Social security contributions

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats always prioritize our common welfare, where security systems built on the idea of both duty and right are an important part.

The safety nets constitute the backbone for Swedish wage earners. They are a lifeline in unpredictable times, and they should provide support in case of illness, unemployment, or other economic challenges. That we have this security enables commitment and long-term productivity in the workplace. Social security does not only serve as an economic safety mechanism but also strengthens the social fabric by reducing inequality and promoting social justice. It is an investment in both the individual's well-being and the nation's sustainable future.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that stability in the system of social security contributions provides predictability for companies and other employers, which supports economic growth. We always strive for a balance between the interests of employers and employees to create a fair and sustainable labor market.

The social security contributions are an important source of funding for the safety nets and other welfare, and something that we must handle with caution.

We have amounts of hard-working sole traders in our country. Several of them have significantly more work than they can manage. In a sense, that is good, but the threshold for hiring an employee and in that way being relieved but also becoming an employer is very high. It is often too high, so that no employment takes place.

The Social Democratic-led government introduced in 2017 a right to a reduction of employer contributions for the first person employed in certain sole proprietorships, the so-called growth support (växastöd). That is good. There is also an opportunity in certain specified support areas to make deductions when calculating social security contributions. For researchers, there is also an opportunity for a reduction. But we cannot erode the social security contributions to any extent because they are an important part of our security systems and our welfare. In order for the Speaker, myself, and everyone else to be able to trust that we receive society's support in life's different phases, a stable and predictable regulatory framework for social security contributions is needed.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish workers need a wage they can live on, good working conditions, and the knowledge that there is a safety net to rely on when harder times come. This is what we Social Democrats advocate for every day of the week.

Now that we are in opposition, it is the responsibility of the SD-led government to present proposals to the Riksdag that further increase both growth and security for wage earners. This is unfortunately still conspicuous by its absence.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Lena Hedberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! My first memory of participating in an organized activity when I was little was in a forest with my friends from the village. The ones who were leaders were two mothers I had known before. In the forest, a troll appeared that shouted: kollikock, kollikock. The troll was scary but suspiciously similar to my friend Ullis's mother.

In the forest, we learned to pick up litter and take care of our nature, and that gave us an understanding of the value of outdoor life.

Mr. Speaker! Outdoor life, like sports, plays a central role in people's well-being. Outdoor life must receive the recognition and the support it needs there to be able to help with the important work that it also does for public health.

In a world where children and adults are increasingly getting stuck behind their screens, with their phones in constant use, where we move less and less and obesity has become a major public health problem, it is important that we look at all possibilities. The work of helping to create healthy activities must be rewarded.

Outdoor life often involves some form of physical activity, which in itself has many positive health effects for both body and soul. But practicing an outdoor life can also mean more tranquil individual encounters with nature that provide opportunities for relaxation, recreation, and recovery. Outdoor life is of great importance for our health and our well-being and is so important! By being out in nature and practicing outdoor life, we get the opportunity to move.

Mr. Speaker! What I want to bring up today is the example where we in the Sweden Democrats believe that outdoor life should be covered by the same rules. The initiative concerns the area of the Social Insurance Act's so-called half-base-amount rule, which, for example, the Swedish Sports Confederation is covered by.

It concerns the following: A compensation to a sports practitioner from a non-profit association as referred to in Chapter 7, Sections 7-13 of the Income Tax Act (1999:1229) and which has the primary purpose of promoting sports activities is tax-free, if the compensation from the association during the year has not amounted to half a price base amount according to Chapter 2, Sections 6 and 7 of the Social Insurance Code. Act (2010:1282).

This is stated in Chapter 2, Section 19 of the Social Insurance Contributions Act.

And it is here that we consider it is not fair! Skatteverket argues that the legal text states that it must concern "sports practitioners" for the half-basic amount rule to be applicable. Sports affiliated with Riksidrottsförbundet are those that can primarily come into question, but also similar activities, for example, sports-oriented activities within outdoor life. Problems arise here when, with this justification, one is forced to define on a case-by-case basis what counts as sport and what counts as other interests.

