Social security contributions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 S moves for approval of the committee's proposal and argues that the social insurance is a collective promise of security 1. 2 V wants to equalize the conditions for associations within outdoor life as they are affected by unclear rules regarding social security contributions 2. 3 SD moves for approval of the committee's proposal and emphasizes the importance of financing the security systems 3. 4 C wants to investigate the conditions for giving outdoor life the same fair conditions as the sports movement in order to promote public health 4. 5 M wants to simplify for entrepreneurs and make it cheaper to hire, but wants to reject the motions due to a state-financial holistic view 5. 6 7 8 MP considers it unfair that outdoor organizations pay employer contributions while sports associations do not 6 7 8. 8 MP wants to extend the exemption to also apply to outdoor life to facilitate for association life 8. 8 MP wants to halve the employer contributions for the agriculture and food sector 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats support the committee's proposal for a decision, and I move for its approval.
This report is primarily about trust. It is trust that our safety systems work as they should, that they are fair, and that they are there if life takes a turn.
Social security contributions may sound technical and abstract, but at its core, it is about something much larger than percentages and regulatory frameworks. It is about the insurance we have built together – a mutual promise to one another of security throughout life.
Social security is not a benefit; it is an insurance. It is a promise that no one shall be left alone when and if one becomes ill or when and if the ability to work fails. It is the very heart of the Swedish model, where we take responsibility for one another and where no one is left to their fate. It is a social contract.
The safety systems must continue to be developed. They must follow the development of society, otherwise they lose both their function and their legitimacy. A safety system that people no longer have trust in is a system that eventually ceases to function.
Madam Speaker! Wage earners have had to bear an ever-increasing burden from inflation. Prices for food, housing, and electricity have increased sharply while the wage room has been limited. For many households, the calculation simply does not add up. There is too much of the month left when the salary is finished in the account.
Families with children testify that they are forced to make increasingly difficult prioritizations. Parents forgo eating their fill so that the children can. It is a reality that should worry every responsible politician.
Sweden is at the same time the only country in the Nordic region that has not increased the child allowance during this cost crisis. Under the Tidö government's watch, households have had it tougher and unemployment has risen, and child poverty is increasing.
This is not a law of nature. It is a political choice, and it says a lot about the priorities of the government and the Sverigedemokraterna.
Madam Speaker! This results in a health insurance system that is unfair in some parts. The sick pay deduction means that, in practice, illness costs more for those who cannot work from home. For the nursing assistant, the shop assistant, and the industrial worker, a sick day becomes a direct deduction from the wallet.
It is an order that divides the labor market and undermines trust in our common systems. When ordinary wage earners are pressured harder, the government and Sverigedemokraterna choose to remain passive.
We Social Democrats want something else. We want to increase the child allowance, abolish the karens deduction, and modernize the occupational injury insurance. With Social Democratic policy, nine out of ten households will have more money in their pockets through fair taxes, strong safety nets, and clear support for households.
Instead, the government and the Sweden Democrats have prioritized tax cuts for high-income earners, as if they are the ones who need more money in the bank. It is classic right-wing politics, and it is the Swedish wage earners who pay the price.
Madam Speaker! The Försäkringskassan's latest situation report clearly shows that stress-related mental ill-health today is the most common cause of longer sick leaves. It is primarily women in welfare professions – in healthcare, schools, and elderly care – who are hardest hit.
Working life has changed, but the safety net is not quite keeping up. Someone who is injured at work must be able to rely on the occupational injury insurance functioning. It should provide security, justice, and redress, regardless of whether the injury is visible on the outside of the body or if it concerns mental health. Today, it does not always do that. Many are met with high evidentiary requirements and narrow assessments despite the connection between the work and the ill health being clear. It is not worthy of a strong welfare state.
Madam Speaker! The safety net should be a bridge back, not a dead end. Those affected by illness or injury should not only receive compensation but also the conditions to return and live a dignified life.
We Social Democrats know that security is not the opposite of responsibility. Security is a prerequisite for responsibility. When people feel secure, they dare to educate themselves, change jobs, and contribute to the development of society.
A strong society is not built on fear and mistrust, but on community, trust, and a politics that holds together.
That is why we Social Democrats stand behind the committee's proposal for a decision, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)
Madam Speaker! I want to start with something that is perhaps a bit unusual. I want to thank the previous speaker for her introduction to the debate. The member highlighted many important aspects of our security system. As a Left Party member, I can sign off on many of the proposals that the Social Democrats put forward, and we share the criticism expressed here against the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy in the area.
Madam Speaker! In my speech, I will focus on a small part of the system and the motion that I have written concerning the conditions for outdoor life.
