment to get rid of the fossil dependency and create jobs. From the Finance Minister's side, one is not even clear on whether it is a crisis or not. What is the situation actually?

Enough is enough, it is a crisis, always, with half a million unemployed.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That crisis, Martin Ådahl intends to solve by choosing Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister – she who raised 46 taxes during two previous terms. That crisis, Martin Ådahl seems to want to solve by cooperating with Nooshi Dadgostar, because who knows – she could become Finance Minister. That crisis, Martin Ådahl intends to solve on the left side, with Sweden's absolute reddest and most left-leaning government ever. It is a fact; a press conference was held here just now. It is completely fine for me, but my point is: Do not deceive the Swedish people!

When it comes to the Center Party's policy, I think – speaking of having an orderly migration policy – that one should have an orderly policy that hangs together, which solves problems here and now and which thinks long-term. One should have a policy that does what is best for Sweden here and now and what is best for Sweden in the long term, whether it concerns skills supply, taxes, or ensuring that the welfare can get the resources it needs by having the economy grow.

One can say what one wants, but Sweden stands firm. It is a tough situation – you can call it a crisis, Martin Ådahl – where there is a recession. It is a tough situation, but we have better conditions than many other countries. That is also why the IMF and the Commission forecast that we will have one of the best growth rates during this year.

Will it happen? Yes, I think so, but it also depends on which policy wins this autumn. On the other hand, there are not four parties that want to facilitate for Swedish companies by, for example, lowering the costs of hiring and lowering the corporate tax. Those who want it can, however, get a bourgeois policy where there is order and clarity, where we use every tax krona in the best way, and where we can prioritize among all expenditures.

I have really not done everything perfectly, Martin Ådahl – absolutely not – but something I have done is to keep the Swedes' and Sweden's economy in mind. I have prioritized lowering taxes and laying a good foundation for the future.

(Applause)

(MARTIN ÅDAHL (C): We can do better than this.)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by agreeing with the Finance Minister's description of the situation over the recent years. It has been incredibly unpredictable. Sometimes we reduce that a bit to that it was only about Donald Trump, but that is not the case. Even the geopolitical situation in the world affects us. But Donald Trump and his right-wing nationalism have made the world both more dangerous and poorer. It affects an export-dependent country like Sweden.

We are now approaching the end of the parliamentary term. It is therefore reasonable to summarize a bit. Sweden is a country that is largely influenced by events in the outside world. That has also been the case during this period.

But Sweden has also underperformed. We have not jump-started growth in the way I believe the Finance Minister wanted. We have become stuck in this long recession and have not moved away. We have had worse growth than many other European countries. We have had worse growth than we have had historically, even when we have previously handled difficult issues. We now have an unemployment of 500,000. That is an increase of almost 100,000. This result will, of course, be difficult for a government to handle.

It was good that the Minister for Finance pointed out that she thinks one of the most important issues for the future is to safeguard the public finances. I would like to ask a question about that.

This year, our deficit is estimated to be 200 billion. Last year it was 100 billion. The National Debt Office expects 200 billion next year. Part of that is about the defense buildup, which we agree on, but it does not concern the entire amount.

I see that many parties are now presenting enormous election promises. It is election promise after election promise. Would it not be good if the government presented an updated forecast for the public finances? The last time you presented a forecast was before we adjusted down the growth and adjusted up the unemployment. If you were to do that, the political system could still base itself on the reality that we have in Sweden this year and in the coming years.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer is that we are, of course, transparent about the situation. We have a very clear and transparent work regarding the forecasting activities but also the public finances. It will be presented by August at the latest.

When the world's countries, including Sweden, are now recording lower growth levels, we stand, as said, strong. We can make these investments. That is also why we will have higher growth than several other countries. It concerns everything from public investments to investments in and support for hard-working people. It is completely clear and distinct.

Mikael Damberg said that I probably would have wished for higher growth. I truly hope that everyone in this room would have wished for that. I want to be clear: I want things to go well for Sweden. We may have partially different political methods, but there is a will and an ambition that Sweden should become a wealthier, safer, and stronger country.

We want more Swedes to have a job to go to, whether one has become unemployed during this recession or a long time ago. More people should have that job. Therefore, we work with tax cuts, with vocational colleges, with contribution ceilings and so on, and ensure that we do what we can so that the Swedish economy maintains its pace.

We are affected, just as Mikael Damberg says, very much by what is happening in the rest of the world. Germany, for example, had three years of zero growth. They are hit and are currently incredibly exposed. Italy and France have debt levels that are completely bizarre and have to pay incredibly much money for interest costs. That is something we do not need to do.

I am sure that step by step we will get through this. More will be able to return to work. We already see that structural unemployment is decreasing, for the first time in 20 years. But it is of course only the beginning.

Step by step we do what is required. It takes time, but a shift is happening now.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! My description that I believe the Finance Minister would have wanted higher growth was a way not to politicize that issue. I truly believe that the Finance Minister would have wanted it. But the result cannot be impressive, because Sweden has had worse growth than the other European countries. We have had worse development when it comes to unemployment than the Eurozone countries. Had we had the same development as the Eurozone countries when it comes to unemployment, 100,000 more would have gone to work today.

We must be able to evaluate that in an election campaign. It means that some of the policy that has been pursued has not led to results. And that costs Sweden, but it also costs Swedish households. It is part of the electoral debate.

I believe we need to get the economic situation right regarding the deficit. It should concern everyone in this chamber that Sweden has ended up in a situation with very large deficits. The latest forecast is that we are approaching minus 3 percent, which according to EU rules is the limit for how large deficits we are allowed to have. Next year we are approaching the upper range for debt anchors, 39 percent. It is serious. It sets a limit for all parties' work in the coming years.

We have ideas on how to combat unemployment, so that tax revenues are generated. We have spoken about stopping the waste of taxes in the welfare system, so that the money works in the classroom rather than being distributed as profits. One can work in a number of different ways to increase the reform space and get more money to make important investments.

I think it would be good for the entire political debate if the Ministry of Finance, now, after these downward adjustments, came out with a forecast for the public finances, so that we know how large the deficits will be this year and in the coming years. How close are we actually to the rules that we have set up for the public debt? Because it affects all political parties.

I think that it might also affect the fact that the parties present completely unfunded promises about one thing, then another, and then a third, on enormous sums, which so far has characterized the debate. It is a bit out of touch with reality, I would say.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I could also applaud the last part of what Mikael Damberg said. I have, for quite a long time now, been very careful to state that the years ahead will be tough. Most of us in this chamber have collectively decided to build a strong defense and invest in infrastructure and the justice system. Most here stand behind the investments we are making. It is also not less than usual during the years ahead, because Sweden needs it.

I have said that the reforms one makes permanently, one must also be able to finance permanently. This applies to all eight parties. It applies to the Social Democrats, the Moderates, and all others. And we, the Moderates, will step by step explain our financing. I sometimes experience that the Social Democrats are happy to duck when it comes to their financing, because it involves very many tax increases that they would preferably not want to talk about.

Mr. Speaker! During these years, we have reprioritized approximately 50 billion. I believe that some reprioritizations will also be needed moving forward, but other things will also be needed. This includes, among other things, efficiencies. There is a waste; money is going to things it should not go to.

When I took on this job, I appointed a productivity commission. The purpose was to see what we need to do in different parts of the economy to achieve higher productivity, which is also an important part of growth. That is what we have been working on. Some parts have been completed. Others will be implemented if we are allowed to continue.

In the same way, a waste commission was also needed. One still needs to contemplate and go through all of the state's activities and preferably others. Are there things that we do now that we actually do not have to do? I believe the answer to that is quite simple: Yes. We shall, therefore, ensure that we stop with what is not necessary and continue with what is most important.

Finally, I thank you for these debates. I am glad to be here and to get a budget through. And I will say nothing other than that I also appreciate the cooperation, the discussion, and the debate.

I wish you all a pleasant summer.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Minister for Finance! As has been said, it is soon time for the summer holidays. For some children, it may mean trips, excursions, and wonderful days. For children of single mothers who are struggling in the cost-of-living crisis to be able to provide security and joy to their children, the summer holidays may mean something else.

