The State Budget 2023 - The Framework Decision

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that I intend to address three things during my speech over the next twelve minutes.

To begin with, I will speak quite a bit about the government's and the Sweden Democrats' proposal for the state budget, how we intend to take Sweden through very difficult economic times, and how we are beginning to solve the major societal problems. It is the solution that we sought and received the voters' confidence for in the election.

I also intend to speak about the implausibility of the expectation that the new government should fulfill all the election promises that were put forward in the election within eight weeks. Let me return to this. We intend to fulfill the promises that we gave during the election campaign.

Madam Speaker! I also intend to speak about the absurdity of the idea that the new government could, in eight weeks, solve all the problems that the old government actually created a large part of during the eight years they were in power.

This is what I intend to address during today's budget debate.

It is now winter in large parts of Sweden. In Umeå, where I live, the temperature creeps down towards 20 minus degrees in the morning. It is also snowless at home, I can reveal after having spent a lot of time down here.

But it is not only outdoors that chilly winds are blowing; it is also very cold in the global economy. There are many risks and things that can get worse and bright spots and things that can get better. The world is in a tough economic situation. Sweden, Madam Speaker, is in a tough economic situation. We are now heading towards an economic winter.

High inflation in Sweden and the rest of the world is now the greatest threat to households and companies. High inflation is the enemy of welfare and prosperity. When the value of money decreases, those with the smallest margins are affected. It is noticeable when you go shopping at the store; everything becomes more expensive.

Despite this, two of the Riksdag's four opposition parties are proposing budgets with hundreds of billions of kronor in deficits over the coming years. This would drive up inflation further and, in the worst case, cause very great damage to the entire Swedish economy. It is a bit like trying to put out a fire with gasoline, Madam Speaker.

Both the Riksbank in Sweden and central banks in other countries are now raising policy rates to stop inflation. Together with responsible governments, they are implementing tight budgets and holding back. In this situation, inflation must be fought, and policy must prioritize what is most important. The state's core tasks must function. Households and companies shall receive support when needed. Now is the time for responsibility.

The budget that the coalition parties have presented prioritizes what is most important: to support households in tough times, to invest in the justice system and defense, and to strengthen welfare. This includes, among other things, 10,000 more police officers by 2024, more tools for the police and harsher sentences, a crackdown on honor-related violence and oppression, shorter care queues and investment in women's health. It is about 12 billion to municipalities and regions to strengthen welfare now when it is really needed. We also ensure that there is room for action if the economic downturn becomes deeper than we can currently foresee. It is about taking responsibility.

One of the most important things the government does in this tough economic situation is not to fuel inflation. It is precisely inflation that is harmful to households and companies. It makes people relatively poorer. Our money becomes less valuable, and our competitiveness is damaged.

It will take time, Madam Speaker, to crack down on crime, rebuild nuclear power, and bring down inflation. But it must be done. It is about getting Sweden in order again, and with this budget, we take the first steps.

Socialdemocrats across the country are now making themselves heard loudly by accusing the government and the governing parties of breaking promises. There is quite a lot that is strange in all these accusations, first and foremost because the current government has only been in power for eight weeks. We will fulfill the promises to the voters step by step as soon as it is practically possible and as soon as the economy and the macroeconomy otherwise allow.

But most of all, it is perhaps strange, Madam Speaker, because the major broken promises come from the Social Democrats themselves. The Social Democrats promised during the election campaign and in the years before that to never move the one percent goal in aid. And that is exactly what they do in their shadow budget. The Social Democrats are now cutting aid, which they promised never to do.

The Social Democrats promised not to raise taxes for ordinary people who go to work, now that bitter times await. Despite that, they want to raise the tax by 1,000 kronor a month for 1 million wage earners. The Social Democrats promised not to make it more expensive to fuel the car. Still, in their first shadow budget proposal, they raise the tax on petrol and diesel by 1 krona per liter. They also let the ban on reduction obligation remain, which will make it significantly more expensive to fuel the car.

The Social Democrats - yes, actually all opposition parties - stand behind the extreme design of the reduction obligation that we have today. If the reduction obligation remains on this track, the prices of gasoline and diesel, all other things being equal, will rise quite a lot from today's extremely high levels. The gasoline price would increase by 5 kronor per liter until 2030. The diesel price would increase by 9 kronor per liter until 2030. And this from today's high levels, Madam Speaker!

At the same time, the four parties that now sit in the government or support the government have decided that it should not be more expensive to refuel in Sweden than in most other countries in the European Union. Therefore, we will lower the reduction obligation to the EU's minimum level. It will, however, take a little longer than most of us had hoped, but we will do it. In approximately 12 months and 20 days, we will be able to fulfill this promise as well, Madam Speaker.

The Social Democrats have indeed proposed some form of thought discount. How it would be carried out is a bit difficult to see. But since they want to raise the tax on gasoline and diesel already in their first budget proposal and raise the reduction obligation from today's extremely high levels, these funds will be eaten up several times over for Swedish households. It is irresponsible and unserious to treat people who are dependent on the car in this way in a country where we are dependent on transport.

Madam Speaker! We promised to make it cheaper to drive a car, and we will fulfill this promise. Already in the first budget, one of the largest reforms we are implementing is to lower the tax on gasoline and diesel by 1 krona per liter. We are also improving the travel deduction so that those who are dependent on the car can get it a bit better.

In addition to the tax cut that we will implement at the turn of the year, we will also, as I said, reduce the reduction obligation to the EU's minimum level.

Madam Speaker! We will end the extreme project where Sweden is to have the world's most expensive fuel prices. That project will be ended with this new government. I am very proud of that, and it will make a difference for people who live in the countryside, for people who are dependent on the car and for everything that requires transport. It is good for Swedish industry, and it is good for Sweden's competitiveness.

But it is not only at the gas station that the Social Democrats have made it incredibly expensive during their eight years in power. The shutdown of electricity production in southern Sweden and the electricity crisis in Europe have led to shock-increased electricity costs for households and companies. From being a country with secure, cheap, and fossil-free energy supply, we have now ended up in a situation where recurring power outages are a real threat and where people are forced to leave houses and homes because they can no longer afford the electricity bill.

Madam Speaker! The red-green politicians applauded here in the chamber a couple of years ago when, by a margin of one vote, they scrapped two additional nuclear reactors that we would have needed today to ensure that there is electricity so that the price would not become so unreasonably high.

The new government has the responsibility to take Sweden through the problems that the previous government created. But let us never forget who bears the responsibility for the fact that we are where we are. It is the four opposition parties that have ensured that Sweden has the problems that we actually have today.

The new government will support households by reintroducing the bottleneck costs to electricity consumers through a temporary high-cost protection. We have also taken into account the support's impact on the economy as a whole. We need to fight inflation, and therefore everything must be done in a balanced way. We ensure that the fiscal policy as a whole is neutral and does not drive inflation. We take responsibility for the Swedish economy.

Madam Speaker! For those listening to this debate, I also want to remind them that it was the previous Social Democratic government that prepared the basis for Svenska kraftnät and said that Norrland would not receive any electricity support. It is not the new government's directive – it was the old government that gave that assignment to Svenska kraftnät.

If Norrland gets as high electricity prices as in southern Sweden, we are prepared for further measures. Sweden needs more electricity production, now and in the future. We will build new nuclear power and long-term ensure cheap, climate-friendly electricity in all of Sweden. It is one of this government's very top priorities.

Madam Speaker! The opposition's budget proposal is a worrying read. The single largest reform that the Social Democrats propose in their shadow budget is to raise the tax for people who work. It concerns 13 billion, 1,000 kronor a month, for 1 million wage earners - police officers, midwives and many others who pay state income tax.

In an already tough economic situation, Vänsterpartiet proposes a tax shock for households and companies. They want to raise taxes by 68 billion kronor now that tough times are approaching. But even that is not enough for Vänsterpartiet, Madam Speaker. They want to borrow 200 billion kronor over the next three years to cover all the expenditures they promise. It is a fantasy budget that will not help anyone. It doesn't matter what you promise if you drive the country's economy into the ground in this way. It is one of the most irresponsible budget proposals that has been submitted in this chamber.

Unfortunately, Miljöpartiet is on the same track, Madam Speaker. Over three years, they want to borrow 275 billion kronor when the world economy looks the way it does. When one needs to cool down and take responsibility, they want to fuel the expenditures in this way.

Centerpartiets biggest investment in the budget is aid, and that is financed by cutting in welfare.

If you place the four opposition parties' budgets side by side, the discrepancy is concerning. There is very little they agree on. The only thing they actually agree on is to fuel inflation and make it expensive to drive a car and expensive to refuel. The only thing they agree on is how to fuel inflation and how to raise fuel prices.

Against this stand four parties that have reached an agreement to reverse this development. Swedish politics faces a very important and difficult task. Major structural reforms are required to get the country in order again. In this situation, citizens must be able to trust that the politics takes responsibility, Madam Speaker. Therefore, the four coalition parties now present a budget with a focus on solving Sweden's serious social problems. This government has sat in power for eight weeks, and the previous government sat for eight years. No, we have not managed to solve all problems yet, but with this budget, we begin that work.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, David Josefsson, Oliver Rosengren and Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (all M) agreed.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we face an important decision. It is a crossroads. In one case, we let the burden of the upcoming crisis winter be borne fairly by supporting all those families with children who are having it extra tough right now and by taking responsibility for the financing of the welfare state so that we can avoid large cuts. In the other case, the Riksdag proceeds with the Sverigedemokraterna and the right-wing government's budget proposal, which implies a large tax cut for the highest earners but lacks measures to dampen the economic downturn, safeguard the welfare, and make Sweden stronger.

Now is the last chance for the government and the Sweden Democrats to reconsider their policy ahead of the crisis winter. My and the Swedish people's appeal is simple: Do not fall back into old Moderate politics where those who already have the most should get the most, but where ordinary people have to manage on their own!

The list of the right-wing government's broken promises to the Swedish people just keeps getting longer and longer. There was no high-cost protection for households on November 1, and there was none in good time before Christmas. We will have to see if it arrives in February—if nothing unforeseen happens, as it is now called. People in northern Sweden are left completely without, despite both high prices and a colder climate. Swedish companies that are also hit hard by the cost crisis have still not received notice as to when the support can arrive.

There was no reformed and improved travel deduction. There will probably be no break in the amortization requirements as promised. The right-wing parties' large and clear promises of radically lowered prices at the pump ended up at 14 or 40 öre at the turn of the year. But the Prime Minister says that the right-wing parties are doing exactly as they said during the election campaign. I wonder if there is any voter in Sweden, regardless of what they voted for, who shares his assessment in this.

In the Social Democratic budget motion, we show how one can design an economic policy that can be relied upon. We show that it is both possible and smarter to meet the recession with a targeted cyclical policy with investments in education, construction, and labor market policy. We double the resource supplement to schools, healthcare, and elderly care and support families during the winter.

Madam Speaker! But there are also glimmers of light in the government's budget. Several of the proposals in the government's budget are continuations of the previous government's policy. This concerns, for example, a continued strengthened unemployment insurance and an extension of the increased housing allowance for the most vulnerable families with children. It is good that the government does not set out to lower the recently increased guarantee pension. They also continue to provide increased resources to the police and the judicial system. They continue the important work of transitioning and expanding the defense - both the military and the civil defense. We agree on the goal of reaching 2 percent of GDP in defense expenditures.

When I look closer at the budget, I clearly see how the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna are sticking to an unfair economic policy. Those who are ill or have a disability should pay more in tax than those who can work. Tax cuts for high-income earners take precedence over economic security for families with children. Climate and environmental policy is clearly dictated by Sverigedemokraterna, and it is at least unclear whether the government even has the ambition to achieve the climate goals - or as Sweden's current Finance Minister listlessly notes: Når vi dem inte så når vi dem inte.

It is a policy that divides and retreats into the future and that splits Sweden when we need to hold together. But we know that another development is possible. In restless times, society must be there for the people. Sweden is at its best when we help each other - in the football team or in the neighborhood - and when we together take responsibility for our country.

Madam Speaker! The government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy is also not sufficient to meet the economic downturn Sweden faces. This worries me, because we have seen it before. The right's economic policy has been tested in crises previously; we saw that, for example, during the financial crisis 2008-2009. At that time, cuts were made to the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) which meant that 450,000 people were left without economic security when the crisis hit. At that time, the right-wing government did not compensate municipalities and regions for the reduced tax revenues. Welfare had to take the hit with large layoffs and savings in schools and elderly care as a result.

The then Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt declared that the industry was "basically gone". No system for short-term layoffs was introduced, even though many of our competitor countries already had such systems in place. Sweden lost tens of thousands of industrial jobs unnecessarily. The government chose at that time to let ideology govern the crisis policy and put Swedish industry into a steel bath. Unemployment skyrocketed, and it took almost ten years for the labor market to recover.

Since the corona pandemic began, and from an economic perspective, Sweden fared well under Magdalena Andersson's leadership. We compensated for the loss of tax revenue three times over. Hundreds of thousands of employees were able to keep their jobs with the help of short-term layoffs. The Swedish economy also recovered quickly. More people are working today than ever before, and unemployment has fallen back after the pandemic.

In the budget bill that we are debating and voting on today, the government's and the Sweden Democrats' economic policy consists of a dismantled labor market policy and an abolished investment support for housing construction. In what way does this benefit Sweden? In what way does it push back inflation? The signal to the Swedish people is clear: Get ready to fend for yourselves!

We propose instead an increase of the child allowance by 200 kronor during the winter months of January, February and March. We have presented a new model for a fuel discount aimed at those who are dependent on the car. The support goes to everyone who needs it most, but it is weighted so that it most affects those who live outside the large cities, where one is most dependent on the car. This means that a family in rural areas with two cars would receive a support of 4,000 kronor. That makes a real difference in the wallet.

We want to increase the number of educational places and strengthen the active labor market policy so that those who become unemployed during a recession receive support to strengthen their skills and return to work more quickly.

We want the authorization limit for the investment support to be raised so that the queue can be cleared. This was what the conservative parties promised they would do this summer. It would mean that 20,000 more homes can be built with the help of the investment support.

Today, Sweden faces a difficult economic situation once again. This time, it is about Sweden having both high inflation and an impending recession. This demands a smart economic policy that strengthens Sweden and supports ordinary people without opposing monetary policy and driving up inflation and interest rates further. In our budget motion, we show that it is possible.

Madam Speaker! Welfare is facing a cost crisis, and the Moderate-led government is returning to old ideological convictions. This time, it is healthcare, elderly care, and the school system that are to undergo a "steel bath." Many municipalities and all healthcare regions in our country expect to run a deficit in 2023 with the budget that the government has presented.

Exactly how does the Minister for Finance imagine that welfare is to be made more efficient in this situation? Is the nursing assistant supposed to run even faster to help the elderly go to the toilet or shower? Is the teacher supposed to manage to help even more children during the mathematics lesson? Or is the midwife supposed to care for more women giving birth at the same time? This is not sustainable – not even if the government's ministers lend their very best running shoes.

This development must be halted at all costs. Therefore, we want to add 6 billion extra in general government grants to municipalities and regions. This means that we also reweight the composition of the government grants so that a larger proportion of them are general government grants instead of targeted and searchable. It means that we can support the core activities of the welfare system without further worsening the administrative burden for the municipalities and the staff.

The Swedish welfare state is simultaneously facing a major demographic challenge. The number of people who need care and nursing is growing significantly faster than the number of people of working age. This is a major challenge, and it is therefore completely incomprehensible that the government in this budget announces that it will phase out the valuable staffing initiative in healthcare as well as Äldreomsorgslyftet.

We want to develop the initiatives instead and furthermore invest specifically in increasing the number of VFU positions for nurses so that more can receive training. The same requirements must be set for private and public actors when it comes to securing the staffing supply in healthcare.

Madam Speaker! Gross organized crime threatens our social cohesion. The violence and the shootings must stop. The penalties have been tightened, and the justice chain has received more resources. This is good, and it must continue. Society must be strong in order to be able to push back the gangs and break the crime.

But the entire society must be strong. We must also break the new recruitment to the gangs. The police testify that for every gang criminal who is locked up, young guys are ready to take his place. Therefore, it is serious that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government completely lack policy to stop the new recruitment. They are investing 10 million kronor in the social services. If you spread that out over 290 municipalities, one understands that this will not become any kind of workshop.

We Social Democrats see the whole problem and acknowledge the whole problem. Therefore, we can also present the whole solution. We want to inject half a billion to the social services. We want to increase the equality grant to schools by a billion to give all children a chance to succeed in school. We also double the general state grants to welfare.

It is in the cracks of society that segregation and crime take root. It is not possible to meet gang crime with austerity measures in social services and the school - which is what is needed to build a strong society.

There is another way, where we push back crime and where more gang criminals are sentenced to longer prison terms, but where we also ensure that no young guy picks up the weapon, joins the gang, and rejects his future and his security. For every krona that, rightly, is invested in expanding the police, an equal amount must be invested in breaking the new recruitment.

