Social security contributions

Jessica Rodén (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats always stand up for the common welfare. Our security systems are based on the fact that we help each other – we contribute according to our ability and receive support when we need it. It is a model that has served Sweden well and which creates both economic security and social justice.

The safety nets are a lifeline for Swedish wage earners. They ensure that no one is left alone in the event of illness, unemployment, or other economic setbacks. But they also do something more. They give people the freedom to invest in education, change jobs, and start companies. A society where we know that the security is there when we need it is a society where more people dare to contribute and participate fully in the labor market.

We Social Democrats welcome that the committee stands firm on the fact that social security contributions shall finance our safety systems and that no major deviations from that principle shall be made. Companies and employers need predictability, but it must not occur at the expense of the employees' security.

Social security contributions finance our common welfare. Swedish wage earners need wages that are livable, secure working conditions, and the knowledge that society is there when life changes.

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

(Applause)

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

Daniel Lönn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 3.

Swedish public health policy has long taken its starting point in the issue of sports and physical activity. It can be said that these have been a cornerstone in the policy pursued. Through the state supports to sports clubs and various sports initiatives, we have jointly created long-term conditions for the population's physical well-being and good health.

This is good. Our Swedish sports movement makes an invaluable contribution for both young and old, for both boys and girls. But it is high time that we lift our gaze.

The Sweden Democrats know that public health and public health work affect far more areas than just sports. For us, it is about giving more, preferably everyone, the opportunity to move, to feel good and find joy in physical activity, regardless of whether it happens between four walls or between four fir trees. For us, it is about giving children, young people and the elderly the opportunity to feel the sun's rays on a warm June day or to feel the wind's rustle between the branches of the fir trees. It is about giving people the opportunity to get to know our fantastic part of the world – what we collectively call here Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The population of Sweden in general, but perhaps children and young people in particular, suffer from a huge public health problem: We simply move far too little. The reasons for the sedentary lifestyle are many, but much can be traced back to too much screen time. This, in turn, leads to, among other things, reduced social contacts and obesity, which in turn can also lead to mental problems later in life.

What then is the best remedy against this? Well, it is physical activity and social community. In fact, outdoor life is filled with physical activity, such as hiking in nature, kayaking, sledding, and so on. But with today's social security contribution act, outdoor life is discriminated against in relation to sports. The so-called rule of half a basic amount is simply not applicable to outdoor activities. In the midst of the emergence of our time's greatest public health problem, solutions to the problem are being countered. It becomes completely hollow.

Mr. Speaker! Despite our long-standing tradition of taking advantage of our outdoor life, with the right of public access (allemansrätten), which opens up great opportunities to experience nature, we see today a great inequality when it comes to how we support different types of public health initiatives. The sports movement has long enjoyed strong and important support mechanisms, including the so-called half basic amount rule, which means that payments from associations to sports practitioners are exempt from fees up to half a price base amount. This contributes to associations being able to retain and recruit leaders without the large economic burden that social fees actually represent for a small association.

Mr. Speaker, Svenskt Friluftsliv is not covered by the exemption rule and is forced to pay the same social security contributions as other organizations and companies. This paralyzes Swedish outdoor life, while the sports movement is rewarded.

The Sweden Democrats do not mean that the sports movement should in any way be valued lower than outdoor life. Both are exactly equally important. Therefore, it is of great importance that outdoor life is also covered by the so-called rule on half the basic amount.

As it stands today, outdoor associations have difficulty recruiting competent and driven leaders. Given the economic situation that many of our voluntary associations unfortunately find themselves in, the social security contributions are often what determines whether an association can afford to remunerate its leaders or not. This, in turn, means that our children and young people do not get the same opportunities to participate in outdoor life as they do in sports.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' motion, which deals with the rule on half the basic amount, has been dealt with in the chamber eight times before. This will therefore be the ninth time that the chamber has to take a position on the issue. On all occasions, the chamber has rejected the motion despite a strong desire from several parties to actually change the social security contributions act.

Time and again we hear arguments about an investigation report being prepared at the Government Offices, where it is proposed that outdoor life organizations should be equated with organized sports and in that way be covered by the so-called half basic amount rule. But, Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking, and we still cannot see that the government has actually acted on the issue.