Children start life with completely different circumstances. Those who already have it tough, you now want to make it even tougher for them. I remember myself how, as a child, I got a stomach ache when my parents argued about the money not being enough.

In the government's budget proposal, the job initiatives are conspicuous by their absence. Instead, it is the reduced emergency fund and no child allowance for poor families with children that are the flagship projects to ensure more jobs are created. The government's own fiscal council has, however, condemned the so-called initiative. This also applies to the favorite of the Center Party member Martin Ådahl: halved employer contributions for young people. It mostly goes to the food chains and those who are already employed today, not to young unemployed people, quite simply.

It is incredibly expensive, and it costs a lot. It is very cheap to let poor families with children keep their child allowances.

Vänsterpartiet does the opposite and raises the child allowances and ensures that those affected by unemployment can afford a good insurance. We invest in jobs and employment moving forward and invest in those who are far from the labor market.

My question to the Minister for Finance is: Why does the government believe that it is poor families with children that should be targeted and not unemployment itself?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank Ida Gabrielsson for a somewhat twisted question.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. I believe that many here – I and many others, regardless of party – have the people and the Swedes in mind when doing this job. We have received a mandate and a trust to do this based on our convictions of how it should be done in the best way.

During these years, there has been high inflation – an inflation crisis – and high mortgage costs. For those who live in rented apartments, the high rent remains where it is. It has not been lowered even though inflation has been dampened. Many have had it very tough.

With that said, it is this government that is now halving the food VAT for one year and nine months. It was we who, for the first time since 1997, raised the ceiling for when one can receive housing allowance, which affects child-rearing families the most. In just a few weeks, we are lowering the preschool fee. We have lowered the tax for everyone who works, including hardworking single parents, as Ida Gabrielsson mentioned. They have received a tax cut for three years in a row.

The list can be made longer. We have done all of this to provide support, especially during the first years when inflation was high and prices shot up. I did not meet the food giants because I thought it was generally pleasant to meet them, not because I was angry. We also saw a difference in the price increases after that. It might not have been my merit – it doesn't matter – but it happened anyway. I have done all of this with the children in mind.

Finally, I can only say that a good education is an absolute prerequisite for all children. I will say a few more sentences about it in my second turn.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I received no answer as to why ordinary wage earners should be happy when the poor become even poorer.

I could stand here and tell a few different jokes as usual or press the Minister for Finance. It might feel a bit like an insult that I instead choose to thank Elisabeth Svantesson. I realized that it might sound like it is already decided who is going to win.

Personally, I would like to thank Elisabeth Svantesson, whom I think is one of the loveliest Moderates, surpassed only by the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Edward Riedl – as a person, but in politics there is room for improvement. I think the Finance Minister has participated actively in the debates here in the Riksdag and has been comparatively objective. We have had different opinions, and at some point, a long time ago, we settled them. Thank you for your commitment in the election campaign, and I hope we see each other out in the election debates!

Since this will be my last debate, I also want to thank the secretariat and other members of the committee. Now Elisabeth Svantesson has even managed to get Martin Ådahl to claim that he likes collective agreements. Who knows what will happen, maybe he will become a real Left Party member.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker and Ida Gabrielsson! I am only saying that Swedish school is incredibly important as a foundation for all children, regardless of what the parents earn.

Thank you, Ida Gabrielsson, for the warm words! It is nice when we in the Riksdag can get to know each other across party lines. It is good that others, outside the house, understand that we, even though we disagree and pursue different policies, are human beings and can have relationships across party lines.

I thank you so very much for the kind words, and I appreciate that Swedish politics becomes more fun with you, Ida Gabrielsson – I have told you personally several times – who has a twinkle in her eye and can tease us all in a quite nice way. Now I will surely get some emails from angry men, but I think it is very funny – you can have the emails afterwards. Thank you so very much and have a nice summer!

(Applause)

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The parliamentary term is approaching its end, and it is beginning to be time for the final accounts.

When the Sweden Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, won the voters' confidence in the 2022 election, the inflation level was historically high at nearly 10 percent.

The reasons for this were several. Among others, there were pandemic-related disruptions in the global supply chains, and when demand increased rapidly, bottlenecks arose in both production and transport. Russia had also, during the spring, begun its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which led to high energy and fuel prices.

Sweden faced significant challenges, but in the midst of the uncertainty, we also saw results – results of purposeful reforms, political accountability, and a clear direction for the country.

Despite the fact that many households still feel the economic trials and inflation of recent years, which have hit hard, we see that the development has turned. Inflation has been pushed back. It is not a coincidence but the result of an economic policy that has prioritized stability and responsibility over experiments and short-term maneuvers.

Of course we would have wished that the recovery went even faster. But Sweden is moving forward and moving in the right direction, and that is crucial. Even though the recession has dragged on, we are not without a compass. The Government and the Sverigedemokraterna have a clear focus on ensuring a lasting recovery of the economy in order to build Sweden stronger and thus more competitive and resilient. We shall continue to safeguard the public finances, enable more job opportunities in Sweden and ensure that the effort pays off.

Mr. Speaker! As we now summarize the parliamentary term, there is a common thread in the tax policy: It should pay off better to work, to educate oneself, to take responsibility, to run businesses and thereby take economic risks. Therefore, we have lowered the tax for everyone who works, with a particular focus on low- and middle-income earners.

It has given a family with two children approximately 2,000 kronor more in their wallet every month than before the 2022 election. We have also lowered the tax for pensioners and for individuals who receive sickness and activity compensation. We have also lowered the highest marginal tax from 55 to just over 52 percent. It is a step towards a simple and fair principle: half remains. Those who work more, educate themselves, or take greater responsibility should also get to keep more of the fruits of their labor.

We have also made it cheaper to live and work outside the major cities. For those living in Stockholm, the car may be a choice, but for the vast majority out in the countryside, the car is rather a necessity. Thanks to the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's changed reduction obligation and lowered fuel taxes, a family that fills up their car today pays hundreds of kronor less per tank than before the 2022 election.

We are now also presenting an extra supplementary budget where, with permission from the EU Commission, we temporarily further lower the tax on fuel by approximately 3 kronor per liter at the pump. The lowered prices on fuels strengthen not only household economies but also the business sector, agriculture, food production, the transport sector, and Swedish competitiveness.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have also, during the mandate period, strengthened the deduction for travel to and from work for those who lack realistic alternatives to the car to get to work. We also removed the aviation tax, which the previous government introduced, which in large parts was a pure rural tax and which had no steering function towards more environmentally friendly ways of flying.

For Sweden, which is not a country where everything is just around the corner, it is important to have reasonable travel prices. Sweden is a large, elongated and sparsely populated country where transport is not a luxury but a prerequisite for growth, jobs, and cohesion. It is not symbol politics. It is real politics that makes a real difference.

We have also made Sweden a little more fun and freer. Just now, we halved the food VAT from 12 to 6 percent. That leaves about 500 kronor in the wallet every month for a family with two children. It is an important reform that supports households when other living costs rise and which also has an inflation-dampening effect.

We have also removed the penalty taxation on motorhomes, this in order to avoid that the taxation could reach up to 50,000 kronor per year for a new motorhome.

We are also removing the "dansband" VAT, so that dansband events pay the same VAT rate of 6 percent as other concert and cultural events.

Furthermore, we have lowered the tax on savings through investment savings accounts. Swedes can now save up to 300,000 kronor tax-free. It is about more people being able to build up financial security, create a buffer, and stand stronger in tough times. That opportunity is more important today than it has been in a long time.

Mr. Speaker! We have introduced several tax changes for the Swedish business community. The 3:12 framework has been simplified and changed, so that more entrepreneurs and business owners who work hard and take economic risks receive reduced administration and lower taxes.

We have extended the possibility for companies to offer the so-called expert tax, in order to facilitate the recruitment of highly qualified labor from abroad to Sweden. The regulatory framework for deductions for research and development has also been simplified and improved.

Forest owners have received a simplified taxation of compensation for nature conservation.