Madam Speaker! Now is the last chance for the government parties and the Sweden Democrats to rethink and do what is required when Sweden enters a recession. Let go of ideological convictions! Look at reality! It is actually not reasonable that high-income earners should be fully compensated for inflation while others need to step back.

Use the money instead to support all the families with children who are facing a tough winter when record-high electricity bills must be paid at the same time as the kids need new winter shoes! Take responsibility for the funding of the welfare system so that the healthcare workers get decent working conditions and can avoid worrying about layoffs and cuts! Show that you take the welfare seriously! That is the only way we can get through the upcoming crisis winter together. Our Sweden can do better.

Madam Speaker! I move for the rejection of the proposal in the report and for the approval of the Social Democratic reservations.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have both in this speech and at previous occasions heard Mikael Damberg criticize me and us for not lowering fuel prices fast enough or enough. But now we have received the Social Democrats' budget proposal, and it is clear from that that they want to raise – not lower – the fuel taxes by almost 7 billion kronor next year. This would correspond to a price effect at the pump of 1 krona per liter. Furthermore, they want to continue to raise the quotas in the reduction obligation – that very deeply bizarre and sick experiment that they have subjected Sweden to. This would correspond to a price effect at the pump of an additional 9 kronor per liter, Madam Speaker. In total, the effect of this policy would therefore be that it becomes 10 kronor more expensive per liter at the pump.

So of course one can think that; it is not forbidden. If one wants it to be 10 kronor more expensive to fuel the car, one can think that. But how can one direct criticism at us for not lowering the price enough when one oneself wants to make it 10 kronor more expensive?

How does that fit together? How are you actually going to have it?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is noticeable that the Sweden Democrats are very stressed about the debate that has arisen in Sweden. They have betrayed the promises they gave to very many voters.

I knocked on doors, and many asked if it was true that one would get several kronor in reduced price at the pump. It would happen with speed, and on gasoline, the reduction would be 6.50 kronor. That becomes 14 öre. It happens at the turn of the year - if the gasoline companies do not cut in between, which they did last time with 25-40 percent. We hope that they do not do it this time. It is the Sweden Democrats' solution! These 14 öre have not made the Swedish people particularly happy.

We Social Democrats are introducing another system. We compensate all those who need a car in rural areas and the countryside, where there is no subway or commuter train to and from work. This means that a family with two cars in a rural area would receive 4,000 kronor. That is a lot of money, truly, to cope with the high fuel prices. This involves a 2 kronor reduction in price for the first 2,000 miles. These are real changes in the wallet during the next year for those who need the car most.

It can be shown that it is possible to direct support to actually make a difference for the groups who need the car and who otherwise face problems. But I understand that the Sweden Democrats are stressed about this, because they promised something completely different from what became the case. They must take responsibility for that, since they have been involved in negotiating this budget.

The Sweden Democrats have stood by and signed off on every comma, every krona, every billion, and every missing investment in children's families and welfare in this budget. Then they have to take responsibility for it.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am not stressed about the debate itself – I am stressed about the prices and that people can hardly afford to get to work. But then we know that it will become 10 kronor more expensive per liter, if the Social Democrats have not changed their minds about the reduction obligation. That would be incredibly welcome! It would mean that we have a solid majority in the chamber to stop this experiment, but I have not heard Mikael Damberg say that.

10 kronor more per liter and a few hundred kronor to compensate, that is the Social Democrats' proposal. I do not think the voters will buy that policy. But, Madam Speaker, this is not the only issue where they try to stand on two legs – which one does in normal cases, for that matter – but here they are taking contradictory positions.

When it comes to the aid issue, we have received criticism for abolishing the one percent target, which we are doing and which I otherwise think is good. I take that criticism lightly. We receive criticism for this from the Social Democrats – but they do not fulfill the one percent target either. They want to keep it, but it shall not be financed with their budget proposal.

The Social Democrats are trying to take contradictory positions. They want to make the fuel 10 kronor more expensive per liter while simultaneously criticizing us for lowering the tax too little. They criticize us for abolishing the one percent goal regarding aid while they themselves do not meet the one percent goal. I do not believe that this split-policy will work. It does not add up.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Our budget motion hangs together. That is what it does. We show that it is possible to invest in welfare and in families with children and to actually direct support to those who need the car. They get hardly any help in the government's budget, because the reduction was reduced to 14 öre at the pump. That helps no one who needs the car in the rural areas.

We show that there is another system that would lighten the costs by 2 kronor for the first 2,000 miles. That means a lot for people in rural areas, if one is serious about helping. I think it is dramatic that the government makes such large savings on the subsidy. You are abandoning that principle. We say that we are in principle for it, but our biggest initiative in this budget is not on the subsidy. Our biggest initiative is on welfare.

You choose to underfund the welfare system. It will lead to deficits in every healthcare region in Sweden next year. Very many municipalities will now begin with austerity measures in schools, healthcare, and elderly care. It is the Sweden Democrats' policy that leads to that, and I think it is a flawed policy.

One must see the whole of a budget, and one must make trade-offs. We choose to prioritize both welfare and families with children now that we are in a very tough economic situation.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I intend to land on two issues. One is about what Mikael Damberg has said in the media repeatedly regarding the major broken promises from the four coalition parties that have formed or support the government, and the other is a follow-up in the form of a question on how Mikael Damberg views the promises that were made during the election campaign but are no longer found in the budget motion or shadow budget that the Social Democrats themselves submit.

I will begin with the first part, which concerns the price of gasoline and diesel. I believe that most citizens in Sweden think it is very expensive to refuel, especially if one is dependent on the car and lacks alternatives or runs a company and is dependent on transport. In that case, it is good to know that the government is lowering the tax at the turn of the year by 1 krona per liter. The Social Democrats want to raise it by 1 krona per liter.

It is also good to know that the government wants to remove the reduction obligation as soon as possible so that we will come down by a few kronor. It will take approximately twelve months from today. At that point, we will be at the same level as other countries in Europe.

The Social Democrats want to do exactly the opposite. From the extreme experiment they have started, they want to double the reduction obligation. An additional 9 kronor plus 1 kronor is, just as Oscar Sjöstedt said, 10 kronor in increased fuel costs. We want to lower them at the same time. How can this be a breach of promise, Madam Speaker? That is my first question to Mikael Damberg. It takes a little over twelve months from now to fulfill the promise. How can it be a breach of promise when it has been started?

The second question, Madam Speaker, concerns how the Social Democrats throughout the entire election campaign promised never to touch the one percent target. They considered it appalling that other parties proposed it. But in their first shadow budget, they have flushed the one percent target. We are cutting by more than 7 billion. The Social Democrats are cutting by almost 5 billion. How can that not be a breach of promise?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not primarily I who am saying that it is a breach of promise. I have also said it. But speak with people in Sweden! Ask if they think that the government's policy reflects what was said to the voters during the election campaign! They do not think so. It is the reality that is the government's problem, not what we Social Democrats say about their budget. It is the reality that is their problem.

It turns out that the government is spending 6.7 billion on a tax cut that hardly has any effect. People are getting irritated. They feel betrayed and cheated. In our budget alternative, we show how support can be directed primarily to those parts of Sweden that do not have the subway, bus, and commuter trains that I, who live in Solna, have. Instead, we direct support to those in rural areas who truly need it. This means a price effect of 2 kronor for the first 2,000 miles. That is real money, and the petrol companies cannot cut in between.

We show that we take the cost issue seriously, but the government's problem is that they have promised things that they cannot keep. We Social Democrats even received criticism during the election campaign because we did not promise as much. Then we said that we cannot promise as much, because we are heading towards a crisis economy and must prioritize.

The Social Democrats will prioritize the financing of welfare and support those groups who have it toughest ahead of a tough winter. That was exactly what we said, and that is exactly what we deliver in our budget. Our budget is a budget to rely on. One can see that it is the same thing that we said during the election campaign.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! The problem with Mikael Damberg's rhetoric is that some tend to actually believe it. I have seen Social Democratic Members of Parliament who believe that these 14 öre cost 7 billion and who have made calculations on what it would cost to lower by a few kronor. The problem is that it is not correct. A 1 krona tax on petrol and diesel costs 7 billion. We lower by 1 krona per liter, Mikael Damberg raises by 1 krona per liter. That is the actual reality.

Mikael Damberg offers households in rural areas – it is a bit unclear which they would be – 2 kronor per liter for the first 2,000 miles, while at the same time he wants to raise the price of diesel by 10 kronor per liter. This, Madam Speaker, I believe most will be able to see through when they add up the mathematics.

What I tried to ask was how Mikael Damberg – not the Swedish people in general or journalists – describes this government's policy. We are going to lower the price in Sweden for gasoline and diesel down to what it is in the other countries in Europe. Due to the previous government's policy, it is taking a little longer than we had hoped and wished, but we will get there.

Madam Speaker! My question was how Mikael Damberg - not anyone else - can call it a breach of promise when we say that we intend to carry it out.

At the same time, Mikael Damberg has said that he will not raise taxes for people who work. He will not raise the tax on petrol and diesel, and he absolutely will not cut the aid goal. That is everything he and the Social Democrats do in their shadow budget. Then my counter-question is: How can it not be a breach of promise? One says one thing before the election, and then one throws all of it overboard in the shadow budget after the election. And one tries with all one's might to say that the new government and its coalition partners, who will lower the price of petrol and diesel, are committing a breach of promise because they have not succeeded in doing this during the first eight weeks.

It would have been interesting to hear about this, but I do not think that is what Mikael Damberg is going to devote his next two minutes to. We shall see.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! But it is now that the crisis winter strikes. It is now that Swedish households are facing very harsh economic conditions. It becomes very provoking for many voters who heard that the high-cost protection would be in place on November 1, well before Christmas, and who are now hearing that it can happen at the earliest in February.

It is also provoking when northern Sweden is not allowed to take part in this. You said in your previous post, which was completely wrong, that we excluded northern Sweden. That was not the case. We said that priority was given to southern Sweden. It is something else. They have, in fact, had the highest prices. This is a sliding scale. It becomes a breach of promise, and it is clear that even Edward Riedl's own party comrades say that it is a clear breach of promise from the Moderaterna when it comes to electricity prices.

Yes, it cannot be ignored that the Moderaterna also have a major internal debate about this. Furthermore, it became 14 öre, and we can show that it can become 2 kronor for those who live in rural areas and drive the first 2,000 miles. It is clear that we can show that it is possible to do this in another way that has an effect on the wallet but that also makes it possible to invest 200 kronor a month in increased child allowance and student grant for the many families with children who are having a tough time this winter and who are waiting for the electricity support to arrive at some point.

One must be able to endure that responsibility in a government position. I believe that in our budget motion, we show that this is fully possible. Furthermore, we choose to prioritize what can handle the economic situation in a smarter way now that we are heading towards increased unemployment. That is something I am proud of, but these are tough priorities. Everything cannot be done at once. In that case, it is a matter of prioritizing what is most important. Right now, it is the welfare. It is the vulnerable groups who also must manage this winter.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! There is something that I feel unites a Christian Democrat and a Social Democrat. It is that we believe in aid as a positive force. The fact that we have now presented a budget where 56 billion goes to aid means that Sweden continues to be a world leader in generosity. Only Luxembourg gives more.

But it is not actually the amount that is important, I think, but the important thing is that the aid makes a difference and that we, so to speak, can legitimize that every krona that goes to aid does good.

The government is now trying to review the aid so that it is long-term, transparent and effective. They also want to change the trend so that not more and more of the aid goes through multilateral organizations. It is also about civil society organizations. I myself have a voluntary assignment in Lepramissionen. We now hope that all the projects that exist for those who have been affected by leprosy - in order to change their everyday lives, empower them and in some cases rescue them - will become a reality.

In the budget that the government presents, there is also a ceiling for how much deduction can be made on an aid. The government has set that ceiling at 8 percent. My question to Mikael Damberg therefore becomes: Why have the Social Democrats not taken a stand, so to speak? Why is there not the same type of ceiling in your shadow budget?

We know that the government last year made a deduction of 18 percent in order to have the possibility to receive all the refugees who came from Ukraine. If 18 percent had remained, Sweden would have been the largest recipient of Swedish aid. So we cannot have that. My question concerns the deduction. How does the Social Democrats think there?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is somewhat interesting that the Christian Democrats choose to speak about aid and begin the exchange of remarks by saying that the amount is not important. This is a budget debate. It is about the amount. It is clear that it matters how much one invests in aid and how much one gets out.

I am in favor of really considering how aid provides the most effect and what gives the most bang for the buck in aid - also in the long term. One can conduct a review, but then perhaps the review should be done first. Then one arrives at how to change the aid. Now they are doing the opposite. Now they say that they are going to cut back very significantly on aid, and then they are going to try to review the aid, as Hans Eklind expressed it.

As I understand it, the large savings are to be made on the UN system. In that case, one must be aware that much of the aid work globally is dependent on the infrastructure and on the UN system in order to function. I hope that the government has really thought this through, that it will also work.

We show that it is possible to put back some of the money, but we do not make this our largest budget item. Our largest budget item, where we spend expenditures, concerns the financing of welfare, because we see that welfare will face great challenges with the budget that the government has presented. Above all, it is healthcare that will face the toughest situation. Every healthcare region in Sweden, regardless of political rule, will face a deficit next year. It is a tough operation. It is about priorities.

When it comes to offsets, I can state that it is included in the international aid frameworks that one may make offsets when major events occur and a country takes greater responsibility for, for example, migration from Ukraine. In that case, we have thought it to be reasonable to make offsets on the aid, because it is according to international frameworks.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! The amount is important in a situation where every krona makes a difference. That was exactly what I said, nothing else. I see a very great development potential with the new government in place when it comes to truly ensuring that the aid makes a difference.

The Member of Parliament told Ekot a couple of weeks ago: The government is making a massive slaughter of aid, and it will be so large that it will be unreasonable for us to make it our highest priority in the budget.

The government is therefore proposing a reduction of the aid by 7.3 billion. You are reducing it by 4.8 billion. What should one then call the Social Democrats' proposal? In the spring, after Ukraine, the government was prepared to remove 9.2 billion kronor from the aid. That is more than the 7.3 that this government is reducing it by. Therefore, the deduction is important. The deduction means that the poor in the third world do not receive a share of that aid.

I hope that we can all stand up for generous but effective aid. Even though the Social Democrats are not putting forward 1 percent of gdp either, my goal, as a Christian Democrat, is that we should safeguard the aid. We will never stop arguing for effective and generous aid.

I would still like to ask Mikael Damberg about offsets. That one is allowed to make offsets does not mean that one must do so. This government is now, I think, making an important statement by saying: Okay, we can make offsets but at a maximum of 8 percent. When you were in power last year, civil society organizations were deprived of 38 percent of their aid funds. One cannot pursue long-term sustainable development in the aid sector then.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I just want to remind that in 2015 even larger deductions were made on aid, when we had the humanitarian catastrophe. I did not hear the parties protesting violently against that. We had other financing solutions for how we would handle that catastrophe then. But I think it is exactly as Hans Eklind says: An assessment should be made. Which deductions on aid is it reasonable to make? It must be assessed based on the situation that exists. But there is an international regulatory framework that says that certain costs that countries have linked to solidarity work are also eligible for aid, and then it is reasonable to make some deduction. Not of all costs; one must look at how the situation looks at different times.

I fundamentally think it is good that Hans Eklind nevertheless says that he will continue to safeguard aid and speak about it. I hope that further ahead he can also show that it has some kind of significance in the budget negotiations. It doesn't matter all that much what one says if one also cannot follow up with some kind of delivery.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have now received all the parties' proposals for the state budget, and I can state a number of things.

The first thing is that we can take the criticism that the opposition has directed at the coalition parties' proposals quite lightly. The second thing is that we can be quite happy that our proposal specifically has the support of the majority here in the chamber and will therefore emerge victorious from this afternoon's vote.

Let me clarify what I mean by that we can take the criticism lightly. We have received criticism for not lowering the price of gasoline and diesel fast enough or by enough. Then we see that the Social Democrats and the other opposition parties are instead raising the price – a one krona higher price at the pump, or almost 7 billion more that they want to collect in tax from everyone who is dependent on the car.

But that is not all, Madam Speaker. On top of this, it is about an additional 9 kronor per liter at the pump, because they, unlike us, want to continue to increase the reduction obligation. It would therefore result in a total of 10 kronor higher price per liter at the pump if that group had been allowed to decide.

We can breathe a sigh of relief that they do not get it, because the voters wanted otherwise, and it is quite hypocritical, even from parties in opposition, to criticize someone for not lowering the price enough and fast enough when one wants to raise it by 10 kronor oneself. In any case, it is difficult to take the criticism seriously.

Why should we be happy that our budget alternative will, by all indications, emerge victorious from this afternoon's vote? It clearly has to do with inflation. The fringe parties want to run the state with a deficit and indebt both themselves and future generations. It is about 200 billion in increased debt in the Vänsterpartiet proposal, and 275 billion in the Miljöpartiet proposal, thus a strongly expansionary policy in a situation with almost double-digit inflation. It is essentially life-threatening.