The outdoor life organizations need to see a change in the law. If the government is also not ready during this parliamentary session to take on the issue and push through the commission's proposals, we here in the chamber must take responsibility. I believe there is a relatively broad consensus on the issue of equating the sports movement with outdoor life. We have slightly different approaches to it, but the goal is the same. Let us therefore take a joint step in the right direction and once and for all ensure that we get equal conditions for our non-profit public health organizations.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are the guarantor of a Sweden where we equate sports and outdoor life. We are the guarantor of a Sweden where children and young people get the same opportunity to practice sports as to participate in outdoor life. We are the guarantor of a Sweden where the state takes its responsibility to counter the sedentary lifestyle that has become one of our time's absolute greatest public health issues.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are the guarantor of a Sweden where we facilitate all forms of voluntary public health initiatives.

In this speech, Jonas Andersson, Nima Gholam Ali Pour and Rasmus Giertz (all SD) concurred.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I actually requested the floor to say that I completely agree with what Daniel Lönn has just advocated for. It is an anomaly in the regulations that when my grandchildren participate in ice skating or skiing activities, the sports club does not need to pay the full social fee, but if they do something called Mulle or something that Friluftsfrämjandet handles, those rules do not apply. This is a small detail in the social fees, but it is still extremely strange.

But what is a bit strange – and that was why I also requested the floor – was that Daniel Lönn forgot, I believe, to move for approval of the reservation. There is a proposal from the Sverigedemokraterna in this matter and also a reservation.

Last year, when we also had this discussion, both Kristdemokraterna and Sverigedemokraterna stood up and promised most solemnly that they would indeed see to it that this detail was corrected.

The Christian Democrats are, of course, a government party, and the Sweden Democrats are involved in negotiating the budget, and this is a pure budget issue. It then becomes strange that the party that rules and governs Sweden's budget does not, despite the promises from the debate a year ago together with the Christian Democrats, push this through.

In the discussion a year ago, several of us, including the undersigned, said that the issue was then resolved. It was two government parties who said they would arrange this. But when one comes here to the chamber, this has not been resolved in the budget negotiations. One makes it a main point in their speech, but as far as I heard, they do not even vote in favor of their own reservation – with the reservation that my hearing is somewhat poor.

I would like Daniel Lönn to clear this up. It is something unclear, I must say.

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

Daniel Lönn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to remember that the first thing I did in my speech was to move for the approval of reservation 3. It was probably my hearing that caused the trouble.

But regarding what the member is raising concerning budget issues, it is no secret that the Sweden Democrats are cooperating with the government in the so-called Tidö Agreement and have had an incredible amount of Sweden Democrat policy passed through. But the member knows, just as I do, that it is impossible to get 100 percent of one's policy through in a cooperation.

Since then, it is clear that this is an issue that is important for us. It is an issue we are pushing for. There is a reason why we have submitted a motion on the subject with the intention of changing the Social Insurance Act. We will continue to push for that.

If Anders W Jonsson now wants this to become a reality, there is a simple way for him to ensure that it does, namely to vote for reservation 3 when we are to vote on this tomorrow.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! But it still becomes a hollow argument in a situation where one is sitting and negotiating the budget. Two of the four parties in the chamber spoke about this little detail – it is, after all, a small detail – in the social security contributions: This we shall ensure to change by next year. And several in that chamber debate then said, as appears in the minutes: How great! Then we do not need to discuss this question next year, because it is solved here in the budget negotiations.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there is a preparatory document from 2023, which as far as I know was prepared at the initiative of the Social Democratic government and which actually shows how this can be solved. One therefore cannot even blame a lack of a preparatory document.

It simply must be the case that the Sweden Democrats, together with the Christian Democrats, have not prioritized this issue in the budget negotiations. If the Sweden Democrats had done so, the budget would not have passed if you had not gotten this requirement through.

When you raise the question in this way in this chamber debate, it sounds as if it truly is the most important question regarding all the social security contributions. Then it becomes strange again, Mr. Speaker, that one stands here in the chamber, is a government base, and in a budget question acts as the opposition to the government that one has seen governing the country.

Then I have a reflection based on the budget negotiations. It must be that the Liberals and the Moderates are very stubborn opponents of making this change, because you have not had it pushed through. Or it is also the case that you do not prioritize this. You think it is nice to stand in the chamber and play opposition in relation to the government you have appointed. You think this question is so important – the entire presentation was about it. But you let it go in the budget negotiations. It becomes extremely strange.