The Sweden Democrats believe that we must highlight the important role of outdoor life in the work of improving public health and give practitioners the recognition and support they deserve. In this way, Swedish outdoor life can also be covered by the half-base amount rule. Here we have an excellent opportunity to join forces with sports and outdoor life and work together to strengthen and increase citizens' participation in public health-promoting activities. This is not merely an economic issue but a principled stance that is important in the work of this development.

In light of what I have said, it is of great importance that Svenskt Friluftsliv, including its sub-organizations, is also covered by the so-called half-base amount rule in the social security contribution act as part of the work with the development of outdoor life in Sweden.

The Sweden Democrats consider that the proposal for measures should be investigated thoroughly in order to equate the outdoor life organizations with other parts of the voluntary sector.

With this, Mr. Speaker, the Sweden Democrats move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates' position is fundamentally that it is not only important but also necessary to both simplify for entrepreneurs and make it cheaper to hire. Therefore, there can always be a need to review and take a holistic approach regarding social security contributions, or as they are usually described: employer contributions. Through these, one can in different ways stimulate entrepreneurship and direct important measures. It can be about people who are far from the labor market or who are new to the labor market. For example, in the budget bill for 2024, we continue with the reinforcement of the reduction of employer contributions for people who work with research and development.

Mr. Speaker! Within this area, there is also a large knowledge gap. We in this chamber probably know what proportion of our social insurances is financed by employer contributions, and it is here that the general wage contribution also lies. But for the average person, it is considerably more difficult to actually see how much one pays directly and indirectly to the state treasury. A substantial knowledge boost is therefore needed to see how much it actually costs to have someone employed in one's company. For it is not only the wages that the companies pay to the employee that are the cost, but precisely also the social contributions.

Let me give an example. To employ someone of my age with a salary of 25,000 kronor, the approximate cost that an entrepreneur pays is closer to 38,000 kronor. Through social security contributions, the companies and the employee also co-finance our common safety net and our social insurances. But there must also be a sense of reasonableness in the level and in the long-term conditions.

Mr. Speaker! That is why I am pleased with the inquiry that has the task of investigating how social security contributions on payslips can become more transparent. A first step is to start with our own agencies, which should serve as role models and show the actual cost and make the actual tax burden visible. Regardless of what level one desires regarding employer contributions, we need to have a transparent and clear tax system where the employer contribution is also easy to understand and follow.

With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions in this committee report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to listen to the Moderate representative in the discussion, and therefore there are two questions that are raised for me.

Firstly, the Moderates point out that the fees should be visible on the payslip, so that one knows how much the social security contributions amount to. Now the Moderates have the minister responsible for these issues, and it would be interesting to have a statement. When will we get the requirement through? The bourgeois parties have for many years pushed the issue of getting this achieved, and it would truly increase public education if everyone can see on the payslip how much they pay in social security contributions.

Secondly, Sweden stands out in one area, namely that there is a high youth unemployment. The Alliance government decided already in 2007/08 to reduce the employer contributions for young people and in that way lower the threshold for the hospitality industry, hotels and restaurants and other areas to employ them.

It was a good reform, but unfortunately, it was removed by the Social Democratic government. But as part of the January Agreement, it became possible to push the issue forward again, and it was important to do everything we can to keep youth unemployment down.

Now the current government has chosen - I do not know if it is under the influence of the Sweden Democrats - to shock-increase the employer contribution. It came on January 1. How did you Moderates think when, in a recession with high youth unemployment, you decided to significantly increase the employer contributions for young people?

It is the two questions that I want answers to.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Jonsson for the questions.

Regarding the question of the visibility of social security contributions, the government issued a statement last week that the matter is under investigation. It is an important first step on the way. The member will be able to follow the work and hopefully be satisfied. The important steps have been taken to make employer contributions visible on the payslip, and it begins with our own authorities. It is a step on the way, and the announcement was presented this week – if I don't remember incorrectly.

Then it was a question of lowering the thresholds. We both agree that it was an important measure during the Alliance years. Unfortunately, it received criticism in the debates, and we have had many discussions and debates where certain parties have considered that the reduction did not have a sufficiently large effect.

I can state that such decisions must be made in a budget process because a trade-off of priorities must take place. Ahead of the 2024 budget, the government chose to prioritize, for example, compensation to the 57s, lowering the tax for those who work and lowering the tax for those who have worked. These were important priorities in this budget. I will not speculate on what will be included in upcoming budget bills, but everything is about prioritizing the state's money. In this case, we made those choices.