This is not a recession that one can "invest" one's way out of. This is a recession with high inflation. I did not think anyone had missed that things have actually become quite a lot more expensive. The economic policy that the fringe parties propose will inevitably and unequivocally fuel inflation and lead to higher interest rates.

Inflation hits everyone - rich or poor, man or woman, domestically born Swede or immigrant, a large listed public limited company or a small municipal assisted living facility for elderly people with dementia. Inflation hits everyone. It discriminates against no one.

There is no quick fix in this situation. The economists call the combination of stagnant growth and high inflation stagflation, Madam Speaker. I believe, furthermore, that it was the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Iain Macleod who first coined the term stagflation well over 50 years ago. It is therefore not a new phenomenon, even if it is an unusual phenomenon.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats and the left-wing parties in general continue with the only thing they are really, really good at: raising taxes for ordinary people who work. The Social Democrats' proposal involves almost 13 billion kronor in higher income tax. Those who are affected are police officers, midwives, teachers, principals, engineers – ordinary hard-working men and women who are trying to do their best in this tough economic situation. Over 1.3 million wage earners would have received a significant tax hit with the Social Democrats' policy, which always is about raising taxes on people who work and do the right thing and never about the ability to prioritize differently and instead adjust the expenditure side of the state budget. Just as many families and households are forced to cut back on expenses, the state must do the same.

I said when we debated the government's budget bill last time that the product we are to vote on this afternoon will not solve all of Sweden's problems, but that it is a very good start. Now the government, with our support, has been in power for eight weeks. Slowly but surely, more and more solutions to Sweden's problems are beginning to crystallize. I am completely convinced that the government will deliver on the ambitious reform agenda that we have agreed upon. That is, in a sense, the entire prerequisite for the government to be tolerated by the chamber.

What I see ahead of me a bit further into the parliamentary period is that we, together, consistently and palpably will continue with investments in the state's absolute core tasks. Defense shall reach up to 2 percent of GDP during the parliamentary period. We shall continue with record-breaking investments and initiatives in the justice system, and we shall continue to develop the welfare.

I envision that we get down fuel prices as soon as possible. Fuel taxes shall be lowered further, and the reduction obligation shall be reduced to the absolute minimum level. We shall continue to lower taxes overall, in some cases not only lowering them but completely erasing certain particularly ill-conceived and harmful taxes. We make this possible by making prioritizations on the expenditure side of the state budget, some quite simple, others perhaps somewhat more difficult. I and the Sverigedemokraterna are prepared to make even tough prioritizations.

We will continue with a total overhaul of the energy policy. The decommissioning of nuclear power that the Social Democrats pushed through during the last parliamentary term did not only come with a bill in the form of truly unpleasant electricity bills across the country and especially in the southern parts. It also came with a bill of 8 million tons in increased carbon dioxide emissions, because we burn oil instead of using the fossil-free nuclear power that the Socialdemokraterna, therefore, decommissioned. 8 million tons is more than the total emissions of the Swedish steel industry. This is what happens when you build your policy on fantasies instead of on realistic consequence analyses.

We can look at some more of the proposals that have come from the opposition side which fortunately – let's be honest – will not become a reality in connection with this afternoon's vote.

Some examples: Seniors who remain in the labor market after the regular retirement age, on full-time or part-time, for an additional few years would have been subject to increased tax. More ordinary wage earners would have paid state tax, i.e., a tax surcharge of an additional 20 percent on top of the municipal tax that one already pays. The tax on investment savings accounts would have been raised significantly. It does so anyway, because it is governed by the state lending rate, which, as is known, has risen significantly, but apparently that is not enough in the opposition's proposal. Economic freedom is something ugly that must be opposed. The property tax would have been reintroduced, as if it were not expensive enough to live with higher interest costs on one's mortgages and sky-high electricity bills. The aviation tax, which has led to our state-owned airline being on the brink of bankruptcy, would have doubled. The tax would have been raised for agriculture and for forestry; i.e., for the farmers. Fuel prices would have been 10 kronor higher per liter.

Madam Speaker! This was a small ax-blow of what would have been to expect if that gang had been allowed to decide. In relation to that, I and the Sweden Democrats are completely satisfied with the government's budget bill.

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

(Applause)

In this speech, Dennis Dioukarev, David Lång, David Perez, Charlotte Quensel and Eric Westroth (all SD) concurred.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! When one listens to Oscar Sjöstedt, one could believe that we are still in the election campaign and that someone else is still sitting in the government. You continue to make up what everyone else thinks and forget that it is you who, in this budget, are shock-increasing the tax on jobs and entrepreneurship by 6 billion kronor.

My question to Oscar Sjöstedt is the same as during the previous debate. When exactly will the promised reduction of the diesel price by 10 kronor come, a promise that you repeated over and over again during the election campaign? Will it come this year? Will it come next year? Will it come the year after next? Will it come after the next election? If you had been a petrol company that had promised 10 kronor lower at the pump in your marketing, you would have been sued for false marketing.

I also have a second question. Since you are anyway spending 6.7 billion kronor to lower the tax on diesel and petrol, so that it becomes 40 öre for those who drive SUVs – I do not know if Oscar Sjöstedt does that – back and forth to Stockholm and fill the tank in Stockholm and other large cities, why do you not direct those funds to people in the countryside who are completely dependent on cars, who do not have access to the subway, tram, sometimes not even a bus, so that they can get a price reduction of 3 kronor at the pump, which is the Centerpartiet's proposal? Why do you prioritize those who live in the cities over those in the countryside?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are in a constant state of campaigning. That is simply how it is.

I have an old Volvo, no SUV variant but an old 960.

When will it come? The answer is roughly the same as last time. Some will come at this New Year, already on January 1st. A significantly larger part of the reduction will come at next year's New Year. Unfortunately, I must say. We would have liked to do it earlier, but unfortunately. Some will come at the turn of 2023, and some will come at the turn of 2024.

Do we need to do more? It is difficult to forecast several years ahead in time, but if prices were to stay at this level, we would need to do more on the tax side both in the next budget bill and also in the budget bill after that – and potentially also in the budget bill after that, that is, as far ahead as 2026. It depends a bit on how the price develops. I have difficulty controlling the world market price – unfortunately, I must say.

Centerpartiet has presented a proposal that absolutely no one understands and which is furthermore one hundred percent unfeasible and unrealistic. There are to be different prices depending on where in the country one is located. It is not feasible. If we are to lower taxes, it must happen in the entire country. We cannot lower point taxes in some municipalities but not in the neighboring municipality, or in some regions but not in the neighboring region, and so on. It is a one hundred percent unrealistic and unfeasible proposal.

People in the countryside benefit relatively more from lowered fuel prices, not to forget the reinforced travel deduction which is increased to 25 kronor per mile. It is clear that people in the countryside benefit relatively more than those who live in the city and do not have as far to travel to work.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if anyone here truly grasped when the price was to be lowered by 10 kronor, as Oscar Sjöstedt promised during the election campaign. It was a bit here, a bit there, maybe 2026, maybe later, a bit this way and that. So you say that our proposal is unrealistic. We simply take your money and give people a clear and distinct check at the pump of 3 kronor, when one lives in what are rural municipalities and towns in the countryside. For those who have dealt with rural issues for a long time, it is a clear and distinct definition.

It is good that Oscar Sjöstedt brings up the travel deduction. It is also an interesting question. Why do you take the billions of the travel deduction from those who have a long way to their workplace and give the money to those who commute into the cities, when there is a finished proposal to increase the travel deduction? Take those 5 kronor of the travel deduction and give 30 kronor to those who live in the countryside! Why do you, time and again, take the money that could have gone to people in the countryside and give it to those who live in the cities where there is developed public transport?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The last one is a fantasy. I do not know where it comes from. How one benefits from the travel deduction depends on where one lives. If one lives far from one's job, one benefits from an enhanced travel deduction. To claim that it is money moving to the cities is fantasies. It is so nonsensical. It is nonsense. I cannot even bear to respond to it.

Then there was the question of the tax. Some will arrive now at the turn of the year, on January 1, 2023. Another larger part will arrive at the next turn of the year, on January 1, 2024. Then we will see where the world market price stands. If the world market price is at the high levels that they are today, we must do even more also on January 1, 2025. It is therefore a matter of stages – step by step, bit by bit.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! It is often said that the best things in life are free. I wonder, as I read the budget bill that the Sverigedemokraterna have negotiated, if it is some kind of peculiar variant of that maxim that has guided the Sverigedemokraterna's attitude towards Sweden's pensioners, the long-term sick, and low-income earners in rural areas. Instead of financial support to make it easier for them to pay the bills, survive the winter, and celebrate a less meager Christmas, they shall rejoice in other things. They shall, for example, delight in proposals regarding reporting systems in public administration. A few hundred thousand people in Sweden, many of them children, shall be forced into more daily anxiety to be uprooted from their lives. Fewer immigrants shall be given the opportunity to quickly learn Swedish. Or some additional person shall risk being deported to torture or to a life of fear and misery.

I understand that this is something at the core of the Sverigedemokraterna leadership's political calculations. I suspect that it requires a fair amount of rhetorical and propagandistic hiding, and I do not intend to be helpful to Oscar Sjöstedt in that work.

I would instead like to ask Oscar Sjöstedt how he intends to justify to his voters that 13 billion goes to those who earn more than 50,000 a month while nothing at all, zero, is done for Sweden's pensioners. I would like to know what Oscar Sjöstedt thinks about the fact that the electricity support he has championed benefits the one with three vacation homes rather than the one sitting with a low income in a small villa in the countryside - and over all, nothing for northern Sweden. I wonder what message Oscar Sjöstedt has for those who work within the welfare sector or who need the welfare services, for example within elderly care, who now have to witness the Sweden Democrats putting their weight behind a substantial budget cut that will make life harder for them.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! There was a lot of fluff that I didn't follow. Then some concrete things came at the end, at least.

We have no decisions on any reductions of the income tax. We will have to take that later, because the situation with the high inflation, which I spoke about in my speech, does not allow for that type of reform right now. General tax cuts we will surely, I hope, manage to push through during the mandate period, but there are no such decisions in this budget bill.

We have certain things that are indexed up. If one had stopped these indexings, approximately 1.3 million employees would have been affected and received a significantly higher tax. It is not only the threshold levels that are adjusted in parity with the price base amount, which in turn is based on inflation, but also, for example, the guaranteed pension is adjusted up very strongly at the turn of the year, also as a result of the high inflation. I think that is positive – I do not know if Vänsterpartiet wants to stop that indexing as well.

Welfare receives significant resource supplements in this budget bill: 6 billion into the system in the state budget's expenditure area 25, which includes the municipal economic equalization and the entire equalization system, and approximately the same amount in earmarked and targeted supplements.

Regarding the electricity support, I still want to have said that I have not negotiated it with the government; no one from the Sweden Democrats has negotiated with the government about any electricity support. If one wants to ask questions about electricity support, I think one should do so, but ask them to the government! I am not in the government.

However, we must clarify, which I also touched upon in my speech, why we need an electricity subsidy at all - why the question is even relevant. It has to do with the fact that Ali Esbatis's party and the three other opposition parties ensured that a premature decommissioning of fully functioning nuclear power was voted through during the previous parliamentary term. That is why we are in this situation.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! I note that Oscar Sjöstedt describes my description of the Sweden Democrats' policy as "flum" [vague/fuzzy]. I believe that is a reasonable description of the Sweden Democrats' policy. But it is not just flum, but also much more - which is not better, but worse.

When it comes to the indexing of the threshold for state tax, it sounds here as if it is something that happens with some kind of magic. That is not the case. It is about a political decision. Sverigedemokraterna have stood behind it, and it means a direct tax cut only for those who earn more than 45,000 kronor a month.

One might think that is a good prioritization, but then one should say that instead of linking it with other indexations. It is not the case that, if one were to refrain from making the increase, that is to say the reduction of the tax for high-income earners, it would be necessary to stop the indexation of the guarantee pensions. It is funny that precisely that one is mentioned, moreover, because that was something we were involved in pushing through an increase of before the election, which the Sverigedemokraterna partially counteracted; you wanted a proposal that would have been worse for the guarantee pensioners. But now it is all good - it is in place.

The priority that the Sweden Democrats have made is to stand behind a tax cut for those who have the highest incomes; that was my point.

When it comes to the welfare, it is still the case that the supplements that Oscar Sjöstedt speaks of are insufficient and involve a cut in the municipalities and regions. This is something that the Sverigedemokraterna and Oscar Sjöstedt must take responsibility for, because this is your budget.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that one can go in and choke. That was my rhetorical point: There are many things in the state budget that are indexed up, quite a lot driven by inflation. Now it becomes a bit more because inflation is so high, but fortunately, there are automatic mechanisms that catch even the weaker groups, for example, the guaranteed pensioners. The guaranteed pension will be indexed up without any active decisions from the government's side - it happens automatically. That was my point.

It is clear that it is possible if one wanted to, but we have not seen a need to raise the tax for just over 1.3 million wage earners. It is in no way the outermost percentile at the top or the highest per mille, but it is over 1.3 million ordinary wage earners. We have not seen a need to raise the tax for them.

When it comes to the supplements to the municipal equalization system, which trickle down into the welfare that we expect and want, it is complicated. I can partly agree with Ali Esbati. Is it insufficient? Is more needed? Yes, it probably is, but it is a bit of this I want to come back to: That in the situation we have, printing money in the public sector and for public consumption is in itself inflation-driving. Then we will have the same problem next year and need to compensate municipalities and regions once again because inflation continues to be high.

It is, therefore, a very complex balancing act that one has to perform there. Simply pushing on and fueling that deficit of 200 billion that Vänsterpartiet has means that we keep inflation at double-digit levels. And then we have the same problems remaining next year. So it is difficult.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not have the opportunity in my speech to address all the lies that I believe Oscar Sjöstedt is making in this debate. The first is that we would propose a higher tax next year for large groups of wage earners. What we are saying no to is a further tax cut in the form of a changed threshold for next year, for those with the highest incomes. Those groups also receive a tax cut in the form of the basic deduction and the job tax deduction, which are also adjusted.

But the Sweden Democrats are therefore choosing to agree to lower the tax for Oscar Sjöstedt and me by approximately 1,000 kronor a month and say that it is indexing and happens automatically. But this is supposed to reflect some kind of wage development in society. Large wage-earner groups are now negotiating wages on the Swedish labor market. They do not get full inflation protection in this economic situation. A major internal discussion is being held: Should they be able to settle for a 4 percent wage increase? These are ordinary people. The child allowance is not indexed at all.

We mean that in this time of crisis it would be reasonable to make an investment in families with children. You choose to rule out the financing of the welfare state, and you choose to rule out families with children. You tell large groups of wage earners that they should take responsibility for wage formation. But here, full inflation protection is given. It becomes unreasonable.

You in the Sweden Democrats are responsible for this trade-off today. You stand behind every comma in this budget. It is a flawed crisis policy not to ensure that we bear the burdens together, because these are tough times for very many families all around Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, these are very tough times. Part of the explanation for this is the decisions that the previous government made during eight years in power. They dismantled fully functioning, carbon-free and fossil-free nuclear power. It has led to sky-high electricity prices. That is the explanation. I will never forget it - never forget, never forgive.

Every single year during these past eight years, the level for the reduction obligation has been raised and taxes on fuel have been increased. This is what the families are struggling with, including the families with children: the previous government's policy, a sick policy.

I have no problem taking responsibility for this. I do not see the need to raise the tax for over 1.3 million wage earners. It may be rhetorically clever for someone like Mikael Damberg to point at people like us, members of parliament. But it is not us it is about, but large groups of wage earners - over 1.3 million wage earners. There are not 1.3 million members of parliament, not even in the whole world.

It is therefore many people who would get a tax increase, totaling 13 billion kronor, if Mikael Damberg were to get his budget through. No, I do not see that need. I have no problem taking responsibility for the government's budget bill; I stand behind it.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The more pressured the Sweden Democrats become, the tougher the tone also becomes - "sick politics". One can describe parties in different ways. I think this is an unworthy way to describe politics in the chamber.

It is false to say that we propose a higher tax for next year because no one with our budget proposal will pay a higher tax next year than they did in November and December. They will pay a lower tax, but not quite as much lower as in the budget proposal that you are presenting. You are choosing to exclude families with children, and you are choosing to exclude the funding of welfare in this crisis situation. It is a decision you must take responsibility for.

It is also a lie to say that we made political decisions to decommission nuclear power plants during the last parliamentary term. That did not happen. It is a lie that is just repeated and repeated.

The Sweden Democrats still live with an image that Putin's energy war against Europe has had no impact on the Swedish and European economy. It is completely detached from reality. Look at the energy prices that existed in Sweden before Russia invaded Ukraine! Then we had some of the most competitive electricity prices in Europe. Now, electricity prices across Europe have increased because of this.