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

Daniel Lönn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the member for the questions.

We can begin by stating that it is no secret that precisely the amendment of the social security contribution act becomes the central point when we debate the report on the social security contribution act – when we also have a committee motion whose motion deals with precisely the amendment linked to outdoor life. It is nothing strange.

Then I can only state, as I did in my first rebuttal, that one never gets 100 percent of one's policy through when one negotiates a government. It is crystal clear.

This is an important issue. It is something that we have pushed for. We are pushing for it. I am very aware that there is a report lying in the Government Offices with a proposal to change the Social Insurance Act. I also raised it in my speech. It would be great if the government acted and pushed through that proposal, because it is a very good proposal. But if the government is not prepared to do that now, which I respect because people have different starting points, we can at least tomorrow issue a motion by voting on our reservation. Then what the member wants to achieve will be achieved, namely a change of the Social Insurance Act.

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

Mats Sander (M)

Mr. Speaker! When more people have a job to go to, both the individual's freedom and our entire society are strengthened. Entrepreneurs who dare to hire do not only create jobs and livelihoods for themselves. They also give more people the opportunity to build their future. They create growth, which is positive for all of us in Sweden.

That people can support themselves, feel security and know that hard work pays off is the foundation of our welfare. Social security contributions play a crucial role in this. They finance our collective security, but they also affect the possibility to hire, run businesses and create growth. How we design the system determines whether we strengthen or weaken the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the best way to strengthen the welfare state is for more people to work and fewer to be dependent on benefits. We Moderates stand for a clear work line. We want more people to work. We want more people to be able to take part in the community of a workplace and grow as individuals through work. We want more people to be able to experience the economic freedom that comes with being able to support oneself and one's family. Therefore, we pursue a policy that rewards both effort and drive.

High costs for hiring hit small business owners and those furthest from the labor market the hardest. We know that if the thresholds to enter the labor market are too high, many are left behind. Therefore, the government has taken measures to lower costs where it makes the biggest difference. The Växa-support has been expanded. Small businesses can now hire both their first and their second employee at lower fees. The amount limit for reduced employer contributions has been raised. These are examples of reforms that create jobs and provide opportunities for more people to stand on their own feet.

Mr. Speaker! Our mission is not only to create better conditions for more jobs today. We must also take responsibility for ensuring that our policy is long-term sustainable. We believe in a policy where people get better opportunities to succeed through hard work – a policy where it always pays off to put in a little, little extra effort.

Reforms must be funded, and we implement measures that make a difference where they are needed most. The government's policy is a long-term investment in Sweden's labor market. We create conditions for companies to grow and hire more, and we do it in a responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker! It is work and entrepreneurship that builds our country, not high taxes for those who create jobs. It is more people in work that secures the funding for the welfare system, not higher fees that make it harder to hire. It is through a policy that gives people the opportunity to support themselves that we create a better future for Sweden.

The Moderates stand for a just, responsible and forward-looking policy. We believe in people. We believe in entrepreneurship, and we know that a strong work ethic gives both the individual and society better conditions to grow.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I requested the floor when I heard Mats Sander say that the Moderaterna stand for a clear work line. It was also a common line for the four Alliance parties. We saw that the social security contributions and not least the special payroll tax were a burden, not least for the small companies. During our years in power, we did everything we could to lower the total social security contributions, especially targeted towards people who were far from the labor market, towards young people but also towards the small companies. It was a common bourgeois line and a bourgeois policy to create more jobs.

Therefore, it is a bit strange when Mats Sander now says that the Moderaterna stand for a clear work line, considering that the total social security contributions have been increased by 12 billion kronor by this government. It hits very hard, not least against the small companies. I cannot understand how this, in the Moderaterna's world, can be interpreted as standing for a clear work line. If one lowers the social security contributions, the connection is clear. Then it is about a work line. But if one raises them by 12 billion, Mr. Speaker, it can hardly be described as being about a clear work line. It is precisely the opposite.

This is probably one of the explanations for why we today have an unemployment rate that is among Europe's highest. We are probably in fourth place from the bottom or the top, however one chooses to see it.

I would like to hear Mats Sander elaborate on how an increase in social security contributions of 12 billion is a clear work line.