Swedish shipping no longer needs to pay any stamp duty for mortgages in ships, and soon we will improve the tonnage tax system, so that the shipping companies get better conditions to flag their ships in Sweden, which is also important for Sweden for reasons of preparedness.

The opportunity that the EU gave member states to lower the alcohol tax for small alcohol producers was for a long time unused in Sweden. It is only under this government that it has been translated into practical policy, and now Swedish small producers of alcohol have better conditions to be able to grow and develop.

Mr. Speaker! These are just a few examples of what this government has managed to achieve in terms of taxation. But we are not satisfied, because the task is not finished. Swedish households deserve a stronger economy. Swedish companies deserve better conditions. Sweden deserves higher growth, more jobs, and greater confidence in the future.

We will therefore continue to pursue a policy that puts work before benefits, growth before bureaucracy and Swedish interests first – for the sake of households, for the sake of companies and for the sake of Sweden.

I wish to vote in favor of the Committee on Finance's proposal in both reports in their entirety.

As this is likely my last debate this mandate period, I would like to conclude by extending a warm thanks to the Speaker and the Speaker's Office for the professional work in leading the House's debates.

I also want to thank the tax committee's fantastic secretariat and staff, for their great commitment and support to us members during the mandate period.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Committee on Taxation. We do not always share the same views, but we have been able to conduct our discussions with respect and a good tone. That is worth preserving.

With that, I wish everyone a very happy summer.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall begin by saying that the allotted speaking time may be exceeded by a small amount.

In my capacity as the committee's chair, I have had the privilege of leading the committee's work for four years, and I would like to begin with a thank you. I want to thank all the committee members for the good tone of conversation and the good cooperation despite the large, not least ideological, differences that exist in the committee.

I also want to address the Tax Committee's secretariat and those who work there for their professionalism and willingness to serve. Truly, thank you! It is they who make it possible for us to deliver good products, but they also ensure that we are able to make, most of the time, wise and well-considered decisions.

Mr. Speaker! The worker from Älvkarleby, Stig Dagerman, once wrote a line that I have reflected much upon. He formulated the question: ”Can we become too many who know what freedom is?”

For Stig Dagerman, freedom was never something one owns alone. Freedom is a burden and a gift at the same time, something heavy that must be carried and that no human can bear all alone. The one who is already free and secure has a responsibility to help carry also the freedom of others. It is a deeply ideological thought.

Mr. Speaker! This is, I claim, the exact opposite of the government's economic policy that we are to take stock of today. After four years with a Moderate-led government with active support from the Sverigedemokraterna, this is the final spring budget the government presents. Four years have now passed since the Tidö Agreement was signed. Now it is time to summarize.

Mr. Speaker! When the government wants to describe its period in government, it is a story of a Sweden that is on the right track. It speaks of the lowest tax ratio since 1975 and of an ordinary family that, after four years, is claimed to have received 5,000 kronor more in their wallet from the many job tax credits.

But it is also a narrative that can be questioned on good grounds. During the time of the Moderate-led government, the focus has been on large tax cuts for primarily people who are already well off. During that time, something else has emerged.

When the Social Democrats took over in 2014 after the previous Moderate-led government, the public debt was 46 percent. When the Social Democrats left government power after the 2022 election, it was 34 percent. During this mandate period, the government has borrowed hundreds of billions to implement large tax cuts, and now we see how the state debt is rising again. This year it is estimated to reach 37 percent and next year 39 percent.

The government has also borrowed almost 200,000 kronor per minute and is now leaving behind an enormous hole in the Swedish economy. At the same time, the mountain of debt at the Enforcement Authority continues to increase month by month, household by household.

Behind all these figures are individual human destinies. These are people who live with the worry of not knowing how to make ends meet for the month's bills, the worry of not being able to give the children the opportunity to join the class trip, and the worry of having to choose between medicine and food. It is them this debate is about, and how they are affected by the government's policy.

Mr. Speaker! A budget is, in other words, not just numbers. It is also a moral document, perhaps the most honest self-portrait a government ever paints. In the exercise of figures, it is not possible to hide behind beautiful words. There it appears in black and white who you think is worth investing in and who should be left behind.

Four years of the Moderate-led government's policy, supported by the Sweden Democrats, trace a clear pattern: more for those who already have. The government would like to describe its large tax cuts as a freedom reform. Lower tax is freedom. The money is yours. Keep more of it yourself! But it is not that simple.

On the one hand, one can look at freedom from something: freedom from coercion, freedom from the state, freedom from moralizing, and being left in peace. It is a freedom that fundamentally only requires that others stay away.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there is freedom for something: the freedom to be able to give life to one's innermost dreams and longings, the freedom to educate oneself even if the parents are not wealthy, and the freedom to become healthy even if the wallet is thin.

Here lies a clear dividing line in Swedish politics. The government's view on freedom is of the first sort. The state shall withdraw. Taxes shall be lowered. Then each person must manage as best they can. But such a freedom is a freedom that only the already strong can enjoy. To be free from the state helps little the one who is unfree for other reasons – from poverty, from illness, or from a rent that eats up large parts of the wage.

It is precisely this view of freedom held by the government that overlooks: that the greatest lack of freedom in a person's life rarely comes from the state. It comes from the material. The single parent who cannot make the salary last until the end of the month is not free, however low the tax is. The pensioner who is forced to choose between medicine and food is not free. The youth who cannot move out of the parental home because no housing exists is not free. To tell these people "Look here! You get to keep a few hundred kronor – now be free!" is not a promise of freedom. It is a mockery. It places the entire responsibility on the individual's shoulders and calls loneliness freedom.

Mr. Speaker! Freedom for me as a Social Democrat is much greater than that. It is a freedom that does not just leave the human being alone but makes her rich and capable. It is a school that lifts all children, care that helps the sick, and safety systems that ensure that a failure does not become a catastrophe.

It means at the same time that tax becomes the prerequisite for freedom. It is the reward we jointly create so that freedom becomes real for more than those already fortunately loted. Tax is, in fact, the nursing assistant at the elderly care home. Tax is the breakfast at the preschool. Tax is the police who rush out when the alarm goes off and the teacher who sees exactly your child. Tax is our common promise to one another that no one shall have to experience loneliness in distress.

Mr. Speaker! Against this, the bourgeois government and the Sweden Democrats and its representatives probably object that tax cuts increase consumption. It is growth-creating. But reality tells us something else. Unemployment has increased by 100,000 during the government's time. Growth during the same period has been at the bottom of Europe. But one does not really want to listen to one's own authorities such as the National Institute of Economic Research or to international research.

What would give momentum to the economy is to support ordinary people. That reasoning is fundamentally not particularly complicated. A family with small margins that receives a few hundred kronor more will put every single krona in the grocery store and with the local craftsman and create jobs. But the person who already earns 80,000 kronor a month will rather put their tax cut aside.

We Social Democrats have in all our budgets pointed out the alternatives, with proposals that would rather strengthen the state's finances. We have said no to tax bonuses for those at the top, and we want to invest in things that would make a real difference. We want to safeguard healthcare places, not see them disappear. We want capital to be taxed fairly, not that the very richest get further tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker! In his perhaps most famous essay, Stig Dagerman wrote about man's deepest vulnerability, about the moments when everything collapses and one does not know where to go: "Our need for comfort is insatiable."

This is how the year-end account should be read. This is how the four bourgeois years of government should be summarized. To the question of whom society has been for during the government's four years, the answer is clear, simple, and inevitably "those who already have the most."

Our answer, Mr. Speaker, is something else. We offer a policy that creates hope and faith in the future, which is rooted in reality and sees people's everyday lives and which constitutes a clear idea of what society we want to build, because smaller gaps in a society also lead to better cohesion and higher growth.

It is the people, Mr. Speaker, whom we as members of Parliament are elected to serve. The year-end accounts are written, and the figures do not quite add up. Soon, very soon, it is the voters who will conduct the audit, and I know how it will end: Discharge of responsibility is not granted.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Niklas Karlsson for this very emotional speech!

When it comes to freedom, two minutes for a reply will not be enough to develop my and the Moderaternas view on this. I will have to save that for my speech.