Furthermore, one can ask those who de facto made the decision to shut down old reactors that they considered were not profitable. These individuals have spoken out and said that there were no political decisions behind this.

I know that the Sweden Democrats were not part of the latest energy agreement, but when the Moderates and Social Democrats, among others, made it, the Moderates came out and said that Swedish nuclear power was now saved because we provided long-term rules for nuclear power in our country.

There must be some order and discipline in the debate, and above all in how often one asserts things that have nothing to do with reality.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Then we are talking about things that have to do with reality. What did the old government do? They introduced an electricity tax, specially designed to hit nuclear power and make it unprofitable. It was a political decision. Don't come and claim anything else! They introduced a tax specifically on nuclear power for the purpose of making nuclear power unprofitable. It was a political decision.

We had a vote here in the chamber where our side, our four parties, lost by a single vote, as that was how the balance of power looked during the last parliamentary term. We would have won that vote today, and then Sweden would have kept two reactors.

Vattenfall is owned 100 percent by the Swedish state. Everything they do is political. The ownership directives are determined by the state. The board of Vattenfall is appointed by the Swedish state. It is the state, the owner, that decides what they shall engage in. It is the state, the owner, that determines who shall sit on the board. We own it together; 100 percent of the shares in Vattenfall are owned by the Swedish state. It is political decisions and a conscious policy that has led to the situation we have today. Claim nothing else!

We will not forget it, and we will obviously need to remind that it is the case in this way.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson was the only one of the eight party leaders in Sunday's TV debate to say that we do not have a climate crisis. It is a somewhat strange statement, because Åkesson is at the same time clear that he does not deny that we have climate change. It is just not a crisis.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has however stated that Sweden will be affected significantly more in several direct ways in the future. The risk of extreme weather is increasing, and we will see ever more heavy rainfall and devastating fires. I believe we all remember the very warm and dry year 2018 when livestock had to be slaughtered in distress and large forest areas burned up. We also remember the floods in Gävle in 2021 which cost society over 1 billion kronor. Climate research is unanimous: Unfortunately, there will be much more of this.

From this perspective, it is baffling that the government in its budget increases emissions and also has no ambitions to want to climate-adapt Sweden so that we stand stronger in the future. Now that it is time to build resilience against climate change, the government misses the mark because it has adopted the Sweden Democrats' entire climate and environmental policy, that is to say, none.

Does Oscar Sjöstedt believe that those who will be affected by climate change in the future – farmers who lose their crops and their animals or ordinary people whose houses become uninhabitable due to flooding – will be able to bear their costs and their significantly more difficult living conditions just because the Sweden Democrats claim that there is no crisis?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! If I am to be completely honest, I do not know if I understand the question. But no, I do not have the apocalyptic and dystopian view of the future that the Miljöpartiet perhaps has. As I said, I do not know if I understand the question.

The climate is changing. It has done so at all times as long as this planet has existed. I agree with what Jimmie Åkesson and several others in my party have said about the fact that we are not in a crisis. The correlation between us driving cars in Sweden and the temperature is extremely weak, perhaps even non-existent.

If we are to listen to the research, it says that the reduction obligation is very harmful to the climate. If all countries introduced it as the system Sweden has, we would have to convert agriculture to produce fuels instead of food. Then we have to go hungry but can rejoice that all countries have Swedish levels of the reduction obligation.

Madam Speaker! The question was a bit vague and the answer was likewise. I apologize for that.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! The question does not need to be vague for the recipient not to understand it, but I shall try to clarify myself.

How do the Sweden Democrats think it will be possible to build a strong Sweden moving forward when we undermine our life conditions and face increased costs for climate changes we cannot prevent? Would it not have been better to work preventatively to reduce climate emissions and work with adaptation measures so that we reduce and mitigate the effects? It is not possible to build a strong welfare society moving forward if we do not have the life conditions to do so.

How do the Sweden Democrats intend to secure a strong Sweden in the long term when the planet's limits are not taken into account?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not have that doomsday-like opening.

How do we build a strong Sweden? A ruling from the Land and Environment Court regarding Cementas' permit for continued limestone quarrying on Gotland is on the way, and if we say no for one reason or another, we build a weak Sweden. That is because the entire construction industry will collapse within a few months. I do not know if the ruling has arrived yet, as I have not had time to look at the news. But it should probably arrive in the near future, and we must also take that into account. We need to build a Sweden with high competitiveness.

I simply do not have the dystopian starting point that Member of Parliament Alm Ericson has in these issues. As said, the correlation between certain people driving to work and the global temperature is extremely weak, probably completely non-existent.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! It has been some months since the Minister for Finance, a while after the completion of the palace agreement between the Sweden Democrats and their governing supporting parties, presented a budget bill for 2023.

We have now all been able to hold the budget up against both the recently issued election promises and the reality that the budget proposals are intended to grapple with, and this does not turn out well for the Finance Minister and the right-conservatives. Of what these parties presented with courage as packed and ready during the election campaign, there is not much to be seen.

In the public debate, representatives for the government instead present increasingly imaginative interpretations of what they themselves have just said. As an involuntary spectator, one increasingly gets the feeling of being in a truly low-quality combination of political satire and surrealist theater. Unfortunately, it is neither particularly funny nor thought-provoking.

This is still not the worst part of the budget that is now to be decided by the Riksdag. The truly great problem with the budget bill is that it stands helpless in the face of the economic reality that people in Sweden encounter, both in the short and in the long term. The burning question that remains is: What is this budget for? Does it meet the problems that are looming for many people in the face of price increases on basic goods and electricity? Does it meet the cry from teachers who see knowledge results falling in a segregated market school? Does it present any relief for nurses who are forced to run past patients in the corridors or for nursing assistants who do not fall asleep at night due to the stress of not having been enough during the day? No, no, and again no.

But perhaps the budget instead lifts its gaze toward the horizon? Does it take on investments in our infrastructure in order to strengthen long-term productivity? Does it handle the need for a pricing system for electricity that is adapted to our national industrial structure and its future challenges? Does it perhaps aim for vital changes in order to be a leader in the climate transition? No, no, and again no, now with cream on top. Here, it is rather active measures for the opposite that emerge.

What remains is a content-poor and tired product that obviously primarily served internal medical purposes for the palace comrades' power union. To most others in Sweden, it hardly mattered a thumb's breadth.

But, Madam Speaker, passivity can also yield significant results. Through their inaction, the Sweden Democrats and the government ensure that the burdens of the ongoing crisis are distributed in the way one would expect from politicians who read The Tale of Karl-Bertil Jonsson's Christmas Eve and therein see a dystopia to be forcefully overcome. The assessment calendar has instead functioned as a tool to direct significant tax cuts exclusively to people with the highest incomes.

That is exactly what happens in these expensive times. The threshold for paying state tax is now being raised dramatically. The result is that the person who earns around 50,000 kronor a month - the bureau director rather than the teacher - will now receive around a thousand kronor less in tax. It costs the state treasury 13 billion kronor. And it happens at the same time as economic anxiety takes hold of many low- and middle-income households.

But this happens automatically, we have heard representatives for the government say. Isn't it strange how quickly the language can become loose and misleading when one wants to evade responsibility? Here we have received a tax that apparently has advanced to natural phenomena or peerless mechanics. Perhaps one can deceive someone for a while with that rhetoric. But the fact is that it would have been just as possible to present a proposal where this tax cut is not implemented. And had one now happened to miss this after the harsh Tidön nights, there were all the possibilities in the world to correct it.

The fact is that from the Left Party's side, we even offered concrete help. A proposal for a committee initiative was presented last week which would give the Riksdag the opportunity to take a position on the targeted tax cut separately, but the initiative was only supported by Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, and Miljöpartiet. So this is what crisis policy from the right looks like: taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Madam Speaker! Another area where the Sweden Democrats and the government have succeeded in combining pyramidal broken promises with helplessness in the face of real problems is the issue of the high electricity prices.

The acute support, which was promised to be in place before November 1, is as is known not in place before November 1, or December 1, and it will not be in place before January 1, or February 1. I believe there are few who heard the bombastic promises during the election campaign who see this support as a delayed Christmas present, where one can get away with the idea that it is the thought that counts. It is also notoriously difficult to use that thought as a means of payment.

But also the support that, according to the election rhetoric, was supposed to give people the opportunity to get through the winter, but which now might arrive just in time for the spring thaw, is designed in an almost parodically unjust way. Do you remember what the Minister for Energy shouted evangelically to people all around in her imaginary heartland? "We see you!" It is possible that she did, but it was obviously more like a kind of "good luck" to them.

Now we see the actual proposal. It will result in nothing for people in northern Sweden, who are now paying significantly higher prices than before. At the same time, it is a model that gives billionaires in castles and manors the most substantial rebate. Small business owners and homeowners who have truly been pushed to the limit can, at best, see a portion of their costs returned, if they haven't already gone bankrupt or been forced to move before then. As a script for a political TV series, this would have been dismissed as far too biased and malicious. Now it is a concrete description of how 55 billion kronor are to be pumped out.

Madam Speaker! It would also be entirely possible to do things differently here. Vänsterpartiet has presented a proposal that would provide a completely different distribution of the payments. It is possible to provide support that benefits the entire country. It is possible to prioritize ordinary households by setting a limit at the normal consumption of a larger villa instead of rewarding the very well-off. It is possible to prioritize the companies that struggle on the domestic market – bakeries, restaurants, and small shops – and not the companies that have already passed on the costs and made record profits. Then there would be more left over for those who need it, and it is still possible to provide an opportunity for large companies to apply for support where it can be shown that their profitability has taken a hit.

But SD and the government do not have such ambitions. And even more unambitious is one when facing the fundamental problem itself, that Swedish electricity prices are so high, despite the fact that Sweden produces a very large surplus. We are stuck in a European market system that is not adapted to Swedish conditions and Swedish industrial structure, or to the fact that electricity is not just any commodity. It is a system that primarily benefits a few strong commercial actors, with unreasonable effects for many others. That this is unsustainable is realized by more and more people across Europe, but among the blue-browns, it is empty. Instead, those words, falsehoods, and incantations echo there, which one must resort to in order to hide one's dismay.

The government has no plan to invest in strengthened transmission capacity, no plan for increased electrification, no plan to place Swedish business further forward in the energy transition. Energy policy has been replaced by some kind of culture war where one is to feel very strong feelings about different types of energy and express this compulsorily – nuclear power yippee, wind power boo!

But it is not energy policy, it is not industrial policy and it is not regional policy. It is just stupid. And so we will be standing there in a year, two years and three years without control over electricity prices and without political action for increased electricity production. It is as if one needs to remind the folks here: No, it is not possible to extract real electricity from grumbling and affect over non-traditional Lucia processions. Shape up, and get into the game!

Madam Speaker! For those who want to see how one can take responsibility in a difficult and uncertain time and how one can meet economic and social problems both in the short and in the long term, I can recommend the Left Party's budget motion A fair path through the crisis.

I will make a few points in addition to those I have raised, in contrast to the Åkesson-Kristersson budget.

The most important thing is that Vänsterpartiet prioritizes the common welfare sector. It faces great challenges and heavy pressure. The budget bill is a budget of cuts. Those who do the work will lose colleagues. Vänsterpartiet wants to instead raise the ambitions in welfare. With our investments, we meet the needs resulting from the demographic development, mainly a larger proportion of elderly people, and we simultaneously invest further resources in increasing the staffing density within welfare. Vänsterpartiet allocates 24 billion kronor more than the government in general state grants to municipalities and regions in 2023. The professionals in welfare need more colleagues.

Our budget motion contains several additional investments in the municipal sector. We want to, among other things, introduce an investment support for community properties, strengthen healthcare in rural areas, and allocate additional resources to strengthen the social services' work regarding men's violence against women.

We do this, nota bene, within the framework of a budget in a public financial balance 2023. This becomes possible because we make completely different priorities than SD and the government and distribute the burdens of the crisis completely differently. The one who has been very well off from before has completely different margins than the one who has counted pennies at the end of every month for a long time, and then the rapid price increases have a completely different effect. There is a difference between forgoing this year's second holiday abroad and having to cancel the entire Christmas celebration. It is such things that should be obvious, but in the world view of the palace companions, it is not.

In the Left Party's budget motion, a number of concrete funded proposals are presented to meet the crisis in a fair way - proposals that allow us to get through this together and become a society that is stronger, wealthier and, yes, friendlier. The Left Party's budget would mean halved ticket prices in public transport, a real high-cost protection in dental care, strengthened unemployment insurance and sickness insurance, an increased income pension by an average of 2,000 kronor per month, cheaper fees for preschool and after-school care and abolished waiting periods. It would make a real difference in many people's everyday lives.

We do this while having a powerful environmental and climate policy, investing in the knowledge school, and strengthening active labor market policies - all in contrast to SD and the government, who are doing the opposite. So, Madam Speaker, these are the alternatives in Swedish politics.

In contrast to a policy of fear and scapegoating, Vänsterpartiet proposes a policy of community, welfare, and faith in the future. Instead of offering the dubious joy of pointing fingers downward to people who have been betrayed and forgotten, Vänsterpartiet shows how we can lift each other up and how we can see the real social problems together and decide to start solving them together. That is how our democracy and our folkhemmet can be expanded instead of being carved up and dismantled. That is where the real struggle stands today and tomorrow.

I move, in conclusion, for the approval of the Left Party's reservations number 2 and 6.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a country with great opportunities. It is a point that serves us well in these times when anxiety creeps under the skin of more and more people: How will the situation in Ukraine develop? How will one manage the housing loans when mortgage rates become ever higher? How will I manage to fuel the car to get to work and drop off my children at friends' houses and extracurricular activities? And can I let my children play outside and continue to feel safe? These are the real questions that people are asking themselves.

Magdalena Andersson and the Social Democrats correctly pointed out during the election campaign that Sweden can do better. The voters also felt this way and voted out the government that had held power for a total of eight years. I believe that most Swedes see that they de facto live in a country that has great opportunities, and then the task is to defend what is good and well and, if possible, develop it. But an urgent task is, of course, also to repair what has broken. Everyone understands that it is not a simple task and that it cannot be done in a heartbeat or with beautiful words.

But now we have a new government in place, a government that has worked for eight weeks, not eight years. It is a government that the Swedish people have voted in to make a difference, to realize the opportunities and to deal with the acute problems. The government has presented the first budget, a budget that has a majority here in Sweden's Riksdag.

It is an uncertain time that we stand in. It calls for humility. It concerns Ukraine, high inflation, rising interest rates, increased food prices and electricity prices, and an energy crisis that means we could all be affected by power cuts this winter. All of this naturally limits the space and makes it important that the budget is well-balanced. Therefore, we have received a budget that is restrained, but it also allows for a room for action if so required.

Madam Speaker! When the budget was presented just over a month ago, I pointed out that even though it is restrained, it still contains important measures that support Swedish households and companies. It contains some first important reforms to reverse the Swedish development in several areas, and for us Christian Democrats, the investments to shorten the healthcare queues and increase accessibility within healthcare are important.

During the next three years, this government will now ensure that we get more healthcare beds and reinforced healthcare across the entire country. Today, 163,000 patients have not received care in time - a care that they actually have a right to. But now a prioritization of welfare is taking place, and that naturally requires on one hand money and on the other hand a new management. With national healthcare mediation, we can use available and accessible capacity in one part of the country for waiting patients who live in another part of the country where this capacity is lacking.

I also raised this regarding the initiative in the government's budget for measures against involuntary loneliness, a loneliness that is as dangerous as smoking. This loneliness can lead to both mental and physical illnesses. It is therefore extremely positive that there is a three-year community initiative in the proposed budget with funds for municipalities and regions, and also for sports clubs and other actors in civil society who carry out measures to break involuntary loneliness, not least when it concerns our elderly.

Madam Speaker! Just this issue of involuntary loneliness and the situation of the elderly was one of the two main reasons why I stood as a top candidate in the 2018 parliamentary election and was prepared to leave my position as parish priest in the Church of Sweden. The other thing that made me want to do something was that I had seen how the sense of community had broken down.

In the parish, we tried in different ways to make a difference, not least for our lonely elderly but also for those who have recently come here to our country. We organized language cafés, interreligious conversations, cycling training, and various types of meeting points where people could be bound together. It was work that took place and takes place at so-called micro-level, if you will. Here in the Riksdag, it is macro-level, and here I, as a Christian Democrat, want to work for a sense of community for everyone, not just for some.

Even though I mean that there have been some improvements during the past parliamentary term regarding the insight into what is required and needs to be done, Easter weekend this past year is a ruthless reminder of how much work still remains. There were riots in Skäggetorp in Linköping and Navestad in Norrköping on Maundy Thursday, in Rinkeby in Stockholm and in Sveaparken in Örebro on Good Friday, in Malmö on Easter Sunday, and then new riots in both Linköping and Norrköping on Easter Day. It was an Easter weekend that showed how large the problems Sweden has are, not only with crime but above all with integration.