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that it was, of course, a priority from the government's side. It was more important to lower the tax on snus than to ensure that the cost of employing unemployed youth could be kept low.

If one wonders whether this had an effect or not, one simply has to visit the companies that are eager to hire young people, as well as the municipalities and regions that employ many young people.

It is obvious to everyone that when the government chooses to make it much more expensive to employ young people, it will not be positive for youth unemployment.

It is clear that it is a prioritization. It was then more important to be able to give those who were 67 years old a tax cut and, above all, to be able to lower the tax on snus than to tackle one of the real problems in Sweden, namely that we stand out within the EU in that we have very high youth unemployment. It is not so strange when it is so expensive to hire a young person who comes directly from high school and does not have much work experience. If the cost is the same, it is clear that one would rather choose the older person who has more experience. But those who are affected by this prioritization from the government's side are the young people who then are left without work.

What I cannot understand is that something that the Alliance government during the years 2006-2014 thought was so important, namely to push down youth unemployment, is no longer prioritized by this government with a close cooperation with the Sverigedemokraterna. Now, one can without blinking increase the cost for many small businesses that actually want to hire, and that is the reasoning I do not buy.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say this: I believe one makes it a bit too easy for oneself if one says that if we just reintroduce the previous reduction and continue with it, we have solved youth unemployment. It is not that simple. It is a rather complex system, and here we must once again prioritize with measures.

Now we have had a tough economic situation with skyrocketing inflation at the same time as we are in a recession. We have limited resources, and then one must prioritize. It is difficult. It is not simple. But I would not say that one therefore in any way chooses to prioritize away youth unemployment - on the contrary. One might look at other measures to curb it. For example, one can look at the school and those parts that need to become better to make young people more employable in the first instance.

I would say that youth unemployment is a broad problem area and that the employer contribution is one tool among several. Here, the center-right government has chosen to prioritize, and they have made the priorities we have seen—for example, lowering the tax on work, which benefits everyone regardless of age, and lowering the tax for everyone who has worked.

This is, as said, not an issue that we will be finished with. Youth unemployment is a structural problem, and it is greater than just the employer contribution for young people.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! An investigation was appointed last week on how social security contributions should be made visible on payslips. Why there is a need for this is unclear to me, even though Member Caroline Högström explained the government's starting point in this earlier. But I guess the right-wing parties believe that people in general go around and think a lot about the winged words that the CEO of Svenskt Näringsliv once said: "What the hell am I getting for the money?"

As a small piece of information, I would then like to explain what the social security contributions are for: old-age pension, survivor's pension, health insurance, occupational injury fee, parental insurance, labor market fee, and general wage fee.

I believe that the Swedish wage earners in general think it is very good that there is a pension when one becomes old, a sickness insurance that kicks in during illness, and a parental insurance that is there when one becomes a parent. Then I can say with considerable certainty that the one who works often thinks that the pension should be higher and that the compensation during illness should be more secure and higher.

Mr. Speaker! It is not something that will change by having social security contributions visible on the payslip. It will not make our safety systems automatically better. An explanation for why the right-wing parties want to implement this is probably that they imagine people will become very upset and wonder "What the hell am I getting for the money?" so that they can then lower them. It almost becomes a case of fiction surpassing reality when the investigator also comes from the same organization as the man who uttered those winged words, Svenskt Näringsliv.

Mr. Speaker! Now I shall pause the presentation on the government's appointed investigation and move on to the motions that we are dealing with here today.

Employer contributions currently account for approximately 27 percent of the total tax revenues and therefore constitute an important funding of the safety net for employees. The general employer contribution is 31.42 percent, but there is currently a large number of exemptions. Both young and older people in certain age groups are covered by reduced employer contributions, as are persons who work with research and development, persons who live in certain support areas, and certain sole proprietorships.

Reduced employer contributions have become a popular political tool to signal that one is investing in different things. But evaluations of reduced employer contributions show that the effects on employment are small or non-existent.

As an example, the reduction of employer contributions by just over 10 percent for persons aged 19-25 that the Reinfeldt government implemented can be mentioned. The Institute for Labour Market and Education Policy Evaluation concluded in its evaluation of the reform that the loss of revenue per job from the reduction amounted to 1-1.6 million kronor, which at that time was about four times higher than the average employment cost for 19-25-year-olds. The greatest effect of the tax cut will be increased profits for companies with a large proportion of young workers.