I believe that the vast majority of people across our country think that children's health is important. They expect us here in the Riksdag to do our best to create good growing conditions for all children. We need to enable a safe upbringing throughout the country.
Much good work is done daily by voluntary forces in the association life to offer children a developing leisure time and support children's opportunities for movement, social interaction and to find safe role models.
Many young people suffer from mental ill-health and stress, and with increased sedentary behavior, the ill-health risks increasing. According to Boverket, children and young people spend an average of 70 percent of their waking time inactive. These are alarming figures. The inactive time increases with age, and those who experience high school stress have more inactive time than those who experience less stress. This is clear in the research.
Research also shows that physical activity creates better conditions for good health. This is the basis for the major investments that politicians and those active in associations at local, regional, and national levels make every year. We invest, for example, in association life, playgrounds, exercise tracks, and sports halls.
It is also clear in the research that children's physical and mental health and development are positively affected through stays in green environments. This can involve spontaneous play, such as a shelter in the woods near the home, or in an organized form in an outdoor life association. Vänsterpartiet has presented a number of proposals on how the opportunities for outdoor life can be improved so that more people can receive the good health effects that I mention.
We present a budget with large resources for nature conservation, protection of valuable nature, and upgrading and making nature reserves accessible. We want to strengthen the work with outdoor life in schools and subsidize TBE vaccines so that more people dare to be out in the forest and countryside in those parts of the country where one risks being affected by tick-borne infection.
I could speak for a long time about the importance of accessible nature areas and how regrettable it is that this government has cut back on maintenance and wants to weaken the shore protection, which makes things much more difficult for outdoor life. But since this is a debate on social security contributions, I shall focus on our motion to make it cheaper and simpler to remunerate leaders within outdoor life associations.
Madam Speaker! In order to encourage children's physical activity, we need to level the playing field between associations within Riksidrottsförbundet and Svenskt Friluftsliv. In the previous evaluation of outdoor life policy from 2019, Naturvårdsverket, which is responsible for this, stated that an amendment to the Social Insurance Act would help outdoor life associations to organize more. There is currently uncertainty regarding whether associations affiliated with Svenskt Friluftsliv should be covered by the same exemptions as Riksidrottsförbundet's member organizations. They have a clear exemption when it comes to social security contributions. Currently, there are many associations that conduct similar activities but receive completely different economic conditions. We believe this is unfair, and we have the opportunity to change it.
Most leaders in our association life work voluntarily, but sometimes they receive a small compensation as an appreciation or for costs that the association considers appropriate to reimburse. Sports associations can remunerate their leaders with up to half a price base amount per year before they need to pay social security contributions, while the Swedish Tax Agency has made different assessments for outdoor life organizations.
Friluftsfrämjandet, which is a large organization with many children and young people in its activities, has after many years of work with the help of lawyers and in dialogue with Skatteverket received the green light to be included. At the same time, however, Skatteverket points out the scout movement as an organization that cannot be exempted in the same way. This raises, as you can understand, many questions among the associations that are sitting with their budgets and their leaders.
The Swedish Tax Agency points out that it is not enough for the activities to involve physical movement; they must also be considered sport-like. This is what becomes tricky, as there are a number of organizations that fall into a gray area and which, at present, cannot afford to run the type of process that Friluftsfrämjandet has undertaken to gain clarity on what applies specifically to them.
At the same time, we can see that the activities within Riksidrottsförbundet and Svenskt Friluftsliv are similar. I have found some examples that clarify what it can be about. The examples were listed a few years ago, and I am therefore not one hundred percent sure that everything is correct in the current situation when it comes to the assessments.
This is how it was described on Svenskt Friluftslivs website: If Sportfiskarna carries out a youth initiative and teaches the children about the ecology under the water surface while fishing, the rule regarding 999 kronor in fee exemption per year before paying social security contributions applies. If Svenska Castingförbundet, on the other hand, carries out an activity without the ecological elements and stands and casts targets with the same equipment on land, the rule regarding the exemption for half a price base amount applies. If Kryssarklubben teaches children and youth to sail optimist dinghies, the maximum limit of 999 kronor applies, but if Svenska Seglarförbundet teaches the same children the same thing with the same boats, the half price base amount applies.
I believe that everyone listening to the debate understands that this is not entirely reasonable. We do not think that this should have to be a block-defining issue, and even the Tidö parties should be able to see the unreasonable nature of this. We should be able to work together to clarify for our authorities what we want with the legislation so that it becomes easier for them to interpret the laws. I believe that we all want to encourage people to move in nature, and we see the value of this in the same way as we see the value of movement on, for example, a football pitch.