Niklas Karlsson is very confident of victory. He talks about how the election will go and says that the voters will conduct a review and not grant immunity for the government. We have different views on that. But I have a question concerning the Social Democrats' principles and promises.

We all know that the Social Democrats have historically had a tendency to deviate from their principles in order to gain and retain power. Before Stefan Löfven became Prime Minister, he spoke very warmly about nuclear power. He emphasized it as the fundamental prerequisite for Swedish industry's competitiveness and said that decommissioning will affect emissions and create an electricity shortage.

It was the same when the Social Democrats abolished the defense tax to retain power with the help of the Liberals.

Now we have the Left Party demanding a lot of different taxes – state property tax, increased tax on ISK, restrictions on rut and rot, and lots of taxes on housing and income and everything.

Which of these taxes are the Social Democrats prepared to introduce to get the Left Party's support?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Åberg knows very well how we view the tax system, that it is not sufficient today and that we need to carry out a comprehensive tax reform to make it fairer, simpler and more predictable than it is today. This means that the taxation of capital and assets needs to be changed. Today, the person who works in an Icab store pays more in tax on their salary than the person who owns the company. We think that is unreasonable.

There must be justice in the tax system. That is our starting point. Then we want to find a broad agreement, not only with Vänsterpartiet but also with Moderaterna and the other parties in the Swedish Riksdag, so that we can live up to the principles that guided the tax reform we implemented in the early 90s. Returning to that and removing the exceptions we have created since then would be good for growth. It would create clarity for ordinary wage earners. It would be good for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I want to say something about my certainty of victory. I understand that it stings the Moderates. I would guess that it feels a bit uncomfortable when they see the failure in the opinion polls and how they are now slowly but surely sinking towards lower levels.

Yes, I am confident of victory. I believe in change. I believe in the future, and I have hope for a better tomorrow than the one we live with today. I believe the Swedish people also have that, and that is what we see in the opinion polls.

Soon the Tidö government will be banished to the scrapheap of history, where it belongs. This means that we can hopefully, for Sweden's sake and for broad groups of wage earners, form a social democratically led government. I believe in it and hope for it, and I look forward to the election day on September 13.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Niklas Karlsson for the sincere answer that we have large tax increases to expect when – if – the Social Democrats come to power!

Niklas Karlsson spoke in his speech and in his response about tax reform. But he did not mention at all the tax levels he intends to reach with the help of, among others, Vänsterpartiet, who speak very brazenly about taxes on those who have the most. But it always ends with taxes on everything and everyone.

I want to remind [everyone] of the last time the Social Democrats governed together with the Left Party and the Green Party and how it sounded before the 2014 election. One was to aim at high-income earners and banks and introduce pub VAT. It was also said that one would never raise fuel prices.

None of this became true. They raised the income taxes. They raised the fuel prices. They introduced a lot of other taxes, for example the energy efficiency tax on nuclear power and so on. Everyone should know that what they say now will be changed after the election.

Frankly, I had hoped that Niklas Karlsson would have taken a firm stand against cooperation with Vänsterpartiet, a party characterized by antisemitism, Islamism, and terror romanticism. This applies not least in Skåne, and especially in the constituency where Niklas Karlsson is active.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must confess that I am almost speechless. A Moderate member – a member from a party that for four years has governed with a far-right political party and has made itself completely dependent on the Sweden Democrats – has the nerve to say something about us having talks with the Left Party. Time is truly running out!

Before Member of Parliament Åberg uses such a high tone in the Swedish Riksdag, I think she should go home and look at herself in the mirror, if she is capable of that. It would have been a good deed. Once she has done that, perhaps she would not be so stiff-necked but instead say: We are prepared to have a broader conversation and not make ourselves dependent on the party that we have been dependent on for four years! Then perhaps the Moderaterna could take the outstretched hand from the Socialdemokrateren when it comes to, for example, the view on tax policy.

We Social Democrats have no interest in creating a tax system by voting through proposals with a 51 percent majority in the Swedish Riksdag. We want to do it in a broad review with a broad political majority. In this conversation, we want to include the Moderates, but then they must come to the table and not be so quarrelsome.

I understand that the weak opinion figures are stressing the Moderaterna now. But after the election, when we have put that behind us and when you have licked your wounds, come to the negotiating table! Then perhaps we can still do something slightly common to make this country slightly better.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have noticed that Niklas Karlsson likes to refer to literary works in his speeches in the tax debates. So far, Esaias Tegnér, Erik Johan Stagnelius, Harry Martinsson, Susanna Alakoski and today Stig Dagerman have become part of the Social Democrats' argumentation for higher taxes.

I must give Niklas Karlsson recognition for his erudition and rhetorical skill, but also criticism for the obviously lacking logic. He presents Sweden's wealth construction as a result of social democratic policy and the Socialdemokraternas long period of power, but that is truly not the case.

Sweden's prosperity has not been created by Social Democratic politicians. It has not been created by any politicians at all.

No prosperity is created by politicians. It is created by inventors, entrepreneurs, and business owners. It is created by hard-working people. Their efforts have given us several decades of economic growth that has laid the foundation for today's prosperity.

The political debate in general, and Member Karlsson's contributions in our tax debates in particular, focuses almost exclusively on how the public should distribute resources. But for there to be any prosperity to distribute, someone must create it. This should be what the political debate primarily deals with.

How do we create the conditions for economic growth, and how are resources created? These are resources that primarily go to those who have created them, but which also, through taxes, contribute to the publicly funded welfare.

Those whom Niklas Karlsson is complaining about, the 5 percent of taxpayers who earn 80,000 kronor a month and more, contribute 26 percent of the tax revenues. It is therefore not a matter of someone profiting at someone else's expense, but rather about the conditions for more people to become taxpayers and contribute to the common good.

Our modern society with expanded healthcare, school, elderly care and other welfare is based on the fact that everyone who can work also works. The government has therefore focused on the work principle – on making it more profitable to work. That far too many people of working age stand outside the labor market is not just an economic problem; it is also a societal problem. Children need to see their parents go to work. Adults need the sense of community that a workplace and colleagues provide.

We want more people to experience the satisfaction of receiving their first salary and the joy of having a real vacation. The benefit reform, which we voted on this week, is an important step. It is not fair that the person who gets up early in the morning, goes to work and does their day's work should have as much, or even less, money than the person who can work but chooses to live on benefits.

In recent years, the government has lowered taxes three times for those who work and for those who have worked, our pensioners. It is to safeguard the work line. It is to focus on how resources are created.

Mr. Speaker! For many, the costs of commuting to work are high. This applies in particular in rural areas, where distances are long and public transport is limited. Therefore, the government has lowered the tax on fuels on several occasions.

The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has created an uncertain situation, and the already high world market prices for fuels have risen even further. When fuel prices increase, it affects the entire economy. Transport becomes more expensive, which in turn raises the prices of goods and services.

A reduction in the fuel tax is therefore not only a relief for car owners; it also contributes to dampening cost increases on goods and services, for example the milk and the bread on the store shelves. In addition to making everyday life easier for people and supporting the work principle, this is a step in the government's successful policy to combat inflation.

Russia's war in Ukraine has led to large increases in food prices. To mitigate the effects for households, the government has halved the food VAT, and it has worked. This is also a way to maintain the fight against inflation. According to Matpriskollen, food prices continued to fall during the month of May.

Mr. Speaker! The government's spring budget and the recently proposed investments have been accused of opening the floodgates in public finances. If one listened to the previous debate, one could get the impression that a deluge is sweeping over Sweden. That is completely wrong. The national debt is lower today than it was in 2022, and Sweden has the highest credit rating, AAA – a credit rating that only nine countries in the world have.

The government's policy is about meeting a time that is troublesome for many people with the right balance, to support where it is needed most, to protect the recovery and at the same time continue to build a stronger and safer Sweden.

Access to electricity is a fundamental prerequisite for both households and businesses. When electricity prices rise sharply, it risks hitting the competitiveness of the business sector and the security in homes hard. By lowering the electricity tax, we can give people greater economic room and at the same time strengthen the conditions for industry in Sweden. It is an investment in both welfare and growth.