Support for activities and policy areas is most effective on the expenditure side, we believe. Employer contributions shall be used to finance public activities and public insurance.

In the budget bill for 2024, the government proposes that the reduction of employer contributions for persons aged 15-18 be abolished. Previously, the reduction of employer contributions for persons aged 19-23 has also been phased out. It is gratifying, we believe, that the government now seems to understand that these reductions are an ineffective policy. Vänsterpartiet considers that remaining reductions and exemptions should also be limited.

Mr. Speaker! I hereby move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Social security contributions are one of the parts of our country's economic system that provide funds for the compensations and support that exist to meet various needs. Through social security contributions, companies are involved in financing our common safety net and our social insurances.

But there must be a discussion about the reasonableness of the level and the long-term conditions. The level and the scope of social security contributions should continue to be evaluated and discussed, also in combination with the companies' conditions to hire and grow.

Parts of the social security contribution system are, as mentioned earlier, among other things employer contributions, which are primarily paid by employers who have employees. Another part is self-employed contributions, which are paid by natural persons who conduct active business activities. Employers shall also pay a general wage contribution. For 2024, the employer contributions and the general wage contribution amount to at most 31.42 percent of the contribution base.

Mr. Speaker! There are exceptions and lower levels. For example, as mentioned earlier in the debate, there has been since 2017 a right to a reduction of employer contributions when a first person is employed in certain sole proprietorships.

Another example is outdoor life organizations, which, in connection with paying compensation, have the possibility of obtaining an exemption that is free of charge if the compensation that the association pays during the year does not amount to more than half a price base amount.

Mr. Speaker! Social security contributions are levied to finance the social security systems. It is important that the link between the social security contributions paid in and the benefits that these contributions are intended to finance is maintained as much as possible. I therefore support the committee majority's assessment that, in connection with this motion report, there is no need for changes according to the motions being treated.

Regarding specifically the possibility and equality of fees for associations and organizations working with sports, movement, and outdoor life, there is reason to highlight that the investigation report *Varje rörelse räknas - hur skapar vi ett samhälle som främjar fysisk aktivitet?* under one of the points suggests that outdoor life organizations should be equated with organized sports and be covered by the rule on half the basic amount. Against this background, I believe that we should wait for the Government Offices' preparation of the proposal and see what it leads to. This means that the motions with proposals in this direction should be rejected today.

Mr. Speaker! It has been discussed, even in speeches here, that employer contributions should clearly appear on the employee's payslip - this in order to increase knowledge and understanding of both taxes and fees but also to create discussion and acceptance for how large they should be. Last week, the bourgeois government, through the Minister for Civil Affairs and my party colleague Erik Slottner, gave an investigator the task of taking a first step towards such an arrangement. More specifically, it concerns an investigator proposing how one can introduce an obligation for government agencies to report paid social security contributions on the payslip.

Something misleading is when some sum up and call the entire employer contribution a tax. The majority of the contributions relate to areas such as pension, health insurance, and parental insurance, that is to say, such things as the employee themselves can utilize when the need arises. If a tax is paid without a requirement for a direct counter-performance, as it is called, the contribution is, on the other hand, linked to just such a counter-performance. A contribution is not synonymous with a tax; there is a substantive difference. On the other hand, the general wage contribution, which actually is a tax, constitutes the single largest part of the employer contribution.

It would be beneficial if Swedish employees were better informed about which taxes and fees are paid in connection with employment. I therefore look forward to the commission's proposals and results. In the long run, it could also constitute an opportunity for the same setup also within activities outside the public sector.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against all motions.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ingemar Kihlström for the presentation.

Ingemar Kihlström spoke about the deduction that sports associations are allowed to make. It concerns half a basic amount per person per year and is an important deduction for a vibrant sports life in sports clubs and sports associations and, in fact, the entire civil society. However, there is still no possibility for outdoor organizations to make this deduction, even though they are related activities that often overlap. They are activities that promote health and which may be the very best tool to reduce the inflow into healthcare and the health insurance.