Today, many children and young people are prevented from participating in organized association life due to a lack of leaders. Let us therefore do this together! We can support those who take on such an important task with a symbolic sum in this way.
Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 2, which concerns exactly this, and I hope that the other parties can also stand behind it.
Daniel Persson (SD)
Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report 14 Social contributions. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
Social security contributions are something that is collected to finance our social security systems such as the pension, the health insurance, and the parental insurance. This is the foundation of our common welfare system, and it is important that we ensure the financing of our security.
Madam Speaker! Our security systems are based on the fact that we all help each other and that everyone contributes to the welfare according to their own ability. When we are in need of the various security systems that we have jointly paid into, they are there. This is a model that has functioned well over the years, and entrepreneurship and the work principle are important parts of the financing.
Not many deviations are made from this model, but one exception is the so-called growth support. Since 2017, companies can receive a reduction in employer contributions when the first person is employed in the company. In 2025, the right to this reduction was expanded to cover up to two employees.
Madam Speaker! This is something that we Sweden Democrats consider to be good. We have also previously proposed that the reduction of employer contributions should cover up to three employees.
The Växa-support has proven to be an effective measure in a number of industries. For expanding small businesses that have a demand exceeding the individual's work capacity, but where an expansion might not mean that the first employee will increase the company's profitability from the start, the Växa-support has truly been important.
Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government are also lowering the employer contributions for youths between 19 and 23 years of age. The thresholds to the labor market are high in Sweden for youths. Svenskt Näringsliv provides an explanation: Entry-level wages are relatively high in Sweden, which leads to it becoming difficult for young, low-educated, and foreign-born individuals to establish themselves on the labor market. It also does not help that the Swedish economy has been in a prolonged recession due to increased uncertainty in our global environment. We have also had a troublesome inflation.
The Sweden Democrats' and the government's proposal implies a reduction of approximately one third of the employer contribution for young people, and it could be a key to getting young people into the labor market.
Madam Speaker! During the year, Sweden is expected to achieve the EU's sixth highest growth, compared to position 22 when the Tidö Government took over. But the economic recovery is fragile, and there are great risks in our global environment.
All of Sweden's entrepreneurs are the backbone of our economy, and we need to continue working to make it easier to run businesses in Sweden even in uneasy times. Entrepreneurs who want to and dare to hire do not only create jobs but also growth and prosperity, which is positive for all of us in Sweden. Increased growth means that we secure a secure welfare in Sweden.
Once again, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
Anne-Li Sjölund (C)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating social security contributions. It is a subject that may sound technical and dry, but which fundamentally concerns the conditions that build our society strong: civil society, association life, and all the passionate individuals who every day create community and meaning for millions of Swedes.
Centerpartiet sees sports and outdoor life as an enormous resource. It is one of the best investments we can make for public health, for cohesion and for the future. It is movement, joy and health but also the courage to try something new and the security when a leader sees you. The task of politics is not to govern these movements but to remove obstacles and create good and fair conditions for them to function and grow.
Madam Speaker! There is such a hurdle to be removed.
The sports movement has for a long time had an important exception in the legislation. A non-profit association can provide limited compensation to leaders and officials without having to pay social security contributions. It is a wise and necessary rule that reduces administration, lowers thresholds for thousands of associations, and makes it easier to do the right thing – not least for association treasurers, who already bear a great responsibility voluntarily.
But alongside organized sports, there is another, at least equally important popular movement: outdoor life.
Organizations gathered within Svenskt Friluftsliv reach around 2 million people and create millions of hours of activity every year. It is an activity that contributes to physical movement, social community, and recovery – particularly important in a time when sedentary behavior and mental ill-health are increasing.
Outdoor life offers movement without requirements for performance. Through hiking, paddling, scouting, and nature experiences, both physical and mental health are built, while knowledge of nature, responsibility, and trust are strengthened. It contributes to quality of life but also to preparedness and people's ability to cope, cooperate, and take responsibility when everyday life does not function as usual.
In practice, sports and outdoor life often overlap. They share the same volunteer logic, the same social benefit, and the same need for simple and clear rules. Nevertheless, they are treated differently in the legislation.
Today, some outdoor organizations are covered by the exemption from social security contributions while others are not. This uncertainty and inequality is unreasonable. It creates an unnecessary administrative burden and a feeling that one activity is less worthy than the other, even though the social benefit is equivalent.
Madam Speaker! We must start from a simple principle: equal conditions for equal social benefit. Therefore, we in the Center Party want to review the regulatory framework. We want to investigate the conditions for giving outdoor life the same fair and clear conditions. It is about giving the association life clear rules of the game, reducing complications, and promoting a broad and inclusive public health work throughout the country.