In January, the tax on electricity was lowered, and now in June, the electricity support will also be introduced to compensate households that were affected by increased energy costs this winter as a result of a cold winter and the uncertain global situation. People should be able to heat their homes without worrying about unreasonable costs.

The reduction of the tax on investment savings accounts encourages saving and provides the opportunity for an increased buffer for women and men who want to leave bad conditions, for someone who does not enjoy their job, or for someone who needs savings capital to start a business or buy a home. It also benefits Swedish companies.

As I have mentioned previously, jobs are not created by Members of Parliament or by politicians at all. They are created by entrepreneurs and business owners. Therefore, decisions can be fundamentally important and create the right incentives even if they concern small amounts. I can therefore be inclined to quote Milton Friedman: I am for tax cuts in all contexts, for all reasons, regardless of the reason, whenever it is possible.

We have implemented tax cuts for small-scale alcohol producers, as it is judged to benefit local entrepreneurship and the tourism industry and in this way create more jobs.

We have also, which we actually agreed on across party lines in the committee, lowered the dansband VAT from 25 percent to 6 percent and thereby equated dance to dansband with other cultural activities. It may appear to be a minor issue at first glance, but it is not. It is about fair conditions within culture, about the whole of Sweden living, and about safeguarding local cultural life and thereby contributing to prosperity and growth.

When one looks at the whole, a clear line emerges. The tax reliefs are not isolated measures. They are part of a larger economic strategy. The government has moved from focusing on fighting inflation to now, to a greater extent, supporting growth and recovery in the economy.

When the government took over in September 2022, inflation was over 10 percent. Now it is under 2 percent. Therefore, it is completely right to ensure that people get more money in their wallets and feel confidence in the future.

Those who demand a different path also need to answer how it will be financed. To meet every social problem with higher taxes, new permanent expenditures, or weakened incentives to work is not responsible, on the contrary. It risks undermining the recovery we are now seeing.

Sweden needs faith in the future, and that is created through order and tidiness, through reforms that work and through politics that both see the households' pressured situation and understand what is required to build lasting prosperity.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to assert that social democracy as a movement focuses primarily on two things. One is growth, and the other is fair distribution. We live by the principle that with the right balance between growth and fair distribution, so that they reinforce each other, we can ensure that we get the most of both.

We also know that the demand for fair distribution has difficulty gaining traction among bourgeois representatives. That is perhaps not so strange. But when increased growth becomes the most important thing for Moderate representatives and the single most prioritized thing when you design your policy, then the end result of the government's four years becomes a complete and total failure.

You have a task, and you cannot even manage that. Sweden has for four years had a growth that has been at the bottom of Europe. If one knows even a little economics, one can also explain why. When you lower the tax for members of parliament who have a monthly salary of 81,400 kronor, you are taking money from the public sector. You reduce public consumption.

The question is: Of the tax cuts that Member Åberg has received, how much has she used to compensate for them with private consumption? What proportion of the tax cuts that the Member has received has she chosen to save?

The answer is, perhaps not in the individual case but looking at the whole, that the vast majority have put these money aside. These tax cuts were not needed to consume more. We have thus replaced public consumption with private savings, and then growth also falls. The failure is thus total, and the Moderaterna should acknowledge this.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Karlsson, for giving me the floor! Last time, it was a bit of a "butt-kicking" when Niklas Karlsson got the last word and I could not respond to his accusation regarding what our four parties that now govern the country have achieved.

It is like this: We took over a Sweden where inflation was over 10 percent. Now it is under 2 percent. Crime flourished. The Social Democrats' promises that they would break the gangs had not been fulfilled. Now crime is decreasing, and the economy is actually going up. I do not know what sources Niklas Karlsson uses, but according to the EU, Sweden has projected the fifth highest growth in the union.

The Social Democrats have handled their years in government very irresponsibly. In addition to the crime that I raised, I can mention the sky-high immigration, often of individuals who are illiterate in their own language and who do not have a chance to get a job and become self-sufficient in today's Sweden, where education is required.

It is exactly that which will threaten Sweden if the Social Democrats are allowed to rule together with the Green Party and the Left Party – increased crime, increased immigration, and zero control over the state finances.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is true that the forecast for Sweden's growth lies a bit over 2 percent. But we are not talking about forecasts for what lies ahead of us. We are talking about the four years that Boriana Åberg and her colleagues have governed this country. During that time, we have had growth at the bottom of Europe, and higher growth was the single most important thing that the Moderate member spoke about in her speech. The failure becomes total when you have not even managed to achieve this. That you then do not care about fair distribution, we have understood since before.

The national debt in October 2022 was 1,043 billion, and in May 2026 it was 1,221 billion. You have indebted Sweden by an additional 200 billion. The deficit is 363 billion. It is 373-plus for the Center Party members, but it is probably give or take for the 10 billion. You have ensured that we are now approaching the EU's convergence criteria and are about to reach the 3 percent, then the EU will examine us because our deficit is too large.

You have indebted Sweden with 200,000 kronor per minute during your four years, and you have done so by lowering taxes primarily for people with high incomes and large assets, that is to say, us Members of Parliament.

How much of the tax cuts that we others and Member Åberg have received – with a monthly salary of 81,400 kronor, which has meant that we have cut back on public consumption and taken money from welfare so that we can get a larger tax cut – have we and Member Åberg consumed, and how much have we chosen to save? The answer we see in the growth figures, namely that we have saved, not consumed.

But if we had had a policy for a clearer fair distribution of public welfare initiatives and initiatives for ordinary wage earners, we would also have strengthened growth and made a fair tax cut. That is the difference in Swedish politics today.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! The debt is due to the investments in defense that we have agreed upon. Even Niklas Karlsson has made a name for himself as a politician who safeguards a robust defense, a defense that, for the rest, has been drastically cut, especially during the Social Democrats' previous time in government and also during the Reinfeldt government.

The debt comes from investments in defense and investments in the justice system. We have had crime that has scared people away from visiting Sweden. It has been written about how dangerous it is to be a woman in Sweden and to go out. Business owners have complained that their companies are subjected to constant burglaries and thefts. We have tightened things, and we have ensured that, with the help of reforms in justice policy, we truly curb the development of crime.

When it comes to economic policy with tax cuts, we do not see taxes as something that belongs to the state. During the time we have lowered taxes for everyone, percentage-wise most for people who have low incomes, tax revenues have increased. Tax revenues only increase when more people work, not when one introduces billionaire taxes or other taxes that affect few – furthermore, such as those that can leave the country.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! The Fiscal Policy Council emphasizes that it is noteworthy that the government describes debt financing as necessary while income tax is being lowered by a similar amount. Regarding the expanded job tax credit, the Council notes that it is an ineffective way to increase employment, especially since it entails a significant and lasting deterioration of public finances. Despite, or perhaps because of, the tax cuts, Sweden has the third highest unemployment in the EU. Approximately 500,000 people, half a million, want to go to work, but they are instead referred to Tidö's deficient labor market policy and smädelser.

Sweden belongs to those OECD countries where economic inequality has increased the most since the mid-1980s. During this mandate period, the government has continued to lower taxes for high-income earners and thereby increased the gaps even further.

The government is pursuing a policy that increases child poverty and the differences between those who have and those who do not. Save the Children's child poverty report came out last year, and it showed that 276,000 children live in economic vulnerability in Sweden. That is significantly more than before the Tidö agreement government.

Before last summer, the Salvation Army released a report showing that half of all families with children were worried about food costs when the children could not eat lunch at school. Every fifth child was at home all summer without summer holiday activities, and every third child of parents who are unemployed or on sick leave was at home all summer without planned activities. This summer, it is unlikely to be any better.

Half of all single parents with low income have, at one or more occasions, not had the means to buy nutritious food for themselves and their children.

This does not concern the right-wing majority. Tax cuts for high-income earners take precedence over investments in children and young people – investments that could prevent young people from being drawn into crime. The perspective of the child is conspicuously absent.