We saw a Sweden that few of us recognize - a Sweden that we really do not want. We were filled with both worry and anger when we saw and heard about these vile attacks that the perpetrators committed against Swedish police during an Easter weekend, that is, a Christian holiday intended to convey the message of hope for life and that good triumphs over evil. But during the Easter weekend, the opposite was manifested. Evil poked its ugly face out in the areas that perhaps are in the greatest need of just hope.

Hundreds of masked men and also women and children participated in stone-throwing against Swedish police. They actively attempted to kill men and women who have chosen a career path involving defending law and order and our democratic freedoms and rights. They threw a Molotov cocktail into a city bus, which forced passengers to flee. Rescue personnel were attacked and forced to retreat.

I hope that we all understand the seriousness of the situation we find ourselves in and that we do not turn a blind eye to the fact that this is a result of the conducted migration policy, which has not taken into account our ability to integrate. During the last decade, an average of 100,000 people have been granted residence permits in Sweden every year. According to assessments, at least 100,000 people are in Sweden illegally. In addition, every year thousands of people go underground, as it is called, and become part of the growing shadow society where many are exploited and suffer greatly.

We Christian Democrats have for many years asserted that we must have a migration policy that takes into account our ability to integrate. We cannot measure humanity in how many we receive, because it is not humane if those who come here do not truly enter society. It is simply a difference between welcome here and welcome home. That is why we need a paradigm shift in both migration and integration policy.

The government presents a budget where they want to strengthen integration. They want to set requirements that those who move here shall learn Swedish and that they also become self-sufficient as soon as possible. It is an end to the requirement-free policy that locks people into exclusion.

We must also break down the secrecy between authorities and ensure that the Swedish Migration Agency receives information about people who are staying here illegally. Municipalities should also not be able to regularly pay out maintenance support to people who do not have the right to it.

Madam Speaker! During the past weeks, we have received the opposition parties' shadow budgets. Two of the parties, Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, have budgets that will lead to higher inflation. It is a divided opposition that I see before me when I compare what they propose. The Socialdemokraterna want to raise the tax by 13 billion, which would give 1 million Swedes less money in their pockets. Centerpartiet does not want that. Centerpartiet also does not want to give as much in state grants to municipalities and regions as the government wants – while Socialdemokraterna want to give even more.

It is fragmented, and it is not entirely simple to see any red line in the various proposals. But one thing is agreed upon, and that is that one shall continue on the track of the reduction obligation. At the same time as one has submitted these proposals, one has said – I have at least taken note of it in the media – that what the government proposes only gives 14 öre in tax reduction on the fuel price. This is said despite that everyone in here actually knows that it is a tax reduction of 1 krona on January 1st if nothing else had been done.

However, there is something that has been talked about less loudly but which would have been appropriate to mention when attacking the government's proposal. What is talked about less – or not at all, since it is we who must inform the voters about this – is that the red-greens agree that the reduction obligation path applies. This means that gasoline will become 5 kronor more expensive and diesel 9 kronor more expensive per liter as early as 2030. How does that hit families with children and the rural areas?

We must also remember that Magdalena Andersson, during the 2014 election campaign, said that it was too expensive to fuel the car. I went in and googled what the gasoline price was in August 2014 when Magdalena Andersson made that statement. The price was 14 kronor and 60 öre, and then it was too expensive to fuel the car. Then, in the next breath, she promised that she would not raise the tax—a promise she broke less than half a year later. Since then, the red-green government has raised the fuel taxes again and again.

The Social Democrats and the Center Party do, of course, want to move forward with a temporary reduction if their budget proposal wins approval. But since they maintain the indexing and want to continue on the track regarding the inclusion of biofuels, i.e., the reduction obligation, it becomes, so to speak, a bit half-hearted. Not only is it temporary, while what we propose is not temporary, but above all, they give with one hand and take with the other.

It would have become more expensive if the red-greens had the power to decide how the petrol price and diesel price should develop. With our proposal, there will be a reduction of 1 krona at the pump from January 1, and then the reduction obligation will come on January 1, 2024 – and then there will be a real difference.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the budget that the Riksdag has received from the government. It prioritizes the most important things: We support households in a difficult situation, and we invest in the justice system, defense, and welfare. We do this, moreover, without fueling inflation, which means we conduct a fiscal policy that aligns with the monetary policy. Then there is a room for maneuver if the economic downturn were to become deeper than what we can see here and now.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

In this speech, Yusuf Aydin (KD) agreed.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I will not invoke the ninth commandment regarding what my fellow debater said, but we have actually allocated 10 billion more to municipalities and regions - 4 billion more than the government.

My question, however, is about something else. We are heading, as several have pointed out, towards tough times. However, there are those who actually have it tougher than those who are having a hard time in Sweden.

In addition to a cold and dark winter, one stands in Ukraine facing an enormous economic strain as a result of the war. There is a shortage of 5 billion dollars, i.e., 50 billion kronor, every month in the budget that is to be used to protect those who are now being subjected to Putin's vile war.

We also know that 240 million people suffer from acute malnutrition, which is twice as many as in 2019. 50 million people risk falling into famine during the next year, and 149 million people are, according to the UN, on the brink of famine. Many of them are children.

In this situation, one chooses to make the largest cut in Swedish aid ever. Here I want to read a quote:

"A growing cloud of concern is that several political parties are questioning the scope of Swedish aid. The opposition between securing our own welfare and Swedish aid is fabricated. Politics can continue to prioritize, and as a rich country, we can meet the needs of people living in poverty and oppression."

This quote comes from you, Hans Eklind.

(HANS EKLIND (KD): That is a good quote.)

I understand that one may want to reprioritize towards better aid or other aid now that one is in government. But why use the aid as an ATM for your initiatives on everything else when those who have it the hardest are having it harder than ever, Hans Eklind?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I apologize if I was incorrect regarding the Centerpartiet's state subsidies. That was the information I had obtained, and therefore I forwarded it. But if it is not correct, it shall, of course, be corrected.

The Christian Democrats safeguard both an effective and a generous aid. It is no secret that we have had negotiations regarding that matter. Sweden gives 56 billion kronor in aid, and it is only Luxembourg that is more generous when it comes to aid - only Luxembourg. Somewhere, I think, Martin Ådahl might have to dress his opinions in slightly different terms than that this would be terrible, given that Luxembourg is the only country that gives more in aid.

Since then, it is not just about the sum. I said the same thing in a previous exchange: It cannot just be the sum that is important, but it is also important to ensure that one gets maximum benefit for every krona that this country chooses to give in aid. It is about making a real difference, and the Kristdemokraterna will be a guarantor for that – just as we will be a guarantor for and stand up for generous aid. However, it must be effective, which is just as central.

Are there then things that could be done within the framework of the current Swedish aid? Yes, I see many opportunities. For example, I would like to place much larger and clearer demands on Iraq. On the Nineveh Plain, an ethnic cleansing of Christians, Chaldeans, and so on, is actually taking place. It is not okay to provide aid to a country that simultaneously pursues that type of policy. We also have UNRWA, that is, the aid to Palestine. I would like to see that aid frozen, because it makes no difference. Instead, it rather perpetuates a bad situation for Palestine.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not really know how I can answer this.

It is quite obvious that there is no real answer to the question of why, when everything is only worsening – when the need is greatest and growing so rapidly and when we see climate catastrophes, famine catastrophes, as well as the great catastrophe that Putin's war against Ukraine constitutes – you do not reprioritize, as you yourself said before the election, Hans Eklind. Then you promised to stand by the one percent goal. Instead, you are cutting aid and using it as the largest source of funding in your budget.

Regarding all the different examples that Hans Eklind mentioned, for example, interventions in Palestine or Iraq, these are investments in the UN system. The UN are the only ones who reach there. Besides the voluntary organizations, the UN are the only ones who have the possibility to protect the vulnerable people in these conflicts. It is precisely this that you are cutting back on, Hans Eklind. Furthermore, you are cutting back on democracy aid, which is intended precisely to avoid this type of oppression of people and persecution of minorities. It is that you are cutting back on.

There is no defense when your benchmates Tidögänget say that they want these funds because they need them for their budget, Hans Eklind. It is not possible to explain it away with some kind of care for vulnerable people and for the assistance. Where is the warmth in KD's policy, Hans Eklind?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Alf Svensson coined the terms local heating and district heating. I shall not try to interpret Martin Ådahl's last question based on Alf Svensson, but I could still provide some concrete answers. Even the point made should I like to say is well-taken.

I have worked with aid both professionally and, above all, voluntarily. I am passionate about this matter of aid, and I believe everyone understands that.

At the same time, we live in a situation where I believe that Swedish aid can be questioned on good grounds. We have aid that has not made a difference. UNRWA to the Palestinians is one example. Iraq is another. I could also highlight Islamic Relief, as we know that individuals active in the Muslim Brotherhood are present in this organization. It has also been condemned for, or it has been seized for, purely anti-Semitic messages.

There are some things that can be done within the aid, but for my life I do not understand why Martin Ådahl is bringing this up with Ukraine. This government has indeed given the largest package - probably not at all the last but the largest so far - that Sweden has formulated and put together. It is this, the current, government that has created it with a huge humanitarian aid support. It has not escaped Martin Ådahl, rather he has seen it. I know that he debated this, so why Ukraine should be a problem in this context I do not understand.

We as a government have set a cap of 8 percent when it comes to deductions. This is very important because if it is the case that Sweden is forced to take responsibility, which we will do, for the Ukrainian refugees, the deductions cannot amount to more than 8 percent. That is to say that we ensure aid to people who today run a real risk of starving to death. It is an actual problem right now, a big problem, which Martin Ådahl also points out. But then we must ensure that we have a cap on the deductions. I have not heard that the Center Party has the same opinion on this. We have 8 percent. What does the Center Party have?

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! Hans Eklind also gave a false picture of the Left Party's budget. We have a budget that is in public financial balance in 2023 and no deficits. But I will not disturb Hans Eklind's perception of the Left Party's budget with facts here, instead, I intended to ask some other questions.

The Christian Democrats often portray themselves as a healthcare party. They have also previously been involved in governing healthcare in a long series of regions in Sweden and continue to do so. This strong verbal concern for healthcare is, as far as I can judge, something that has survived the shift in focus that has occurred within the Christian Democrats, away from concern for the earth's poor and small communities to making life as difficult as possible for people who have come to Sweden from other countries. What surprises me is that Hans Eklind and other Christian Democrats seem so satisfied with the cutback budget they now stand behind, which will result in a hard pressure on already very heavily tested staff within healthcare specifically.

I wonder if it is the case that Hans Eklind has some tips for the employees within healthcare, those who today have difficulty fulfilling their work due to the shortage of staff. Is it a matter of listening to inspiring calls from Christian Democratic representatives? Are there perhaps some other constructive words from known or unknown writings that they can take part in to compensate for the shortage of beds or schedules that are so tight that they cannot handle unexpected events? Or is it the case that the nurses should instead rejoice at something else in the budget, for example, low capital taxation for those who take out money from, among other things, healthcare in the form of profit?

It would be pleasant and helpful, I think, if Hans Eklind could answer those questions.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament's mocking of a subject area that I consider to be extremely important, namely healthcare, does not sit well.

Reality, Ali Esbati, is my best friend in this debate. When we sat in government last, the healthcare queues were halved. We would like to more than halve the healthcare queues again. Today, there are 163,000 people in Sweden, patients, who have not received care in time despite having a right to it. It is a priority task for this government, and I am very happy that it is two Christian Democratic ministers who have been given the assignment to do it, that is, to reduce the healthcare queues.

The truth is that since 2014, the healthcare queues in Sweden have increased. It is not just about corona, but the queues within healthcare increased long before that.

We are going to halve them again. There are clear investments in healthcare in this budget. These are investments, for example, within maternity care, but they are also investments made to strengthen healthcare and ensure that we produce more care beds.

This government has also indicated that they intend to develop a national plan. The national plan shall review how we are to take measures so that we get the right competence and how we are to ensure that there is a good working environment. I believe that the two parts are crucial for the profession to once again be something that people seek out.

Already in this budget, the national maternity plan is included. A clear holistic approach is also taken through the national healthcare coordination, where the task is to review the availability within healthcare in order to shorten the healthcare queues in that way. There is available capacity in some parts of the country that is lacking in others, and then the patient living in a region where capacity is lacking should be able to be moved to one where it is available. In this way, a difference can be made.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! I regret if there was any linguistic confusion here. To the extent that I was blatant, it was not about healthcare, but it concerned the Christian Democrats' policy. I perhaps did not receive any support to avoid it in the future in what Hans Eklind said.

I note that what is being said from Hans Eklind's side is that the problems that exist within Swedish healthcare, problems that patients and staff experience very strongly, are clearly dependent on the fact that there is simply a lack of people in many places, should be solved primarily with a national plan.

It sounds nice with a national plan, I think, but I believe that plan will become very poor and perhaps even almost like a mockery towards many who work in healthcare if it is not followed up with more resources. That was, so to speak, the point of what I said. I do not believe that problems which are so clearly tied to there being too few people working, which in turn generates a very problematic work environment for those who work in healthcare in many places, can be solved with the help of different organizational measures or encouraging words or a national plan without accompanying resources. That is, so to speak, the crux here. That is what is the core here.

The Christian Democrats have, no matter how much they talk about healthcare and present themselves as a healthcare party, no answer to this question. One is part of a budget bill - we are discussing a budget bill today - which implies that too few resources end up within healthcare, and then the answer becomes nothing for those who work within healthcare and those who need the healthcare services.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is a restrained budget that is being presented. Still, there are clear investments in healthcare. The Christian Democrats believe that more funds are needed. Therefore, we stand behind this budget, where we actually add resources to healthcare.

But the solution, Ali Esbati, is surely not to pour money into a problem? We know that in Sweden we have more doctors than the EU average, but they see fewer patients than their European colleagues. We spend more money on healthcare than the EU average, but we have the fewest number of care beds per capita within the entire EU.

Therefore, we say okay, more funds were needed. But there is also something else that must be addressed. There is, in fact, a systemic error here. It must be possible for our doctors to meet as many patients as in other countries. It must be possible if we spend more than the EU average. Then we should not be the country that stands out by having the fewest number of care beds per capita.

For that reason, we do both, that is, we add resources to healthcare and also take a holistic approach to it. The national healthcare mediation is the first step. But there are other steps waiting for us to take, because this is truly important.

We have done it before; we have shown that we can make a difference when we sit in a government and are responsible for healthcare. There are no other ambitions than that, after this mandate period, we will be able to make a final account where it can be stated that the Christian Democrats have done it again, that we have reversed the development within healthcare. I hope that Ali Esbati also considers this to be important.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must thank the other speakers who raised the questions that I intended to raise regarding aid. I actually just want to comment on the fact that Hans Eklind says that he wants to safeguard aid. We know the Christian Democrats as a party that has historically stood up for it. Now, that is no longer the case, and they now stand very clearly behind a budget that would rather lower the price of gasoline by 14 öre for motorists than give 350 million children vaccines. I find that remarkable. This is among other things raised by seven researchers who sit on Sida's scientific council. I hope that the Christian Democrats find their way back to standing up for aid and the needs that exist in the world.

I also want to raise the issue of welfare. Regardless of what Hans Eklind unfortunately says, it is an area that is incredibly important for us to develop and invest in now. The queues that have grown during the pandemic and the problems that exist must simply be addressed. But it is still 14 billion too little for what municipalities and regions need. It is not an addition, even if one earmarks money to nibble a little at the edges of it.

This has, as mentioned, been taken up by others in the debate, so I would instead like to ask questions about the environmental and climate work.

The Christian Democrats are not known as a party of climate deniers, but on the contrary, there are many who truly safeguard the environment and climate. Still, the Christian Democrats stand behind the government's budget, which completely misses the goals, slaughters the environmental and climate policy, increases emissions, shuts down the Ministry of the Environment, and ensures that we do not get closer to our environmental and climate goals.

I simply want to ask Hans Eklind what the Christian Democrats' plan is to reclaim a climate and environmental policy that is worthy of the name.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by commenting on this with the assistance.

The aid must do good. Every krona taken from Swedish taxpayers to be sent to another country must do good. In previous exchanges, I have pointed out some of the aid funds we give that I believe truly do good, and those that actually feel directly unsympathetic. We will ensure that our aid continues, Janine Alm Ericson, to be the most generous aid after Luxembourg's. The Christian Democrats are very proud that Sweden continues to be world-leading generous.

I received some questions about healthcare. But I do not have time to address even that part, and I have already commented on that.

When it comes to the environment, a fundamental position for me is that one can never solve environmental problems with symbolic politics; it must be done for real. In my book, the climate transition is spelled electrification, and if it is spelled electrification, it means that someone must reasonably produce all the electricity that will be consumed. We are talking about at least double. I believe it will be much more than that.