It is a simple, logical and fair adaptation of reality. It is a way for us as legislators to show that we value the entire non-profit sector's power and contribute to a healthier and stronger Sweden, whether one is chasing a ball on a football pitch or hiking on a trail in the forest.
Caroline Högström (M)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a motion report on social security contributions – or employer contributions, as they are more often called.
The Moderaternas position is fundamentally that it is not only important but also necessary to both simplify for entrepreneurs and make it cheaper to hire.
The social security contributions exist to help finance our safety net. We must, of course, safeguard that. But companies are the engine of our welfare, and a good business climate is a fundamental prerequisite for more Swedish jobs and economic growth.
From and with April 1st this year, young people will receive temporarily reduced employer contributions. This reduces employment costs, which benefits companies while we facilitate for young people to enter the workforce. We have also, in light of the budget, continued the work of clearing up unnecessarily complicated regulations to make it easier to run businesses.
Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the knowledge of social security contributions is all too low among the average Swede. We here in the chamber and many entrepreneurs across the country know what proportion of our social insurances is financed by employer contributions and what the tax burden actually is. But for the common man, it is considerably more difficult to see how much one pays directly or indirectly to the state treasury. The need for transparency and clarity is great.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I am pleased with the decree that the government decided on last year: From and with July 1, 2026, state agencies are required to make visible the employer contributions, including the general wage contribution, for state employees. Hopefully, this is a welcome inspiration for employers to follow. Regardless of what level of contributions one desires, we need to have a transparent and clear system where the employer contributions are also easy to understand and follow.
Madam Speaker! In the report, the Committee on Social Insurance deals with a large number of motions regarding social security contributions. The proposals span broadly – from general reductions of employer contributions and new exemptions to differentiated contributions for certain industries and changed rules for the voluntary associations. The Committee's collective assessment is, however, that the Riksdag should reject all motion proposals.
The reason is unfortunately quite simple. Social security contributions finance our collective safety systems, and changes must be made collectively, responsibly, and with a holistic view of public finances.
The government has already taken targeted measures where they do the most good – for example, temporarily lowered employer contributions for young people, expanded growth support for small businesses, and special deductions for research and development. In addition to that, we ensure that a family with a police officer, a nurse, and two children of preschool age receive lower taxes on work and electricity, a lower food VAT, and a lower childcare fee, which together can mean 1,800 kronor more per month in 2026 – because it should always pay to be the one who sets the clock and goes to work.
I would therefore conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Madam Speaker! Caroline Högström touched upon at the very end on what I want to address. For several years, we have had a debate in the chamber about the injustice that outdoor life needs to pay employer contributions for low-wage leaders while sports associations do not need to do so. Every time, the Tidö parties have referred to the fact that the issue is being prepared in the Government Offices and have in this way delayed the process. In this report, however, it is finally confirmed that they want to maintain this unjust difference between sports and outdoor life.
I would like to receive a slightly deeper explanation from Caroline Högström as to why the Moderaterna and their coalition partners consider it reasonable that voluntary outdoor organizations should have worse conditions than sports clubs.
Caroline Högström (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.
I do not make the same interpretation of the committee's position as the member does. There is an investigation that came in 2023 and which is being prepared in the Government Offices, so the answer has not changed: The matter is being prepared in the Government Offices, and that is also what the committee notes.
Just as I said in my speech, I believe that this needs to be addressed in connection with the budget for the sake of a holistic view. In the investigation, I unfortunately have not been able to find what was assessed the cost would be, which of course must be taken into account when a decision is made on this. If the Riksdag were to make a decision on a referral, we need to include it in the process.
The question is being prepared in the Government Offices – that answer has unfortunately not changed.
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Madam Speaker! What Caroline Högström says is not correct. The report states clearly and distinctly that the government has concluded the preparation and concluded that it will not proceed with the issue. In that case, the Moderaterna and the Tidö parties are still responsible for the answer as to why they do not want to make this change and improvement and level the differences. They have nevertheless taken a position on the issue by concluding the preparation and saying: No, we do not intend to do this.
For me, the MP, and a couple of other parties, it feels totally unreasonable that voluntary outdoor organizations should have completely different economic conditions than sports clubs when they do exactly the same thing. They have essentially the same types of activities and contribute in the same way to Swedish society, but some need to pay fees while others do not need to do so.
In that way, the Tidö parties clearly show that one prioritizes sports over outdoor life. It is an opinion one can have, but then one still needs to be able to justify it in some way. Sure, it costs money, but it is still a small part.