Ingemar Kihlström mentioned that the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices. It is a phrase that can mean that it is actually being prepared and something is in motion, but often it means that it lies in a drawer and will remain there. I believe, however, that the outdoor life community is curious about how the matter is progressing. Even the Sverigedemokraterna spoke about this, so it is obviously at least two parties in the government base that want to see this reform.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is important to encourage and reward movement. In today's society, the elderly and the young do not move enough, so all popular movements, associations, and activities that encourage movement should, of course, be supported in various ways.

Even in the debate last year, the difference between different types of association activities depending on whether one belongs to the Swedish Sports Confederation or not was mentioned, and in the rather extensive investigation, a number of different proposals are presented to achieve a society that promotes physical activity. Here is a concrete proposal to equate outdoor activities with organized sports.

That it is being prepared in the Government Offices is an answer that can be given. I do not know if Mats Berglund's government always placed things in the "drawer," but we are a number of members who will monitor the government's work. Since it is included in the investigation and there is an intention to promote movement, including from my party colleague Minister for Social Affairs Jakob Forssmed, we will keep an eye on this. Therefore, we see no need for the Riksdag to issue a motion to the government in this matter.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I regret this. But since the Green Party has such a proposal in today's matter, it is still possible to vote for it.

I have also read the investigation, and there are some really good proposals here. It is important for public health and recreation to get people out into the forest and the countryside. There are many benefits in that. This would be a way to facilitate that, and the outdoor organizations have reported that they have difficulty recruiting leaders. If one does not have leaders, it is difficult to get, among other groups, children and youth out into nature.

I received no clear information on what the situation looks like within the government support and whether the reform will be implemented during the mandate period. Are the Christian Democrats pushing for this to be implemented, and is there a tempo in this matter in the Government Offices?

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats promote movement. Let me take an example that Jakob Forssmed is working on right now: the leisure card. It shall provide an opportunity for children and young people to participate in leisure activities. Just as Mats Berglund mentioned, it is important to promote movement, and for us Christian Democrats, civil society and the non-profit associations are an important force for society's various functions. It is about creating movement and community where one is seen and being a force to counteract much destructive and negative in our society.

Regarding the proposal mentioned in the investigation *Varje rörelse räknas*, it is a budget-related proposal and is included in the budget negotiations. I do not have the decision on whether it will be included, but I am quite sure that the Christian Democrats will work to ensure that non-profit associations for movements are rewarded and supported in the best possible way.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is a debate about social security contributions, but in the name of honesty, it could have been handled significantly better by the Committee on Taxation, as the issue actually has very little to do with the social insurance system.

Fees are paid for a benefit that one receives, but a large part of the social security contributions cannot be directly linked to any insurance. The insurances that have been mentioned here, parental insurance, pension, health insurance etcetera, are of course financed by the social security contributions, but only up to certain income levels. Furthermore, the person who pays the contributions receives no benefits. This is in fact an important financing of the state budget as a whole.

It is not possible according to law for a municipality to charge a water and sewage fee that exceeds the cost the municipality has for the water and sewage system, but for the state, it is permitted to do this through what is called social fees. One third of the social fees is, moreover, the general wage fee, that is, a fee of 10 percent of the income that goes towards something diffuse with strengthening the welfare. It thus has no direct connection whatsoever.

This is an important funding of the state budget, and therefore it resembles a tax more than a fee system. This is also something that affects companies to the highest degree. Therefore, I believe it is an important step if we can finally reach the point where it is at least reported on the payslip so that the citizens know what this system costs and where the money actually goes.

I therefore move for approval of the Centerpartiets reservation 2, where we argue that a review of this must be conducted. It is not reasonable that we tax wage labor so heavily through the general wage fee and also through parts of the other fee systems.

It is with a bit of sorrow in my heart that I note that three former alliance parties, which have previously been involved in lowering the employer contribution for young people, have now, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, contributed to making a very substantial increase of the employer contribution for precisely young people. In a situation where we have high youth unemployment, this is definitely not what Sweden's youth, not least those who are outside the labor market, would need.

Mr. Speaker! An important part of this discussion has been to equate outdoor organizations with sports organizations regarding the possibility of not paying social security contributions for leaders. There is a motion from Centerpartiet on that theme. I also note that there is a basis for an investigation. Let it be that preparation is ongoing within the Government Offices, but now two of the four parties, including the Sverigedemokraterna here at the rostrum, have pointed out that this should be done. I therefore assume that when we next see a state budget, this proposal will be ready and complete.