An average family has received less in tax cuts over a year than the Prime Minister himself has received in a month.

The last time the child allowance was increased was when Vänsterpartiet negotiated the budget with the S–MP government in 2018. Now we want to increase the child allowance by 500 kronor and index it. It is obvious which party is standing on the side of families with children.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has around four dollar billionaires per million inhabitants. That is more than in most countries and, for example, twice as many as in the USA.

Swedish billionaires' wealth corresponds to around 30 percent of Sweden's GDP. That is also one of the highest levels in the world. Their wealth is increasing, and the profits in their companies are increasing.

Recently, suspicions of cartel formation were also directed at a company with one of Sweden's wealthiest individuals as the main owner. It is a cartel formation that has caused several municipalities to pay more than they would need to. It was money that would have done more good in the municipalities' operations than in the shareholders' pockets.

The taxation of earned income currently contains more than ten different forms of tax reductions, including the RUT deduction, the ROT deduction, and various forms of earned income tax credits. None of them have clearly demonstrable positive effects on the economy. The earned income tax credit alone represents a tax reduction of approximately 200 billion kronor per year.

In the tax area, we definitely need a more just taxation, where high-income earners contribute more while insurance income should be taxed in the same way as wages, which means tax cuts for people who are unemployed or on parental leave.

A distribution analysis of the Left Party's proposal makes it clear that the Left Party's policy is aimed at those who need it the most. Seven out of ten households would be winners with our policy.

Sweden needs a major tax reform that both increases tax revenues and redistributes the tax burden. As part of this, Vänsterpartiet has proposed an investigation into a specific billionaire tax. The super-rich need to pay their share of the welfare – they do not do so today. They pay a significantly lower tax, calculated as a percentage of their income, than an ordinary wage earner does.

Last year, the major banks collectively made a profit of 177 billion kronor. A bank tax on the banks' excess profits would mean a significant improvement of the state finances. But that is not the most important thing. The most important thing is to press down the banks' profits so that ordinary people get a better interest rate and lower fees.

Madam Speaker! Climate change is an acute threat to humanity's future possibilities for life. A green transition of the economy is needed and must be implemented quickly. Within the framework of a coherent and well-considered environmental policy, a reforming of environmental and climate taxes is required. This concerns, for example, an aviation tax and a transport-neutral and distance-based travel deduction.

Lowering taxes on gasoline and diesel increases Sweden's emissions. Just like with all other tax policy from this government, it also results in the largest reduction for the rich. Distributionally, it falls completely wrong. Among those with lower incomes, not even every second person is affected by the government's tax cuts. Among those with the highest incomes, four out of five are affected. Since those with higher incomes also travel more, they also receive more in kroner calculated.

Vänsterpartiet has a completely different proposal, which provides a better distributional policy effect. We propose a temporary targeted compensation to car owners who have lower incomes and therefore have been hit hard by the price increases. We also want to see double support for those who live in areas with particularly poor access to public transport and therefore do not have the possibility to opt out of the car.

In the budget bill for 2026, the government presented a high-cost protection for electricity. Vänsterpartiet criticized the protection and proposed an electricity price cap instead. With our electricity price cap, households in all electricity areas would have had more money for other things at the beginning of this year. With the government, the money will arrive at best by Midsummer.

High electricity prices are a recurring problem for households. A long-term solution is needed to keep electricity costs at reasonable levels. We need to decouple Swedish electricity prices from expensive foreign electricity and introduce Swedish prices for electricity.

During the mandate period, emissions have increased significantly. With the Tidö government's climate policy, Sweden will not reach the 2030 goals. Sweden needs a climate policy worthy of the name. Sweden needs a new government.

Madam Speaker! Taxes shall be a stable financing of public investments. In addition, they should equalize income, consumption, and savings between different income groups and be steering in climate and environmental policy. Tax shall be paid according to ability to pay, and welfare shall be given according to need. Sweden needs a new tax policy that prioritizes redistribution, climate, and welfare instead of favoring high-income earners and climate-damaging emissions. Sweden needs a tax policy that reduces the gaps in society, combats child poverty, and contributes to an equal society. Sweden needs a government in which Vänsterpartiet is included.

Madam Speaker! I know that I have exceeded my allotted speaking time, but I still want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Committee on Taxation and the secretariat for these four years. This is not my last debate – I will return next week. But it is my last debate with the Committee on Taxation, so I thank you for these four years.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the 2026 spring budget. For the Christian Democrats, economic policy is ultimately about people's everyday lives – about families who need to make ends meet, pensioners who deserve security, and entrepreneurs who must dare to invest in the future.

During the mandate period, the government has implemented extensive measures to strengthen household economies and increase growth. Taxes have been lowered on work, pensions, electricity, and savings. At the same time, the housing allowance has been strengthened for economically vulnerable families with children with high housing costs. The tax on activity and sickness benefits has been lowered. The food VAT has been halved. Now, the childcare fee will also be lowered for Sweden's families with children.

These are not individual reforms but parts of a coherent policy. The purpose is to give people greater economic room for maneuver and faith in the future in a time of uncertainty in the world. When families have more left in their wallets, consumption is strengthened, demand increases, and the conditions are improved for Sweden to be able to leave the recession behind.

Madam Speaker! A strong welfare builds a strengthened business sector. Therefore, the government has implemented several important reforms to improve the conditions for companies. The experts' tax has been improved through a longer time limit. The R&D deduction has been strengthened to promote research and innovation. The so-called 3:12 rules have been simplified. This means that entrepreneurs receive lower taxes while the regulatory burden decreases. It is good for the willingness to invest and for the companies' opportunities to create more jobs.

We have lowered the employer contributions for young people to make it easier for young people to get their very first job and for companies to hire them. For the Christian Democrats, it is a matter of important principles. Business owners should devote their time to developing the business and creating jobs, not to unnecessary bureaucracy.

Madam Speaker! Sweden acts today in an uncertain world. The war in Europe, trade conflicts, and weak international growth demand decisiveness. This means that we cannot slow down the pace of reform. On the contrary, we need to continue to strengthen Sweden's competitiveness, invest in skills development, and create better conditions for companies to grow and hire.

The Christian Democrats also stand firm on the work line. We know that work is the foundation for both self-sufficiency and social community. High taxes on work and benefit systems that reduce the incentives to work risk keeping people out of the labor market. Therefore, the tax on work has been lowered on three occasions during the parliamentary term, with a particular focus on low- and middle-income earners, who have received a higher percentage tax cut. Those who work, educate themselves, or take the step to start a company should feel that effort pays off. It is fair to the individual and necessary for Sweden's long-term development.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats want to see a society where more people can build their own future, where families get greater economic security, and where welfare is financed through more jobs and growing companies. The economic policy that the government pursues and that the Christian Democrats stand behind contributes to exactly this.

Against that background, I move for approval of the proposal in the Committee on Finance's report.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the guidelines for Sweden's economic policy and the spring budget amendment that the government has presented. We are doing so in a very serious situation, with an economy that is, to say the least, shaky. We have an acute security policy situation that requires historical defense efforts. We also have a climate crisis that does not take a break because we have other problems to handle.

Madam Speaker! In such a situation, it takes courage to make long-term decisions. Today we shall focus on tax reforms that prepare Sweden for the future, which we unfortunately believe the government's economic spring proposal does not do. We see short-term reforms and a policy that distributes expensive and inefficient subsidies with one hand and simultaneously, with the other hand, undermines the fiscal framework that has built Sweden's economic strength. But soon it is election!

The Fiscal Policy Council is sharp in its criticism of the budget for 2026. They speak of the most serious criticism so far and of the government turning the stabilization policy responsibility upside down. The National Audit Office agrees with the criticism – it is a lack of transparency, and the principles of the framework are being abandoned. These are serious words, friends!

Madam Speaker! Much of it concerns climate policy. The government uses billions of the taxpayers' money for measures that make us more oil-dependent, increase emissions, and furthermore have rather poor accuracy when it comes to helping the households that have it toughest. It is not a responsible policy. It is not a forward-looking policy.