Caroline Högström, the Moderaterna and the Tidö parties need to justify this position better in the future.
Caroline Högström (M)
Madam Speaker! My interpretation is that no progress has been made in the current situation. The investigation remains, even if it has not been picked up here and now. We both know that investigations can be picked up later.
The Swedish Tax Agency issued new guidelines in 2024, and they need to be fully implemented. It is not impossible for more to be covered by the legislation as it is formulated today. I absolutely accept that it is a difficult balancing act and that the law may not always be completely clear in that it also mentions other similar or comparable organizations. For example, Friluftsfrämjandet has driven processes and been successful.
I believe that the issue will continue to live on, and we have reasons to continue debating the issue in the chamber. I also believe that it is important that the issue is handled as a whole.
I become a little worried when Miljöpartiet in the chamber says that it is a question of a small amount and that it therefore does not play any role, but still cannot define how small or large the amount is. On a state financial level, we must be more careful with the taxpayers' money.
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Madam Speaker! I would think that "social security contributions" for many is one of perhaps the most tedious and boring terms in the Swedish vocabulary. It is a word that signals complications, costs, and bureaucracy for some of those who need to pay them every month.
But social security contributions are actually among the most important things we have. Social security contributions are the way we have to finance our collective security systems, that is, the health insurance, the parental insurance, and the pension. It is through social security contributions that we ensure that our fellow human beings can afford to be sick, can afford to have children, and can afford to stop working in their later years. They are simply one of the cornerstones of the state branch of our collective welfare system.
The social security contributions finance the security – the welfare – that has built and shaped Sweden. That we have social security contributions is simply necessary for our security systems and our welfare to function. But it is also important that the social security contributions are adapted to the conditions that we as a society have and that, if necessary, they can be flexible and vary in height in different sectors.
Swedish agriculture is a crucial part of our food supply and national preparedness. At the same time, the industry is under severe pressure from economic challenges, high workload, climate change, and continued fossil fuel dependency.
In order for agriculture to be able to contribute in the long term to both food production and climate goals, political reforms are required that strengthen the economy, the working environment, and resilience. A strong, sustainable, and viable agriculture throughout the country is crucial for both preparedness, climate, and biodiversity.
In order for more young people to want to invest in agriculture, it must appear as a future profession. It is about making it possible to take over farms, develop new businesses, and live off one's work as a farmer. At the same time, the conditions must be improved for the small and medium-sized farms, which are the backbone of a living agriculture and keep the landscape open throughout Sweden.
Miljöpartiet wants to build a policy that creates faith in the future, strengthens food production and makes it attractive for the next generation to become farmers. That is where we come to the crux, namely that we need to tackle Swedish farmers' great economic challenges and the pressure from high costs.
Reducing the cost of employing staff is an important step to facilitate for Swedish farmers to compete with other countries. Today, a farmer pays 31 percent in employer contributions, which is significantly higher than the EU average.
We need to strengthen the entire Swedish food chain, from farm to table, also through the entire broad diversity of producers: dairies, breweries, slaughterhouses, packing plants and other food producers. Many farmers are also completely dependent on the next step in the food chain, processors and producers, being nearby. Without these, the chain does not function.
Miljöpartiet therefore wants to halve the employer contributions for the agricultural and food sector. By halving the employer contribution, we make it more profitable and easier for all these producers to together create a strong, well-functioning food chain. If we cannot maintain a stable production of food in peacetime, we will be extremely vulnerable in a crisis situation. Lowering the cost of labor is a good first step towards increased self-sufficiency.
Madam Speaker! An area where the rules for social security contributions are currently more flexible is in the association life within sports, where compensation to a player or 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 base amount per person and year – but for the sports clubs, it can be the difference between having and not having a coach, a equipment manager, or another leader for any of the youth teams.
The strange thing is that this only applies to sports, but not to outdoor life. Even though the activities are often similar or even exactly 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. It is an unfair difference that creates poorer conditions for one type of activity without reasonable grounds.
Miljöpartiet thinks that this should be corrected and made fair by extending the exemption from the social security contribution act to also apply to outdoor life. This would facilitate association life and create better opportunities for leisure activities, not least for children and young people, at a lower cost.
Obviously, the Tidö parties do not think so, because after several years of delay, they now in this report, in black and white, confirm that they want to maintain the unjust difference between sports and outdoor life. It is a disappointing announcement that clearly shows how low the government and the Sverigedemokraterna prioritize outdoor life. I hope that everyone takes note of this.
Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet will always work for reasonable and fair rules for social security contributions, and I therefore move for the approval of our proposals in reservations 1 and 2.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.