It is an anomaly in the system that a sports club that pays a sports leader has the possibility of not fully paying social security contributions, while outdoor organizations, on the other hand, are expected to pay in full. Now, after having listened to both Sverigedemokraterna and Kristdemokraterna, I assume that this will be corrected. It cannot just be empty talk in a situation where there is actually an investigation proposal that can simply be moved forward with. Now it is up to proof. Is one speaking with a divided tongue, or does one mean what they say in the Riksdag's speaker's chair? Therefore, I do not move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report, but for approval of reservation 2.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Social security contributions, which we are debating today, are fees collected through the employer contribution to finance our safety nets: health insurance, parental insurance, and pensions. They are important parts of our welfare.

It is in large parts the state's responsibility for the welfare that is financed in this way. Otherwise, the welfare responsibility lies largely at the municipal and regional level. It is about us taking care of ourselves and each other together when we need extra support – when we get sick, when we start a family and costs increase, or when we get older and no longer work for wages. It is about situations, or periods, in life when income decreases but the bills still must be paid.

Social security contributions finance the security – the welfare – that has built and shaped Sweden. It is important that we ensure that financing, but also the trust in these systems. That trust has been eroded over a longer period. The systems do not always live up to the expectations one should actually be able to have in a welfare state like Sweden. This applies in particular to the health insurance.

When one wants to but cannot work due to illness, one should have the right to compensation to cover one's livelihood and to support and help to return to health or work, studies, or other occupation. It is for exactly that which we continue to pay social security contributions. It is also about the employers having the right to demand that their payments actually lead to their employees receiving the protection one should be able to expect.

For a long time, however, it has not always worked that way. Far too many people are being discharged prematurely or completely denied sickness benefit, sickness compensation, or activity compensation. The system has broken down.

During the previous parliamentary term, I was involved in repairing at least some of the cracks in the sickness insurance system. The government, with the Green Party and the Social Democrats, implemented a number of improvements that have led to more sick people now being able to retain their sickness benefit or sickness compensation. It has also become easier to return to work at a pace that suits the sick person themselves. Protection has also been strengthened for the elderly so that they should feel a sense of security in work during the final years before retirement, even if the body has taken a beating from many heavy years in working life.

These are some of the changes we managed to complete before the election, but we did not finish. After the election, it came to a halt. Not a single one of all the investigated proposals that remain has been submitted to the Riksdag this far into the parliamentary period. And it is clear that if the insurance systems do not meet expectations, the confidence in the social security contributions will take a significant hit, regardless of whether they are published on the payslip or not.

I wish that the Tidö government would fulfill at least the Sweden Democrats' election promise to continue making life a little more bearable for our unemployed, long-term sick, and disabled. This far into the mandate period, it seems to have gone in the opposite direction instead.

Mr. Speaker! Social security contributions shall be collected through self-contributions and employer contributions according to ability, and there shall be a clear connection between the contributions and the security that the contributions pay for. That is how it is, and that is how it shall be.

There are, however, commendable exceptions. One such exception exists in the association life within sports. A compensation to a player or leader in a non-profit sports association may be exempted from the employer contribution. These are not large sums; it concerns a compensation of up to half a basic amount per person per year, but for the associations, the sports clubs, it is highly significant. It can be the difference between having or not having a coach for the boys' team, a equipment manager, or another leader for the girls' team.

The strange thing is that this only applies to sports. It does not apply to outdoor life. Even though the activities are often similar or even the same, there is a dividing line between associations affiliated with Riksidrottsförbundet on one hand and associations affiliated with, for example, Svenskt Friluftsliv on the other.

Miljöpartiet thinks that this should be corrected. Outdoor life should be included in this system. The question has been debated both here today and for a long time previously. This summer, the Committee for the Promotion of Increased Physical Activity, which is a state committee, submitted its final report. Precisely this is one of the investigation's proposals. The matter is therefore investigated and ready and should be able to be presented in the near future as a government bill or perhaps in the upcoming budget.

Mr. Speaker! In the report, Miljöpartiet has just such a proposal regarding exemptions from the fee obligation for outdoor organizations. I therefore move for approval of reservation 4 in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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