A policy has been pursued that leads to the fact that one is now starting Heleneholmsverket in central Malmö because there is a lack of electricity. Southern Sweden is thus the most vulnerable area in all of Europe in a comparison with 50 different locations. There is no other area in Europe that is so poorly prepared for specifically electricity production and electricity consumption. Now, one is starting Heleneholmsverket in central Malmö. EON has purchased 30,000 cubic meters of oil, which will deliver sulfur oxide, carbon dioxide, dust, and other things. In what way is this a good environmental policy, Janine Alm Ericson?

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Let me start with the last point. It is, of course, no good policy at all. The fact that we have ended up here is due to Putin's abhorrent invasion of Ukraine. It has affected the entire world economy and affected fuel and electricity prices, not least in Europe. We see that here as well.

What would have helped in this situation would have been if the municipalities that have systematically said no to wind power in southern Sweden had instead built it. Then we would have been significantly closer to the solution. The same applies to the proposals for energy efficiency that were included in all the budgets that we helped submit, but which you deleted. The situation would have looked significantly different if that had not happened.

We absolutely need to work on several things at the same time. That we are now burning oil instead of having wind power, which could have been available on-site, is nothing other than very sad.

The Green Party's climate and environmental policy is not symbolic politics. We rank very high internationally in terms of credibility. Sweden has previously been seen as an example, and Hans Eklind knows that too. Unfortunately, we are now losing that leading position far too quickly.

I didn't actually hear any answer other than what we have heard all the time, namely that nuclear power would solve our future climate problems and lower emissions. But nuclear power is, after all, very far off in the future.

What does the plan look like to actually reduce Sweden's emissions? What does the plan look like to climate-adapt so that Swedish farmers, households, and companies are not affected, both economically and in their assets and opportunities to operate, by what we actually face? It is easy to stand here and say fine words, but how do you want to address the reality that we actually see coming?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I actually don't think I even mentioned the word nuclear power in my first answer, but if I didn't, I will do so now.

I believe that this is the second most extensive environmental budget that a government has presented so far, and yet it is described as if one is giving up. I assert with determination that we give up the very second we engage in symbolic politics and do not ensure that the country can truly transition. I am completely convinced that the answer is electrification, and that is where nuclear power enters the picture.

I remember so well the applause from Janine Alm Ericson's party but also from the Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. You were so happy that by a margin of one vote you managed to ensure the early decommissioning of Ringhals 1 and 2. Energiforsk has stated that it has led to up to 50 percent higher energy prices in southern Sweden.

Now Janine Alm Ericson unfortunately does not have the opportunity to answer. But I would like the member, just as I, to reflect on a question. I have asked it to many environmentalists during the election campaign but never received a comprehensible answer. Can one point to a single country in all of world history that has pursued a good environmental and climate policy without having economic growth - a single country?

I believe, in fact, that we can transition and reach the environmental goals, but it can never happen if it occurs at the expense of households and if companies are unable to compete. In that case, neither the environmental nor the climate policy will become effective, or investments will be made in time.

I believe that economic growth linked to investments that lead to a smart climate transition is the way forward, not empty symbolic politics.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is now heading towards colder times, not just purely climatically. We are also entering something that, given the circumstances, can almost be called a Russian winter for the Swedish economy. In that context, one must still remember that those who have been hit hardest by the situation in Europe are, of course, the Ukrainian people. We have an immediate responsibility to help them militarily, economically, and practically. Right now, it concerns energy infrastructure, generators, and materials to repair destroyed power lines that have caused many millions of people to lack electricity and heat. If anyone listening to this believes they can contribute: Do it! The Government should do even more.

It hits hard against Sweden as well. Right now, the forecasts unfortunately point downwards. GDP will, according to most forecasters, decrease. The regional disparities will increase. Inflation will not land from today's high levels until some time far into next year. Consequently, interest rates will also not be dampened until much later than first thought. And the restless housing market in Sweden, with our highly leveraged households, will be subjected to very great strain. The crisis that may await during the coming years is almost forgotten in the debate.

This is not only noticeable in figures. It is also noticeable in conversations. Before the election, I met an entrepreneur in Falkenberg who was afraid of having to lay off staff and stop the business. I turned directly to him and said: "If we get the trust, we will do everything so that you can receive electricity price compensation directly, as soon as it is possible." At that time, it concerned a high-cost protection against electricity prices. We wanted it before the election, but it could also be obtained after the election. That is how it looks for him and thousands of different workplaces all over Sweden.

As Oscar Sjöstedt said: Trip, trap, trull - and so the promises from before the election were gone. Or as it is called in the fairy tale: It only lasted a thumb.

A thumb is not enough in such an economic situation. Many families are struggling to make ends meet. This applies in particular to many vulnerable people in rural areas who have bills of tens of thousands of kronor for electricity, fuel, and interest.

On some level, I believe everyone was prepared for it to become this economically tough in connection with the war and inflation. What I believe people were not prepared for, Madam Speaker, is that now that it is at its toughest in the economy, they would be left in the lurch, like a snowdrift by the roadside, in a completely cynical manner by the government and all the parties that promised so much. They promised that the diesel price would go down by 10 kronor. It became 40 öre. We have said it many times, but it has also been promised many times. A support for Swedish food production was to amount to billions, but it became nothing at all. An amortization freeze was to come, but it became nothing of that. The welfare would be protected, but it is being slaughtered now when people are at their most vulnerable.

One should also get the climate in order, as it was called on the posters. It became a rarely seen disorder when people who deny the climate crisis have direct power over the budget. Our most important and most powerful climate measure, the climate bonus, is removed. The tank is emptied of biofuel just when the Swedish forest industry wants to start creating more of our new green biofuel. Emissions will now increase. They will increase, while we ask the rest of the world to lower their emissions.

And then there was the electricity price cap that was supposed to come on November 1. When will it actually come? In February, it is said. But it is not certain. Maybe it will come in March, maybe later. Under all circumstances, nothing will come to those who live north of the Dalälven. There, people have no problems with electricity prices, we have heard. And it will come, as several have pointed out here, mostly to those who have saved the least. That is what the government has offered.

Yes, they have one more thing. We are to save electricity. We are to turn down the temperature and turn off the lights. But when we in Centerpartiet stood in this speaker's chair a year ago and said: Please, when we now direct a certain amount of support and tax cuts regarding electricity bills, direct a small part so that people will have a chance to buy heat pumps to save electricity, so that those who have the highest electricity bills can halve them. But then and later during the election campaign, you others did not just say no. You mocked us because it was our way of helping people to save electricity.

Now people are going to have to turn down the temperature, when you are unable to deliver anything on time at all when it comes to the electricity price support, neither to business owners nor private individuals. Now the political coldness that characterizes the Tidö Agreement is creeping right into the skin of the Swedish people. Rarely has one overpromised so much and under-delivered so grossly.

I believe that many voters would wish there were a cooling-off period regarding this election, a kind of right of exchange regarding the government, and a right of complaint regarding the budget. Unfortunately, we have no possibility of providing that in the chamber. But we can offer an alternative that believes in job creation and businesses, when those who call themselves conservative have stopped doing so. We can offer an alternative that believes that Sweden can lead the climate transition when the Finance Minister has stopped doing so.

We can offer an alternative that truly cares about the countryside, not just before the election but also after the election. For those of you who live in the countryside, who are dependent on the car and cannot take the subway or tram and who see the bills skyrocketing, we direct the billions for the government's tax cut on petrol and diesel from the cities, where they do not need it, to the countryside, where people really need it.

Then there will be a reduction of 3 kronor at the pump, instead of 14 öre. Then there will be a travel deduction of 30 kronor, instead of the government's 25, for you who live in the countryside and are dependent on the car. Then there will be 3 billion to Sweden's farmers, instead of nothing. Then the reduction of the tax on farmers' diesel will not only apply for half a year, but it will become permanent. Then there will be real competitiveness when we, in this difficult security policy situation, need our own Swedish food supply. Then there will be billion-investments, instead of the government's measly millions, on broadband, mobile coverage, and private roads.

For those of you who want to save electricity, we will have an enhanced green deduction, like an extra ROT deduction, so that even you who have a smaller economy can switch to that heat pump and the savings that allow you to manage to pay the electricity bill. For those of you who want to change cars and contribute to the climate transition, there shall be a climate bonus. And to the electric cars, our large battery factories, which our entrepreneurs want to build all around the country, can send the batteries. Then you can buy a regular electric car or hybrid car, which does not cost more than 500,000, so that people can afford it.

When the government removes the biofuel, we want to invest in Swedish biofuel. The billion-euro investments, which were just on the verge of being lost, shall ensure that not every krona when we fuel the car in Sweden goes to Putin or Saudi Arabia, but to Swedish, green production, to the Swedish forest industry.

Madam Speaker! Over time, it will however show that the most serious thing was not all the broken promises but the lack of hope and visions. Previously, throughout our history, when our economy has been tough and the country has needed to pull itself out of a crisis, bourgeois, liberal governments have had visions. It has been tough, but a path forward has been paved. During the deep state-financial crisis of the 1990s, the cleanup of the state finances began. In the financial crisis at the beginning of the 2000s, the bourgeois, liberal government took back the jobs with the help of the work line, where one moved from benefits to jobs.

But now, when the clock strikes 2022, some conservative parties have stopped being conservative, and the Liberals have stopped being liberal. Instead of a plan based on jobs, companies, growth, and diligence, and a path to take us out of the crisis, we got SD's plan. In the Tidö budget, the tax on work is not lowered, but rather raised by 6 billion in the deepest slump. The work principle is not protected but dismantled. Now, when it is at its darkest for the young and for the small companies that employ them and are most vulnerable, according to the forecasts and the Public Employment Service, the tax on employing exactly young people is shock-raised on March 31 by 12 percentage points. Then that employer contribution is added for the smallest companies that provide four out of five new jobs in Sweden.

This was needed to shock-increase the unemployment insurance and not reform it. This is what Jimmie Åkesson has ordered. For SD, benefits are always more important than jobs and small businesses.

Here we would have needed a bourgeois and liberal government. This also applies to the labor immigration, which everyone is now rushing into and which provides tens of thousands of Swedish jobs in Swedish companies. We receive experts, key workers in green industries, engineers, and IT developers. It contributes 34 billion to GDP and 12 billion in tax revenues. All of that is to be removed now, because SD has decided that no expert from any other country shall be able to earn under 33,000 kronor a month. There, three out of four nursing assistants who come as labor immigrants will disappear. There, craftsmen will disappear. There, thousands of experts within parts of the IT industry will disappear. Half of all work permits in Sweden will fall away, despite the fact that there is a shortage in precisely these industries.

Higher taxes, stricter rules and less competence supply is what the new Tidö budget entails. As Timbro's chief Benjamin Dousa said, this budget could just as well have been presented – excuse me, Mikael Damberg – by an S-government. No reforms are being made. I would, however, like to add: an S-government that is not dependent on Centerpartiet.

There is an alternative that dares to say how it actually is and that proposes concrete things that we can deliver. To be clear: We will lower the tax for small businesses. We will lower the tax for hiring young people by 12 percentage points. If our budget had applied, we would have lowered the tax over three years by 18.5 billion. Why? Not because the entrepreneurs demand it, but because we in Sweden need it to get through the crisis with the help of jobs and work, with the help of the work line, which you have all abandoned.

But no – despite the fact that we fight for jobs, the climate, the countryside, and the municipalities' chance to deliver school, healthcare, and elderly care with larger general state grants, we will not, like others, pretend that we can give everything to everyone. The butter becomes thin when it is spread over too many promises and too large slices of claims. So we will not do that. We will make our proposals concrete and funded. We will direct proposals to those who are most vulnerable in the countryside. Of course, we stand behind the investments in the police and the defense. We also want to ensure that civil defense gets its share.

To all of you who ask yourselves if Sweden cannot do any better than this, the answer is: Yes, we can, and we will fight for it.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! Sitting here as long as I have now, one becomes quite gloomy. It is not much fun what one hears. Something I try to remind people of in a slightly humorous way is that the outside world exists. Things and events are happening abroad. They affect Sweden and are perhaps completely decisive in many cases. When it comes to inflation, we have our own capable Riksbank. But sharper in their effect for Sweden are foreign central banks, such as the Federal Reserve in the USA and the ECB. We are dependent on what happens in other countries. I really want to emphasize that.

I also want to say that inflation will not forever be as high as it is today, because interest rates are rising even in other countries, not just in Sweden, and are forcing it down. It has not happened previously that one has had very high interest rates and simultaneously high inflation. Do not be so pessimistic! I understand that it is the opposition's role to paint a bleak picture of what is happening, but I would still like to urge a certain moderation.

Now I shall, however, move on to the more somber part of my speech.

From the public debate in Sweden, one could believe that welfare is a product of billions and only billions. There is nothing so persistent in Sweden as the complaining that municipalities, county councils and regions do not have enough money. But one can at times ask oneself why it is that they never have enough money. That is what I would like to address a little bit.

Welfare is, in fact, created by people who work - in connection with the previous speaker's speech about the work line - educate themselves and accept to work at, for example, inconvenient working hours. People who work and educate themselves are normally paid for this. They receive an after-tax salary that makes them want to stay in their profession. When one listens here, one thinks that everyone must be newly employed. No, they should stay in their profession. We must have such conditions that they can stay at their workplace and accept to work at odd hours and occasionally sacrifice weekends and holidays for work.

These people create direct human welfare, and there is a very severe shortage of such people in Sweden. As recently as yesterday, we saw a very unpleasant TV segment about precisely the shortage of people working in health and social care. It is a fundamental problem. But when one listens here, one gets the impression that the fundamental problem is that billions are missing.

There is a shortage of experienced nurses, as well as experienced teachers and experienced police officers and investigators. There are several shortage occupations in the welfare sector. What would the Social Democrats have wanted to do about these shortages if they had power today? Well, they would have wanted experienced specialist nurses, midwives, teachers and police officers to be burdened with a larger tax increase than the more inexperienced and less educated.

This will not lead to more people working. It will slow down the supply of experienced labor. According to the Social Democrats, the more educated and experienced should not receive compensation in their paychecks for today's high inflation, even though there is already an established rule in tax policy for how this should and ought to be done every year. This rule has usually been used, but shall now no longer be used if the Social Democrats get to decide.

With the Social Democrats' policy, the supply of people in shortage occupations, such as teachers, nurses and police officers, unfortunately decreases. Their policy would, if implemented, create an increased shortage within categories of experienced and educated people in the workforce. It is negative for the welfare, if one does not only measure in billions but also in people whose labor is available.

Now I come to a particularly important observation. Note well: Those who primarily suffer from the higher tax are not necessarily the experienced and educated persons themselves. We can pity them, those of us who want to – others do not want to. Those who primarily suffer are instead those people whose own personal welfare is affected and who are dependent on there being enough experienced and educated persons.

The Social Democrats' tax policy - it perhaps applies to more parties here - hits welfare twice in this way, first against those who work in typical shortage occupations and then also against those who are dependent on these shortage occupations functioning through sufficient work efforts from experienced and educated people. It is thus in two ways that the Social Democratic proposals counteract welfare. They do so for these people but above all for those who are dependent on their services.

If you look at it from a larger macro perspective, it reduces the number of welfare workers. They are moving away from the labor market to do something other than work in the welfare sector. This creates an exacerbated shortage of experienced and educated staff. The Social Democrats' fixation on high taxes also creates increased shortages in the welfare sector in this way.

The occupational groups that have shorter education or no education at all also certainly make very large contributions to Swedish public welfare. That can be seen if one goes out into care, hospitals, and other institutions. But they cannot take over the management or contribute to new knowledge, increased knowledge, and other critical tasks that require qualified efforts.

Welfare is, therefore, built by people who work and want to continue to work and educate themselves. Let these people keep today's share of a wage increase. Do not lower it, but fully compensate for today's rapid inflation in accordance with already existing practice and the agreed-upon budget rules.

Speaking of budget rules, we had a huge battle over the budget rules in 2013. One could say that the opposition then won, including the Socialdemokraterna. But when the election was over and Magdalena Andersson and Socialdemokraterna were in power, budget rules and strict rules were not so important anymore.

Since one has now lost government power again. Then strict budget rules for the budget process are suddenly not so important anymore. Now one gets help from inflation to raise the tax.

You in the Social Democrats think that budget rules should be strict when you yourselves are in power. But when you are in opposition, you are completely ready to compromise on the regulatory framework so that it fits your economic policy.

I and the government would rather that one be consistent and not cheat with the budget rules depending on the political situation and the economic cycle. I am not going to read out the regulatory framework that exists today. It is quite complicated and tricky to read, but it exists. As a former State Secretary in, among other places, the Ministry of Finance, I am quite dismayed to see how the regulatory framework is now cracking.

I think I'll stay there. I have tired the auditorium for so long already.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Carl B Hamilton!

I am still struck by one thing when I hear the speech here. I therefore want to ask a question about it. It sounds as if people would leave welfare jobs and move healthcare to other places, and that teachers leave the school, because the taxes are too high.