The second question concerns the common position we have had previously: that it should appear on the payslip what the total tax is. Attempts have been made to appoint some investigation, but my question is: When will this happen? When will Sweden's wage earners be able to see how much tax one pays, both the social security contributions and the preliminary tax? This has been a common line previously.

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

Mats Sander (M)

Mr. Speaker! I welcome that the Centre Party wants to make it easier to run businesses and to hire. I believe we agree that small businesses are the backbone of the Swedish economy. The Government has expanded the support to stimulate entrepreneurs to hire more employees, and this at lower fees. In this way, more people are stimulated into work, and more people in work results in higher revenues.

We make efforts where they make the most difference. These are not general reductions of employer contributions. We take responsibility for the whole. I do not think it is a responsible policy to promise broad tax cuts without financing them and pointing out what should be done. If the member would like to lower the employer contributions even further, it is required that one points out which priorities one wants to make and what one wants to opt out of.

Here we are debating a motion report on social security contributions. The government is taking a whole range of other measures to stimulate work for more people and so that more people should be able to keep more of their money, want to go to work, and so on. We have, for example, increased the job tax deduction a number of times, lowered taxes, and so on.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mats Sander, for the question I received on how the Center Party views this!

In our budget proposal, we propose clear reductions of the employer contributions. What is called the growth support but which is actually a growth deduction applies today to two employees, and we propose that it should apply to up to ten. We also want to target specific reductions regarding those people who are far from the labor market. This is financed in our budget, so it is not up for discussion.

Mats Sander missed my questions. If one now raises the social security contributions for Sweden's companies by 12 billion kronor – how can one then, as a Moderate representative, stand in the rostrum and say that for the Moderates, the work line is what is important? You say that you are raising the social security contributions by 12 billion in total but that it is part of a clear work line, as I wrote down in my manuscript.

The second question concerns what we in the bourgeois parties have advocated for for a long time – the social security contributions must appear on the payslip. Now, the vice president of Svenskt Näringsliv was tasked with looking into how this could be done, at least regarding state employees. But when will this happen? When will Swedish wage earners be able to see on the payslip not only how much preliminary tax is deducted but also how much has been paid in social security contributions?

These are my two questions. The first is: A clear work line is linked to an increase in social security contributions of 12 billion – how does Mats Sander put that together? The second is: When will we be able to see the total tax burden borne by the employee on our payslips?

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

Mats Sander (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are implementing reforms that are sustainable. We are doing nothing that risks undermining the state finances.

Small business owners need stable and predictable conditions. We strengthen job growth through measures that work in reality. We prioritize a policy that actually works. We lower the thresholds in the labor market. We give small businesses better conditions to hire, and we ensure that Sweden is an attractive country to invest in.

I appreciate that the Centre Party wants to see a more business-friendly policy. We take responsibility for the whole. We lower costs where it does the most good through well-considered reforms. We have a clear focus: More companies should dare to hire, more people should be able to get jobs, and Sweden should grow.

Mr. Speaker! We are building a strong economy through stability and responsibility for the whole.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservations 2 and 4.

This motion report concerns the social security contributions. There are a total of approximately twelve proposals from parties and individual members that we are to handle. They are called the social security contributions because the underlying idea was that they should finance the social insurance system. But today, that connection does not really exist; instead, the most important connection regarding this section is how it affects business operations.

Fees are something one pays to receive a utility. For the municipalities, there is even legislation that governs the whole thing. The municipality cannot collect more money in water and sewage fees than what water and sewage cost. One might wish that the same law applied to the Riksdag, because when it concerns a part of the social insurance systems that the social fees finance, the money does not go entirely to them. That is because there are income ceilings.

A well-known business leader said: What do I get for the money? Regarding just the social security contributions, it is truly a legitimate question. These are not actually fees, but it is about pure tax. It should actually be regarded as such and perhaps should instead be handled by the Committee on Taxation.

The most serious consequences of the social security contributions are not that they affect how the social insurance system looks; we have other laws and rules that govern that. It is instead that it affects how the economy as a whole functions. That was what I raised in the previous exchange of remarks. If one raises the social security contributions by 12 billion, it obviously affects unemployment because it becomes significantly more expensive for companies to hire.