Firstly, it must always pay to work – on that we all agree. Therefore, we propose a lower tax on low and medium incomes. In a time of high unemployment, it is extra important to strengthen the incentives for work and make it more profitable for companies to hire.

Secondly: All of Sweden must be part of this journey. Yes, we must support the people in the countryside who are dependent on cars and lack alternatives. This is best done with targeted support, not broad subsidies that also benefit those who drive a city jeep on Stureplan.

But above all, we must invest in the alternatives. We mean that the state should procure Swedish-produced biofuels made from, among other things, residues of forest products. This can, to some extent, go to a reserve stock, which would secure the industry's long-term investment willingness and thus also the availability on the market so that individuals can purchase biofuels.

We want to see a national Sweden card that makes it cheap and easy to travel by public transport throughout the country – and which also applies after the election. We want to see a massive expansion of charging infrastructure that makes it possible to drive an electric car from Ystad to Haparanda. And we want to see strengthened railway maintenance.

It is this way that we truly reduce the dependence on fossil fuels, strengthen the labor market regions, and ensure that all of Sweden can live and grow.

Madam Speaker! I intend to briefly outline some of the tax proposals and reforms that we have in our spring revision of the budget.

We propose tax-free summer jobs for youth, which can also ensure that young people avoid being affected by retained tax. I think one can wait a few years so that those who have their first summer job are not forced to deal with the Swedish Tax Agency's complicated system.

We want to see regional taxation. We have for many years said that tax on industrial properties, that is, wind power, in municipalities should belong to the municipalities themselves. The government has also increased the property tax for wind turbines from 0.2 to 0.5 percent during the period. But they let the increased revenues go into the state treasury instead of directly benefiting the communities that enable the production, that is, where the value is produced.

We need to lower the tax and cost burden for our farms. We cannot continue to tax food production like any other industry without compensating for the unique costs for energy, capital binding, and a regulatory burden that amounts to up to 149 hours per year. We want a general agricultural deduction that actually eases the burden for our farms, which are so important for preparedness.

We want to see abolished employer contributions for the first ten employees of small businesses and permanently lower employer contributions for young people but also for the long-term unemployed. Here, in the same way as in many other places, the strange thing has happened that this government, when it took office, removed the low employer contribution for young people – despite the fact that this has been one of the core issues of bourgeois politics for many years. Now they are lowering it again temporarily, but by less, so it is still more expensive to employ young people than it was when this government took office. And the reduction disappears after the election.

We also need to step in and ensure that simplified jobs are created for the long-term unemployed and look at a specific tax reform, without either income tax or employer contributions, to break the dependency on benefits. This government is talking about the largest benefit reform of all time and reducing the possibilities of receiving benefits – and that is what should be done, but we cannot do it without simultaneously creating jobs. We must give people the opportunity to move from benefits to jobs.

We want to double and tax-exempt the initiative for SAO-jobs, study-motivating work orientation, which is a paid prao for secondary school students. The apprenticeship programs, which belong to the most effective types of education when it comes to creating jobs, need improved support through tax exemptions for persons who contribute their time by taking responsibility for supervision and training for the apprentices.

To conclude with a question that is close to my heart: To sharpen the responsibility of the Swedish Tax Agency along with several other authorities and to provide redress to those affected, the Center Party proposes that an automatic compensation should be paid to persons with protected personal data whose identity is revealed by authorities. This has de facto nothing to do with tax issues, but it is about an incredibly important symbolism. If the authorities have made a mistake, they must also take responsibility for it. Automatic compensation needs to be issued.

This, Madam Speaker, is measures that prepare for the future in a long-term way, in contrast to this government's measures.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker and Member Vilhelmsson! We received a bit more officially this morning – even though many have had it on the tip of their tongues – that the Center Party has chosen Magdalena Andersson as its prime ministerial candidate. The Center Party thus wants to form a government with the three red-green parties.

In the area we are discussing here, the party differences are very large. The three red-green parties want to either raise many different taxes or even introduce new taxes. The Center Party's policy is the exact opposite. In these issues, the Center Party actually stands to the right of both the Liberals and the Moderates. You want to lower a number of taxes – the member has mentioned this. You want to lower employer contributions. But you do not want to raise any taxes.

Then I want to ask a question. On one side, we have the three red-green parties. On the other side, we have the Center Party. How are you going to be able to push through your demands for tax cuts with those three friends?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that the question came up again. It is actually the same question that has been coming up for almost eight years. But it is clear that it also came up today given that there has been a press conference here outside.

This is a bit interesting. I usually refer to the January Agreement, which was entered into during the previous mandate period. We signed an agreement to get Sweden on its feet. The fact is that we agreed on many reforms that were good for Sweden. We pushed through many good proposals – except when the former alliance colleagues, who had stood for exactly the same things, joined with the Left and voted down proposals that were good for Sweden. It is very strange in itself. The question is: What was the purpose of doing this?

Considering that we – perhaps unlike the Liberals, who were actually part of the January Agreement; I am addressing others here more – were quite good negotiators, I would say that we are even now. We have never once formulated it as that we will join a government with Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna – or at least not with Vänsterpartiet. We have never said that.

We are good at negotiating, which one perhaps cannot say about the Liberals during this mandate period, who have negotiated an Tidö agreement that is hardly good for Sweden – there we have different political opinions – and which has completely erased the Liberals' soul. That is not what the Center Party did in connection with the January agreement. We got through an enormous amount of liberal center policy.

I think that the Center Party, regardless of what happens after the election, will be a strong player with a good negotiating position to get Sweden on its feet.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker and members! We can share the view that there were quite a few things that were good in the January Agreement. But the problem is that not so much was actually implemented. The only truly big thing was that the wealth tax was removed, and that has been permanent. But the group on the left side here in the chamber wants to introduce the wealth tax plus some other taxes.

I believe that the negotiating position for Centerpartiet is not particularly good. The strange thing about Centerpartiet is that, before one has even chosen a Prime Minister, it has been said that there are certain things one chooses to rule out. Free rent setting in new production is not that important. Why is this being dropped before one has even reached the negotiating table?

C's problem is the same as before, but I can take it this year again. If one party wants to build eight new nuclear power plants while another only wants to build four, one can land on that there should be six nuclear power plants. But if one party only wants to lower all taxes while the other parties only want to raise them, it is very difficult to find a compromise. I would like to say that it is impossible.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I could mention more things that have been implemented thanks to the January Agreement and have been quite historical. Not least, the labor market reform has meant very much. We are still working on it, of course.

I do not quite know what the member is referring to when he says that we are releasing reforms before a Prime Minister has even been elected. Different representatives for the current government parties have already distributed ministerial posts in a future government, which is a bit strange. We are not doing that.

Which issues one should negotiate on becomes relevant after an election. Perhaps I might think it is more honest to say in advance that precisely this matter of market rents, which the Alliance colleagues would probably have voted against if it had come up in connection with the January Agreement, is something that is deprioritized. It is more honest to do it in that way than to, as the Liberals, during an ongoing mandate period release issue after issue that have been liberal core points. It has been about visitation zones and about 13-year-olds in prison and so on. Perhaps it was included in the Tidö Agreement from the beginning. But talk about giving up one's soul!

I think it is more honest to say that we are prepared to support the government that implements center politics. Then it is clear that before an election we cannot say exactly what we will get through, but this is the starting point in the negotiation. It is significantly more honest to say in advance "this we might possibly de-prioritize" than to do it during the ongoing mandate period despite having said something else before the election. It was a certain party leader for the Liberals who coined the winged expression: I think it confuses more than it strengthens.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we, members of the Committee on Taxation, are in the chamber to discuss the Committee on Finance's reports on the guidelines for the economic policy, the budget policy, and the supplementary budget for 2026.

Fiscal policy and tax policy are intimately linked with one another. Without taxes, there would not be much money to finance our common commitments with. I will therefore, in my speech, prioritize taxes.

The Tidö parties have, over four years, been able to agree on a common fiscal and tax policy. A lot has happened. When we took office, inflation was over 10 percent. There were high interest rates and low growth. Now we have reversed this, and Sweden is one of Europe's strongest economies.