What we hear from those who are trained for healthcare and care professions and for teachers and preschool teachers is not that they are leaving the profession because the tax is too high. They are doing so because they have too low wages, too few colleagues and too poor working environment.

To get more people to work in welfare professions, we must improve things for those who work there. We simply must ensure that they receive higher wages and that they get more colleagues and a better working environment.

We have, among other things, a proposal in our budget motion, which the Liberals are welcome to look at. It is a huge problem when we do not have sufficient resources. That is the core. That the resources are not sufficient leads to us not getting enough staff. It leads to healthcare queues and so on.

I want to ask Carl B Hamilton how it is that he believes it is the high taxes that cause people to flee welfare professions when we actually know that it is completely other things.

Then I am also a bit surprised that Carl B Hamilton did not mention school at all. Otherwise, it is one of the Liberals' flagship issues. A great deal of very important things have been achieved there over the years. I would also like to ask a bit about the ambitions in the school area and how one views the cuts to welfare there.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! It was good that I got to clarify that. I am talking about salary after tax. If one has high taxes, people get less in their wallets when they get home. I was a bit surprised. But that is how I see the world.

People are more likely to stay in welfare jobs and educate themselves for them if they know that they receive a higher salary after tax. It is so elementary to me that people do not see the tax as equivalent to their own salary. Therefore, it matters.

I think that Johan Pehrson and company speak sufficiently about the school, so I refrain from doing so here today.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I meet many who are willing to pay higher taxes to get a better and stronger welfare. They feel that the cracks that exist now must be addressed. These are also people who work in healthcare and schools.

The fact remains that people seek other occupations because they want higher wages, better working conditions and more colleagues. That is what politics has to address.

With the government's budget, there will be a significant cut in welfare. This applies to healthcare but also to the school. Municipalities and regions will lack a lot of money and will have to save.

Should I interpret Carl B Hamilton's answer regarding the school as that it is completely acceptable for the Liberals that the cuts it will entail on the school, with larger class sizes and even more teachers and preschool teachers leaving the profession, are made?

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! It is about taking this seriously and wanting more people in the welfare sector, whether it is in healthcare, in elderly care, or in school, and seeing it at the macro level. If I were the Finance Minister, I would consider: How can I improve the working conditions? In that case, it is the net salary that is absolutely crucial.

I can go out and plead to people: Now you must work even though the pay is not particularly good. But they will not do it. I will not be able to change society and the conditions for healthcare and elderly care and attract more people with promises of - what?

You say that they are being given promises of more colleagues. Where are they going to come from? Why should they seek employment in healthcare if it does not pay off to work better in healthcare?

We obviously have completely different views on how it works here. I believe that if you want people, you have to pay for it, and that is about net pay. But you perhaps have a more idealistic view of how the Swedish people function during wage negotiations.

Regarding the school, we stand behind this budget and what is said there about the school.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate that Carl B Hamilton highlights his reflections and that I am given the opportunity to answer and rebut them.

When it comes to budget rules, we are for strict budget processes both when we are in opposition and when we are in the majority. I believe history has shown that we have never in modern times left behind public finances that are worse than when we took office. This also applies to the most recent parliamentary term that we were responsible for. But then it was not I who primarily had responsibility for the public finances, but Magdalena Andersson. We took over a budget deficit of approximately 60 billion kronor which we turned into a surplus, and the national debt decreased during our time despite the fact that we entered with a huge support package during the pandemic.

This shows that we know that in order to be able to guarantee the long-term financing of the welfare system, one must not be careless with the financing. For us, this is fundamental. I know that some other parties do not take this as strictly as we do, and that is why we also sometimes manage to discuss the financing of proposals that some other parties overlook. But if one is to do this long-term, it also requires financing for welfare commitments.

When it comes to the tax issue and the indexing, it becomes a bit strange that the government chooses to prioritize full inflation protection for precisely those who are high-earners in society, when all international actors refer to the fact that in this crisis situation when inflation is high, one must direct support to those groups in society who have it toughest, to those who cannot pay their bills. When one simultaneously tells group after group, including those in the labor market, that they must hold back on their wage demands, it becomes a bit strange that one burns through with full indexing and full inflation protection for the highest earners. It becomes strange.

It is not that they are left without a tax cut. They get an adjustment of the basic deduction, and they get an adjustment of the job tax deduction. But they might not get an additional thousand kronor beyond that when other groups have to stand back. It is this type of crisis policy that must hang together and be balanced.

(Applause)

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! Now I think it is starting to become interesting. My point is that the groups that are relevant here, where one so to speak releases the indexing, comprise precisely those shortage occupations that one in other contexts, on the next page in the program or whatever it is, is quite rightly concerned about. I mean, namely, that these shortage problems are actually more troublesome than many other problems.

Mikael Damberg said that the Social Democrats are always very concerned that the budget process will not work. When one looks back at history, I mean that this is a truth with a very large modification. Mikael Damberg referred to the fact that the Social Democrats have left behind a tight budget situation. But you have done that because you, in a position of government, have always envisioned that you will continue to govern. Therefore, you have never eroded the budget before an election. And you will surely do it next time as well if you believe that you will end up in a position of government. But now the election is over, and now the rulebook can be allowed to crack.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! This does not make sense at all. If we only wanted to win the election, we would simply spend all the money and take the credit for it ourselves. It is rather a receipt that we take responsibility for the finances regardless of which government takes office after us. That is the difference compared to conservative governments, which have often left behind deficits in the state finances and which have not been able to manage the financing.

When it comes to the question of wages and conditions and why it should be attractive to work in, for example, healthcare, a main criticism is that inflation is now also hitting the municipalities and regions very hard. This means that every healthcare region in Sweden expects a deficit next year. In that case, there will be no better conditions for the staff in a situation where one operates with a deficit. If one operates with a deficit, there will be no organizational reliefs for the staff, so that they feel it is pleasant to stay and get better scheduling. It will be exactly the opposite. And it will affect exactly the groups we are talking about here, i.e., specialist nurses and the well-educated teachers who feel that it is too rowdy in the school. It is these groups that need us to ensure we manage the economy for them during this tough time.

I do, however, share the view that it is not just about money. It is also about which regulatory frameworks we have, for example, to govern healthcare or schools, so that the money ends up where it is supposed to. It is also about other issues, about education within these sectors. Even here, the government is cutting back on education that leads to people being able to progress within the profession and gain better knowledge within the profession, i.e., exactly that which can make it possible for us to manage the staffing of elderly care and in healthcare.

(Applause)

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! I will take up the last point that Mikael Damberg raised, namely the shortage of professions. If I understood correctly, Mikael Damberg and the Social Democrats mean that the only way to address the shortage of professions is to give more money to the regions and to public healthcare.

I mean that one must consider these people's situation, that is, salary after tax. That is what you are not doing now. You are raising the tax more for them in shortage occupations than for others. Thus, you are worsening the shortage situation - precisely the opposite of what one should do.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! When the new government's first budget is laid before the Riksdag, there is war in Europe. Putin has chosen to invade a peaceful and democratic country, which now must do everything it can to defend itself. The Ukrainians are suffering under horrific conditions, and Putin is indiscriminately murdering both military personnel and civilians, children and young people, women and men. It is a horror we are witnessing at close range. And in addition to what is happening in Ukraine itself, this is having a major impact on food and energy prices - on the entire world economy.

The war in Ukraine is a crisis that we are in the midst of. But unfortunately, it is not the only one. We must see that behind the absolutely most acute one, there also stands a much larger and significantly more threatening crisis, namely the climate and environmental crisis. It is with great concern that I remind you that the situation we see today is a breeze compared to what we will find ourselves in in a few decades, especially if we let short-sighted and populist solutions guide politics. So it is now with the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas budget. It is a major setback for climate and environmental policy at a time when the climate transition must take large steps forward. Instead, the government wants to increase emissions. When the economy must quickly become more circular, they tear up the reforms that have been introduced in that direction.

We must be able to maintain our focus and think clearly. We must be able to handle multiple crises at the same time. We cannot make decisions that push negative consequences into the future and thereby worsen them even further.

We in Miljöpartiet take this to heart in our budget motion. We are building the new green folkhemmet. In a difficult time, we must stand strong together. Society and the transition we face cannot leave anyone behind. The climate transition we must carry out together.

We also have the means to carry it out. It is very tough economically in many ways for households and companies today, but Sweden has not had such a low public debt as we have right now since the end of the 70s. Then we cannot just sit and watch the enormous need to invest - in infrastructure, in the climate transition, in the preservation of nature, in carbon storage, and in a welfare that has been postponed for far too long.

It is not only we in Miljöpartiet who want a climate transition. The climate scientists are in agreement. The entire global community wants it. Sweden's industries do not just want to participate in the transition; they want to lead it.

In recent weeks, countless debate articles and appeals to the government have carried the same message: The transition must continue. Do not abandon the goals! Most recently in today's DN, the CEO of Scania, Christian Levin, says: "The industry cannot afford cowardly climate politicians."

Miljöpartiet wants to take a serious step to meet this. We want to invest 100 billion per year in the climate transition - so that Sweden can get a significantly larger and completely renewable energy system, a completely electrified transport sector and an emission-free industry, so that we can afford it and because what a small but determined country in the north can do is do everything to inspire change and influence climate policy in the right direction, both nationally and internationally.

Madam Speaker! Over the past year, we have seen the effects of the war on energy prices in Europe. Transitioning to renewables and making ourselves independent of the whims of dictators, which have enormous effects on our societies, has never been more important. In return, we get a sustainable, resilient energy system that lowers climate emissions and helps us mitigate the climate crisis.

We need to invest large sums in developing the energy system. We all know that production must increase, and therefore it is extra unfortunate that in recent years we have seen far too many municipalities in southern Sweden say no to wind power. We want to give the municipalities a more fair compensation for this, in order to increase the incentives. It is also a way to strengthen the municipalities' economy.

The public sector has a special responsibility to ensure that our common [power] is driven by electricity that is as sustainable and cheap as possible. Therefore, we want all suitable buildings owned by the state, the regions, or the municipalities to have solar panels on the roof. This could, in southern Sweden alone, provide new electricity production equivalent to a nuclear reactor.

New electricity is not the only way to alleviate the crisis. According to Energiforsk, energy efficiency measures are the best and fastest way to bring down electricity prices in southern Sweden. In order for us to be able to help companies and households reduce their costs, it is important that we quickly achieve more efficient electricity use. Miljöpartiet therefore proposes that the state should cover 80 percent of the cost for private energy efficiency measures. We also want to reintroduce and strengthen Energisteget, a reform program to energy-efficient the industry. Thus, Sweden will get more electricity, cheaper electricity, and a more efficient energy system.

We could have already come much further here. But when the right's napkin-sketch budget won, they removed the support that existed for energy efficiency. That turned out to be very unfortunate, to say the least.

But, Madam Speaker, it is not only the electricity bills that are rising. The costs for gasoline and diesel are also affected by Putin's war in Ukraine and the economic situation in Europe. Even when it comes to transport, we benefit from switching as soon as possible.

Instead, the government's budget locks people into yesterday's expensive technology, where we are also exposed to the whims of undemocratic leaders. We want instead to do everything to help people lower the cost of the sustainable alternative, the one we all must transition to.

In the cities, there are several other alternatives, but in the countryside, the private car is often the only alternative. When it comes to transitioning the vehicle fleet, we have proposals such as introducing a leasing check of max 1,500 kronor per month for households with low income. Many who have an old, gas-guzzling car cannot afford to buy a new electric car even with the electric car bonus. Leasing then becomes a cost-effective alternative.

We want to see an increased bonus in the bonus-malus system to provide more opportunities for people in rural areas to drive electric cars. We must also expand the charging infrastructure so that more people feel secure in choosing the electric car as a solution. We would also have preferred to see a travel deduction that truly gave the most to those who drive the longest distances and lack alternatives.

But we must also not forget those who have alternatives to the car, namely many of the people who live in the cities. Large investments are also required there. We want to simplify and improve public transport and make it cheaper for those who travel. We must invest in trains that run on time and facilitate cycling as a means of transport for shorter distances in the city.

Madam Speaker! When all prices rise, Sweden's municipalities and regions are also subjected to sharply increased costs. This complicates and reduces the possibilities to provide the residents with the school, healthcare, and care they need. We cannot have that. We must build up the welfare and the trust in what is our common. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has made the assessment that everything under 20 billion in general state grants will in practice mean a reduction. The Government allocates 6 billion, without actually stating where it should be cut. Instead, they talk about investments and things that are now to be addressed. But the figures say something completely different.

Our figures say more. We want to see 14 billion beyond the government for general grants to municipalities and regions, so that no cuts will have to be made. At the same time, we want to see large investments in staff within both the school, the healthcare, and the police.

Those who take care of our children – preschool teachers and teachers – are some of Sweden's most important professional groups. A good preschool and school lay the foundation for both the individual's and society's development. But many of our skilled teachers and educators want and are able to stay in school. We must change that. We want to make it attractive to be a teacher by securing increased salaries and a good working environment. For the preschool, we want an equivalent equity grant as exists for the school.

School is, however, more than learning for our children. Today, many students are suffering. We therefore also see a great need to strengthen student health and invest in more school nurses, special educators, psychologists, and counselors. These are good investments for the future.

The violence on our streets must come to an end. We want to see major investments in active prevention work to prevent even more young people from falling into gang violence. But that is not enough. We must continue to recruit more and better-paid police officers, not least investigators and area police who know their areas and build trust with the residents.

The government does not fully compensate anywhere for the tougher times. The reduction we will now see in the public sector is a betrayal of all those who expected the government to deliver on its election promises.

When inflation in society is high, it is extra important that those living with the fewest margins do not take the hit for the cost increases. Therefore, we want to direct a number of reinforcements of the safety systems to those who are sick, unemployed, or single parents so that they can cope with the tough times we are in the middle of.

We also want the guarantee level in the sickness and assistance allowance to be properly raised, that the child allowance and maintenance support be inflation-proofed, and that the waiting day be abolished. We want to see more resources for labor market policy measures so that more people can move from benefits to jobs, and we want the student grants to be increased by 300 kronor per month.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's wealthiest countries. Furthermore, we are at the top of almost all lists that can be found. We have resources, and we have enormous opportunities to help the world in the same transition that we—until the Tidö Agreement's inception, that is—were in the middle of.

This inadequate agreement cannot be the ambition we have before the world. We must maintain high ambitions and at the same time show international solidarity and cooperation with other countries in a common development. Our Swedish development cooperation is of world-class and contributes to reduced poverty, increased equality for women and girls worldwide, strengthened democracy, human rights and work against climate change and for biodiversity.

We in Miljöpartiet want to have back the feminist foreign and development policy and increase aid, not decrease it, as the government is now doing. We want to eventually increase aid to 1.25 percent of GNI. The world today sees enormous setbacks in the work against hunger, and the development towards the global sustainability goals is unfortunately going backwards rather than forwards. In that case, more international cooperation is needed, not less.

Equality is another of Sweden's hallmarks that is now at risk of being lost. Until September, we had a feminist government – an important signal to ourselves and the rest of the world that equality is a high priority in all areas. Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries, but we are also very far from equality. This is noticeable, not least when it comes to men's violence against women.

Approximately at the same time as Miljöpartiet was formed, the first kvinnojourer (women's shelters) also started their activities. During the decades that have passed, the kvinnojourer have met and supported hundreds of thousands of women and children exposed to violence, and the knowledge of the dynamics and causes of violence has deepened. But for a very long time, the kvinnojourer's voluntary forces bore the entire responsibility for the situation of the women exposed to violence while society looked the other way. Today, thanks to the work that has been done, there is a different understanding of the violence and the women's situation.

In the 2022 budget, the state grants to the women's and girls' shelters were permanented for the first time, and the appropriations increased. But the violence did not decrease, and we see that more support is needed. We therefore want to see an additional 70 million kronor, and we in Miljöpartiet will stand up for the fight for equality until justice is achieved.

Madam Speaker! This government's first budget is a clear betrayal - a betrayal of the climate and the environment but also of the welfare. It is not possible to say that one wants to strengthen it if one does not also allocate resources. During the pandemic, more investments were promised for those who worked hard and saved lives. Now it turns out that they, after all, only receive applause.

The budget is also a betrayal of the vulnerable and a betrayal of the voters, who believed in the beautiful promises they were given during the election campaign. It is a betrayal of the world's poor, a betrayal of those who flee here from war and oppression, a betrayal of international commitments and, above all, a betrayal of future generations.

But there is another way to go. It is a way that can provide a new green folkhem with faith in the future and confidence - a folkhem where we stop being dependent on crazy dictators and where we manage our own energy production. It is a folkhem where companies grow strong and show that it is possible to take into account both people and the environment and still have profitability, and a folkhem where one shows that industry can, and above all wants to, transition.

Ultimately, this is what this debate is about. Shall we have a spiritless, fearful, and unimaginative budget from the government that increases the gaps in society and gives up on climate and environment and therefore makes the future both more expensive and more difficult? Or shall we have a budget that builds Sweden strong and that has confidence and a belief in people's will and ability - a budget that sees the individual as an asset and that ensures we do our part in the climate and environmental work? It is, therefore, a green folkhem.