That is why we in the Center Party have for a very long time advocated that the social security contributions must be lowered to a reasonable level. It is not sensible to place such a large cost on the companies that makes it so much more expensive to hire. We have presented concrete proposals on how these reductions could look. For the first ten employees, one could have reductions of the social security contributions. This also applies to those people who are furthest from the labor market. That, Mr. Speaker, would be the most important change of the social security contributions.

There are two other parts that have been discussed so far, and in those, it is clear where the Center Party stands. One concerns the fact that we must obtain a clear account for the employees of what the total tax burden is and how much one pays in, that is to say, that the social security contributions must be able to be reported.

The second point concerns the detail that is quite important for association life. Why should we have a good regulatory framework for sports associations when it comes to how they pay social security contributions for their leaders but not for others, who also perform an incredibly important part? This applies in particular to outdoor activities.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 4 as well, and not only of reservation 2.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One of the most beautiful and important parts of Swedish society is our solidarity-based welfare system.

The fact that we take care of each other collectively when we need extra support – when we fall ill, when we start a family and costs increase, or when we get older and no longer work for wages – is something we should be proud of and protect. We know that we will all at some point find ourselves in situations or periods in life where income decreases but we must continue to pay our bills, and in those cases, society is here for us.

The social security contributions are the way we have to finance these security systems: the health insurance, the parental insurance, and the pension. They are the cornerstones of the state part of our collective welfare system. The social security contributions finance the security – the welfare – that has built and shaped Sweden. It is important that we ensure that financing but also that we strengthen the trust in the system. That trust has been eroded over a longer period.

The system does not always live up to the expectations one should actually be able to have in a welfare country like Sweden. This applies in particular to the sickness 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 and work, studies, or other occupation. It is for this that we continue to pay social security contributions.

This is also about the employers having the right to demand that their contributions actually lead to their employees receiving the protection one should be able to expect. However, for a long time now, it does not always work that way. Far too many people are disqualified prematurely or completely denied sickness benefit, sickness allowance, or activity allowance. Sick and exhausted people are forced to seek jobs they cannot get or perform. In the end, many are forced to go to the social services with their hat in hand to ask for social assistance, with high requirements and low compensation. The municipalities bear the costs of the state's failure when people are forced into poverty. The system has broken down.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to introduce a common insurance for both illness and unemployment in the form of a unified security system, under a single authority, that is clear and covers everyone. As a step on the way towards this work-life security, we want to repair the current system.

People who are ill must receive compensation. The support should be individually adapted, and Försäkringskassan needs to have a more supportive role than today. The strict time limits that exist in the insurance today, we want to replace with continuous assessments that the individual receives the correct interventions for rehabilitation and support.

There are many things that the sitting government could do to repair the cracks in the health insurance. The lack of proposals in that direction, however, clearly shows where their priorities lie. Not a single proposal has been put forward to make life better for Sweden's long-term sick, despite there being many ready investigation proposals to implement. The Tidö parties' silence echoes loudly.

Mr. Speaker! Social security contributions shall be collected through self-contributions and employer contributions according to ability. 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, important and desirable exceptions.

Such an exception exists in the association life within sports. A compensation to a player or a leader in a non-profit sports association may be exempted from the employer contribution. It is not much money involved, only a compensation of up to half a basic amount per person and year. But for the sports clubs, it can be the difference between having or not having a coach, a materials manager, or another leader for any of the youth teams. 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 exactly the same. A dividing line runs between associations connected to Riksidrottsförbundet on one hand and associations connected to, for example, Svenskt Friluftsliv on the other hand.

Miljöpartiet thinks that this should be rectified. Outdoor life should be included in the system. The question has been debated both here today and for a long time previously. Just nearly two years ago, the Committee for the Promotion of Increased Physical Activity submitted its final report. This very thing is one of the investigation's proposals. The matter is thus investigated and ready and should be able to be presented in the near future as a government bill. But just like with the health insurance, the government is sitting on its hands. When this question was debated in the chamber almost exactly a year ago, the committee majority referred to the fact that the matter was being prepared by the government. In the report we are debating today, they write exactly the same thing. The obvious question then becomes: How long is it supposed to take?

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the government and the Sweden Democrats need a kick in the pants on this issue. I therefore move for approval of the Green Party's reservation 4 in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 27 February.)

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