We have corrected several taxes, or removed taxes that previous governments should have addressed. Why did the Social Democrats introduce a tonnage tax that did not work? On Wednesday, we will debate the new tonnage tax, which is welcomed by the shipping industry. Why has the VAT on dance events not been removed, which particularly affects the dance band culture and the countryside? Now we are ensuring that smaller beverage producers receive lower taxes. Why has this not been done earlier?

We have lowered the electricity tax. We have lowered the tax on ISK, a form of savings that has garnered great interest abroad and is seen as a model and an important liberal issue. We have lowered the experts' tax and the SINK tax. We have introduced a more favorable R&D deduction. We have lowered the income taxes and the tax on pensions. We have also lowered the VAT on food and halved the costs in public transport. We have also removed the funkisskatt.

For an average family, we have lowered the costs by several thousand kronor a month. The left-wing rhetoric that everyone has fared worse is therefore incorrect. Konjunkturinstitutet says instead that the Swedish people's disposable income has never been higher.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the dividing lines in Sweden's Riksdag are large when it comes to taxes. The three red-green parties all want to make substantial increases of many taxes and introduce new taxes. We can speak of a tax shock if these parties win the election this autumn.

The driving force does not seem, in many cases, to be that money is needed for various purposes – the most important thing seems to be to level out differences. That seems to be the overarching goal, even if we would all become poorer through those measures.

Especially billionaires are looked down upon, even though these people can create new companies that can provide the country with large export revenues and create many new jobs. In 1965, the former leader of Vänsterpartiet kommunisterna – just listen to the name: Vänsterpartiet kommunisterna – C-H Hermansson published the book Monopol och storfinans – de 15 familjerna. Of the 15 families, there are probably only three left today that have great influence.

The problem for Sweden is not that we have too many billionaires, but that Sweden after the Second World War has had far too few new successful entrepreneurs. This is what the Liberals want to change.

For some groups, it has truly gone downhill. In the 1970s, KF, Kooperativa förbundet, was the largest company in the Nordics. In order to survive, KF has had to sell off one company after another. The retail chain is making large losses, and no turnaround is in sight. In a few years, KF could be a mere memory.

That is why it is important that Sweden constantly gets new companies that grow and create new jobs. It is not the wealth that is the problem, but the poverty.

Madam Speaker! The opposition, in turn, has different proposals in certain areas: increased taxes for those who earn over 50,000 kronor a month, readiness taxes, property tax, billionaire tax, fuel taxes, bank tax, inheritance and gift tax, wealth tax – it varies. The list can be made very long. Not everything may be implemented, but it will be very much if everyone is to get their way.

What we know is that it is not only the billionaires who will be affected, but all taxpayers will be affected. The billionaires are simply too few to be able to pay for everything that the red-greens want to do.

An opposition party that really stands out in the other direction is the Center Party, a party that on financial and tax issues lies to the right of the Liberals and the Moderates. The party wants to lower income taxes and employer contributions. There is nothing wrong with the proposals themselves, but the company is wrong. More and more statements from leading Center Party members show that the party's prime ministerial candidate is Magdalena Andersson. Today, even the party leader has said that it is Magdalena Andersson who counts.

I see no possibility for these four parties to agree on a state budget. And the demands from Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet to only let through a government that they themselves sit in make it impossible for Socialdemokraterna to pursue an independent economic policy. If you vote for S, you get Vänsterpartiets and Miljöpartiets policies as a bonus.

The Social Democrats will – should the misfortune occur – become dependent on two or three parties to be able to form a government. This means that you will lose the election.

It is quite clear that the voters can see what they have received with the Tidö parties' policies over the last few years: a stronger private economy through tax cuts and other decisions.

How the opposition is to reach an agreement on a common fiscal and tax policy is something no one understands, not even they themselves.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the Finance Committee's reports.

(Applause)

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! I want to use this moment to speak about my motion, my view on the economy, and our common responsibility as fellow human beings. It may be a somewhat different contribution compared to how it usually is when economic policy is debated.

When the Committee on Taxation visited Washington D.C. in 2017, we took the opportunity to visit the building of the American tax authority. There, I read the famous inscription: Tax is the price we pay for a civilized society.

I still remember how proud and moved I became. At that time, I perceived the quote as one of the most striking expressions of what characterizes a modern and just society. The idea that we collectively contribute according to our ability to create security, welfare, and opportunities for all spoke to me deeply. It was also from this perspective that I formulated the motion being discussed in the committee report.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was wrong or at least that I saw the matter too one-sidedly. A civilized society is not determined solely by how much tax is collected or by people's economic wealth. Resources are important, but they are never sufficient. Money can finance schools, hospitals, and authorities. It can be used to build roads and strengthen institutions. But it cannot alone create trust, cohesion, or human dignity.

What ultimately determines a society's level of civilization is its moral compass – how we treat one another, how we view responsibility, rights and duties, and how we safeguard the rule of law, respect dissent, and defend human dignity even when it requires courage, integrity, and sacrifices.

If we were to work more wholeheartedly for peace and with the same determination counteract war and conflicts, we could significantly reduce the human, social, and economic costs. Then the government would also not be forced to revise its budgets and forecasts time and again as a result of war, uncertainty, and growing international tensions.

Therefore, I would today reformulate the message:

Taxation is one of the tools for a civilized society. But civilization is built primarily by people's values, morals, sense of responsibility, and respect for one another. Without these values, in the long run, it does not matter how high the taxes are or how large the resources the state has at its disposal. A society's true strength lies ultimately not in its budget but in its character.

Madam Speaker! When I studied sociology and philosophy at the University of Lebanon in the early 1980s, I spent many hours in the library reading international daily newspapers. There, I read about Björn Borg's successes on the tennis court, about ABBA who conquered the world with their music, and about Olof Palme who, with courage, conviction, and commitment, played a significant role in international diplomacy and in peace work.

Through these stories, a picture emerged for me. Sweden appeared as a country that had succeeded in uniting prosperity with justice, freedom with responsibility, and modernity with humanity. For a young student in a war-torn Lebanon, Sweden became something greater than just a country. It became an idea – an idea of a society where democracy, knowledge, and human dignity stood stronger than prejudice, hatred, and division.

That image has followed me throughout my entire life. That is why I feel a growing concern today over the development we are seeing. Democracy is rarely weakened through dramatic revolutions or open attacks. Often it happens step by step when trust is eroded, when people are pitted against each other, and when language that was previously considered unacceptable is gradually normalized.

Madam Speaker! The French philosopher and freedom fighter Edgar Morin formulated in his message to future generations a thought that should serve as an ethical compass for our time: Do not separate knowledge from ethics. Do not separate freedom from life, and do not separate people from their common destiny on this planet.

Perhaps these words remind us that democracy is not just about economy, institutions and laws. Democracy is also about values, about respect for human dignity and about the ability to see the other as a fellow human being and not as a threat.

It is intellectual freedom, personal privacy, and respect for human dignity that can protect our organizations, our parties, and our society from narrow-minded ideologies that claim that some people are more worthy than others, from hate speech that fosters suspicion and division, and from xenophobic ideas built on fear, prejudice, and an unwillingness to understand people with a different background, culture, or religion.

Madam Speaker! What is happening in our time is not just a political conflict between different parties and ideologies. It is fundamentally a struggle over what kind of society we want to leave behind for future generations.

If the democratic forces are unable to stand united in the defense of democracy, the rule of law, and human dignity, Sweden risks paying a high price. In that case, it does not matter how strong the economy is, how well-balanced the budgets are, whether taxes are high or low, or if we lower the price of gasoline and diesel. None of this can save a society where the foundations of democracy have been weakened.

History has time and again shown that democracy can never be taken for granted. It must constantly be defended, cherished, and strengthened.

Sweden shall be a society that builds its strength on freedom, justice, knowledge and solidarity – not on fear, suspicion and division.

It is the Sweden I once admired as a young student in Lebanon. It is the Sweden that became a role model for people far beyond the country's borders. It is the Sweden I still believe in, and it is the Sweden we must defend together.

I have no motion, Madam Speaker.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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