I know which alternative I want, and therefore I move for approval of our budget motion and thus for reservation 4 in the report.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! At the same time as we debate the budget here in the chamber, a terrible war is being fought in our neighborhood. Putin's brutal attacks against Ukraine affect millions of people, and many Ukrainians now have to celebrate Christmas in war. In the media reporting, we receive many stories and images from Ukraine with brutal abuses against the civilian population.

Madam Speaker! A considerable amount of my time over the past few weeks has been spent negotiating with other finance ministers in the EU to ensure that new support packages are put in place. It is absolutely crucial for Ukrainian soldiers to be able to keep their morale, but also the resistance, up during this cold winter. The government's promise is that Sweden will continue to support Ukraine both economically and militarily. I am pleased that there is a broad consensus here in Sweden's Riksdag regarding this.

Madam Speaker! Today, the Riksdag will make decisions on the framework for next year's budget. We are doing this in a situation with high inflation. We are heading into a recession. There are high electricity and fuel prices. Many around Sweden are feeling the tough situation right now. It is particularly noticeable as we head towards Christmas, with single mothers and fathers wondering if they will be able to buy Christmas presents for their children, and children wondering if they will be left out when their friends get those presents they had wished for.

Elements are being turned down, not only so that we can save electricity but also because many otherwise would not be able to manage the electricity bill. Small business owners are desperately turning over every krona to be able to pay out the December salary to their employees. My message is: We see you, and we hear you.

Madam Speaker! The tough economic situation, together with Sweden's huge, huge social problems, has characterized the budget that our four coalition parties have placed here on the Riksdag's table. In September, the voters gave our four parties a mandate – a mandate for change. After eight years where insecurity has taken root, eight years where the energy system has cracked, and eight years where no consideration has been taken for how hard-working people are affected by an unreasonable fuel policy, we now take the first steps in a new direction.

This budget, Madam Speaker, is being introduced in an economic environment that is tougher than it has been in many decades. Therefore, our task to not fuel inflation has been important, because if one fuels it, it becomes even tougher for the people who are being hit hard today.

Someone might wonder why inflation is bad. Well, what one earns and what one has saved up becomes worth less. The central banks raise the interest rate. This leads to reduced activity in the economy, and we enter a recession. If one does not get the inflation under control and it remains stuck long-term, it is extremely harmful for the economy of society. Let us hope that it does not become so. Fiscal policy should definitely not counteract monetary policy.

That is also why, Madam Speaker, our budget is restrained. We are running a surplus in this budget, and the reason is that we do not want to fuel inflation. But at the same time, the investments that we actually make are completely necessary, important, and real. They make Sweden better.

Madam Speaker! In the budget, we take the first steps to set Sweden on a new course. Just as I did when the budget was laid, I want to highlight five important areas and priorities in our budget.

Firstly: We support households and companies. The recession and inflation unfortunately hit those who were already struggling the hardest the hardest. Therefore, the budget means that the temporary increase in housing allowance for families with children is extended. Economically vulnerable groups such as those on long-term sick leave, guaranteed pensioners and students receive increased benefits in line with the increased inflation.

We are also taking a very important step by pushing back the fuel prices. We are increasing the mileage allowance from 18 to 25 kronor - and this has not been done since 2008 - so that people who commute to work and have long distances will receive compensation for this.

I know, Madam Speaker, that many, many are looking forward to Sweden receiving a lower reduction obligation. It will make a big difference.

While we are lowering the reduction obligation, it is being raised by four other parties here in the Riksdag. Then, of course, it will make a difference who is in power. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the electricity support will arrive in February when the payments can finally begin. But we are also doing a lot to increase electricity production in the short and long term.

In this budget, the waste incineration tax is removed, as is the carbon tax on combined heat and power plants so that they can produce more. At the same time, Svenska kraftnät has been tasked with procuring more electricity. We simply need more electricity production.

Secondly, Madam Speaker: We are strengthening the welfare. Regardless of the economic situation, the welfare must function. We are making substantial increases - 6 billion in general support and just as much in temporary support. This will make a difference and provide more healthcare places and a better school where more teachers get the opportunity to train as special education teachers and children get more textbooks. We are also investing in countering loneliness among the elderly, and I am personally very pleased with the investment we are making against homelessness. It is not worthy of a country like Sweden that so many are homeless, and especially that so many elderly people are homeless. To combat mental ill-health, we are making a permanent reinforcement to Bris, which actually saves their operations. Many children and young people are struggling with anxiety about the climate, the economy, and many other things. We take that anxiety seriously.

At the same time, Madam Speaker - and this is important - we also create with this budget a room for maneuver if the economic situation becomes worse than we believe today.

Thirdly: We strengthen security within the country's borders but also at and beyond Sweden's borders. It has almost become the new normal to read about fatal shootings and robberies involving humiliation, but it does not have to be so. Mothers should not be forced to see their sons drawn into gang crime. Parents should not have to bury their children because they have ended up in a shooting. Hardworking entrepreneurs should not have to see their shops being looted because it has become anarchy in the area. We must not become desensitized when we hear that another young person has been brutally robbed. It does not have to be so. Sweden can do better!

This requires action, and action is what this government engages in. That is why we are now launching the largest offensive in Swedish history against insecurity and organized crime. We are strengthening the police, the Swedish Security Service, the Prison and Probation Service - yes, the entire justice system. But we are also strengthening crime prevention work. The sentences must become more just. There should be a broad consensus on this here in the Riksdag. It also needs to be fair for the children. Children should not have to be drawn into these environments. Therefore, we are allocating money to strengthen parental responsibility and ensure that young people have more to do and a meaningful leisure time so that they will not be drawn into gang crime.

Mr. Speaker, security is not created only here within the country's borders. It is created at the border, and it is created together with other countries. Therefore, historical investments are being made in both the defense forces and civil defense. Furthermore, we shall here together ensure that Sweden is well-equipped when we are now to become members of Nato.

For the fourth, Madam Speaker: It is about the climate. Now the work begins to steer towards an effective and offensive climate policy. It is a task that we will devote ourselves to now for four years. This budget is a first step, and at the same time, we are working on an action plan with several more important steps to reduce emissions.

Let me be clear that there is much that is good about the previous government's climate initiatives which we are also building upon. It concerns Industriklivet and Klimatklivet, which will ensure that the transition is accelerated – because the transition is A and O in this. But there are also things that the previous government did that were counterproductive. This has already been debated a lot during these nearly three hours, so I will not remind of it. It is enough to say "nuclear power".

In this government, we are hopeful. We know that it is possible to increase electricity production, and we know that it is possible to get more clean electricity. That is how one can reach the climate goals, and we shall reach them. That is why we are taking the first step towards nuclear power. I think that can be worth applauding.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, we are investing heavily in technology that reduces emissions, for example carbon capture and expanded charging infrastructure. We protect the environment by, for example, allocating resources to restore wetlands and reduce eutrophication and emissions in the Baltic Sea. All of this is important and absolutely necessary.

Fifth, finally: It is about jobs, entrepreneurship, and growth. Both in the short and in the long term, we must focus on what creates prosperity. Prosperity in Sweden is created by hardworking people who start companies and who are entrepreneurs, but also by people who are employed, who set their alarm clock in the morning and who go to work every day and participate and contribute. That is how prosperity is created. That is why this government wants the business climate and competitiveness to be improved.

We are lowering the employer contribution for people who work with research and innovation so that the right people with the right skills will want to work at Swedish companies to an even greater extent. Through regulatory simplification work to make it easier to run a company, we can also ensure that more people get their first job and that more can support themselves. We want more people to have the opportunity to have a job – to be and become employable. Therefore, we are allocating more resources to vocational adult education and to internship placements. We know that start-up jobs are a very important tool for actually getting a place on the Swedish labor market.

Madam Speaker! Since we last met here in a debate, the opposition parties have also presented their budget proposals. It could hardly have been clearer: This is not a united government basis, so to speak, which is perhaps an understatement. On the side of opposition leader Magdalena Andersson, there is not a unified alternative that the Riksdag can take a stand on. On the contrary, it diverges in a marvelous way. But we have also heard this mentioned here before, so I will leave that aside. The only thing they agree on is to raise fuel prices, and we know that their joint budgets would fuel inflation.

This brings me to the conclusion of this speech; if you wonder how much longer I will be speaking, I am now entering for landing.

Madam Speaker! I am very happy and proud that this budget, which will make a difference for Sweden, will pass here today. There is a majority in Sweden's Riksdag for exactly this budget. It makes a difference. I know that a year ago people wondered what budget would pass. One perceived chaos and that it was a weak government that did not have support. But we have support. We have support to do the right things. We have support to support households and companies and to strengthen the welfare, and we have support for a new climate policy. That is what I am happy and proud of, but we cannot do everything in one budget. We do not promise and we do not do everything for everyone, but the budget is for everyone. It will make Sweden safer. It will take the first steps toward a better electricity supply, and it ensures that we support the most vulnerable.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by saying that I am hopeful. These are incredibly tough times for many people. These are tough times for many who live all around Sweden who are affected by crime or who cannot make ends meet financially. But we can manage this together. It is possible to turn the development around, because Sweden can do so much better!

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates have often spoken warmly about what is called long-term stable conditions for the business sector, especially when it comes to such things as capital-intensive industries where the investment horizon is long. We can for a moment disregard that historically it has ultimately been about wanting lower taxes for the companies' management teams. Let us take these words seriously; there is a logic there.

Against this background, it becomes somewhat peculiar that the Moderaterna now blame almost all problems in Sweden - and perhaps also in the world - on the energy agreements that, among others, the Moderaterna have been involved in concluding in recent times, not least for the purpose of guaranteeing long-term conditions for the business sector.

Even stranger it becomes when one considers that the agreement that the Moderaterna themselves were part of is to be replaced by, in fact, nothing more concrete than a very intensive use of the word nuclear power. In the budget bill that we are now debating, there is actually nothing other than some insignificant overhead costs, or whatever one shall call it, to possibly facilitate new nuclear power.

The government has also, in its own right, acted outside the budget bill in the energy area. There, it has involved withdrawing investigation assignments on the financing of offshore wind power on a Friday evening, which, in contrast to nuclear power, could actually be built in fewer years.

My questions to the Minister for Finance are: What is it that has happened with the Moderaterna, and has energy policy now shifted from the domains of industrial policy to a field for hopes and prayers?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ali Esbati, for the question!

Energy policy has now shifted to becoming realistic rather than utopian. If we in Sweden are to maintain competitiveness, for companies to grow and for households to have electricity – and not electricity that is too expensive – we must have more electricity production.

For very many years, wind power has been subsidized quite heavily; it is about approximately 60 billion when it comes to electricity certificates. I like wind power - just to say that - but it has been a very distorted market. We heard Mikael Damberg mention that it would be a lie that politics has abandoned nuclear power, but everyone knows that it matters what type of politics one pursues.

When it comes to nuclear power, there is a great deal of regulation, and it concerns market conditions. We are now starting work specifically for this. We are four parties that have a majority here in the chamber - for the first time in many decades, there is a majority in the Riksdag for nuclear power. It will be needed, both for the industries that Ali Esbati spoke about and for Swedish households.

This work is now being initiated with, for example, credit guarantees and new policies that make it possible to build. All of this has been started, and we will continue the incredibly important journey so that wind power, nuclear power, solar power, and hydropower can function together and so that we can meet the challenge we face.

It is about, as I said, growth, but it is to an even greater extent about transition. How are we in Sweden to reduce emissions if we do not have more clean electricity?

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! It is a somewhat odd use of words here. The utopian, which one is supposed to move away from, is actually about simply refraining from doing concrete things and instead removing what has been underway to achieve more clean electricity production. One devotes all one's - admittedly significant - energy to talking about what has happened with nuclear power in the past - not to talking about what conditions prevail for electricity production in Sweden today and in the coming years. This is what I have stated.

I note that things that have been in progress regarding offshore wind power are being withdrawn. One is also not doing anything concrete to get nuclear power construction started, and if one were to ever get this started, we know that it would take decades before it is in place. Many other things must be done, but these things are not being done. The opposite is being done.

The Finance Minister is also talking about how it would be a good thing to reduce emissions. I think that too, but all the policy presented in the budget bill that we happen to be standing here and debating points in the opposite direction.

It is this that becomes strange. It is what becomes difficult to understand, if one is to take the Finance Minister at her word. Then, there are many different words being used. One could possibly take the Finance Minister at her word when she previously said: "If we do not reach the climate goals, we do not reach them." It is more realistic to believe that these words are worth taking seriously. But what is said about us having an energy policy that is forward-looking is not followed up by concrete measures. It was this that was my question, and unfortunately, it received no good answer.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ali Esbati, for giving me two minutes to talk about our energy policy - I look forward to it!

My point is that for many years we have turned a blind eye to the fact that this will not work. If we are to be able to transition and electrify, which everyone in here seems to agree that we should, it requires more electricity. That requires more electricity production.

I do not know if Ali Esbati listened to my speech - probably not. There I mentioned that we are now removing, for example, the waste incineration tax and the carbon tax on combined heat and power plants. This will increase electricity production in the short term. We ensure that houses and homes can be made more energy-efficient; this will save electricity. We ensure that the deductions when installing solar cells become larger, so that more electricity is produced in the actual local area.

It requires a lot. It also requires nuclear power. I agree with Ali Esbati that this takes time, just as offshore wind power takes time. Both of these types of energy will take time; that is the problem. It is like with trust: It takes time to build up but is quick to tear down. That is why we repeatedly remind of the applause here in the chamber not so long ago when the chamber voted on Ringhals 1 and 2. The applause could come now when we take steps towards nuclear power.

In the budget, there is a discussion about credit guarantees. There is a very clear direction towards nuclear power, but most of what we do regarding nuclear power has nothing to do with this budget. Instead, it has to do with legislation, market pricing, and how we manage Vattenfall and the like. It is this that will make a difference for Swedish companies and Swedish households.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for the approval of the Center Party's reservations in favor of the Center Party's budget motion, where the tax on jobs and entrepreneurship is lowered and not raised, as it is in the government's budget bill.

At the beginning of the year, unemployment will rise, according to the forecasters and Arbetsförmedlingen. According to these assessors, it will rise in particular for the young, among whom unemployment already stands at the very high level of 22 percent. This level is among the highest in the Western world and in Europe. Why does one want, in this situation, when the crisis is heading towards its deepest phase and unemployment among young people is rising, to shock-increase the employer contributions to hire young people by 12 percentage points? Why does one want to add an extra employer contribution - which we removed - for the small companies, which create four out of five jobs, for the second employee?

As Elisabeth Svantesson herself just said, small business owners are desperately turning over every krona. Then you raise the tax on jobs and entrepreneurship by more than 6 billion kronor, quite obviously to finance a shock increase of the unemployment insurance instead of, as has been promised, reforming that same unemployment insurance.

My direct question is: Exactly what about this is it that is bourgeois, let alone liberal?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Martin Ådahl for the question.

That it would be most bourgeois to lower the employer contributions for a few months in 2023, one can certainly have a discussion about that. It could be that Martin Ådahl knows better than many of us in here exactly how the economic situation will develop.

As I have said many times, we have a room for maneuver with this budget if the economy turns downward more than we have anticipated. Let us return to this in that case. I rule nothing out. We have this reduction until the end of March, and then we must see what happens in the Swedish economy. Perhaps Martin Ådahl knows more about it than I do.

Something that is still very liberal policy, I think, is to ensure that Sweden becomes safer again - both for Swedish small business owners and for all of us who live here.

During the years that Martin Ådahl has supported a social democratic government and held it up, it has not been the case that Swedish entrepreneurs have felt particularly satisfied. This at least does not apply to those I meet. They are concerned about high fuel prices and about crime, which the Centerpartiet and the Socialdemokrater do not seem to have cared about.

Liberal politics for me is to ensure that Sweden becomes safe again, because that is the new issue of freedom.

I will continue to fight for Swedish companies. I did that during the pandemic, and Martin Ådahl probably knows more about that than most in this chamber. I will fight for Swedish jobs and for Swedish companies to be able to grow. But that it should be just this tax cut during just these months that determines whether one is liberal or not - no. So that does not define liberal policy, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I can be extra clear: It is absolutely not the case that we want to lower the tax on jobs and entrepreneurship for just a few months. That is what you propose in your budget. We want it long-term, so that companies dare to hire and get through the crisis.

If the government does not think there is enough of a crisis now, then the question is when it arrives for these small companies. They do not, as the Finance Minister expresses it, have any room for maneuver right now. According to the forecasters, they may be forced to let go of or refrain from hiring young people. The small companies may be forced not to grow.

Then the Minister for Finance changes the subject and talks about security, crime and punishment when we have been united on this, supported and pushed for 10,000 police officers and in reality want even more patrol officers who stand close to the companies.

I even said in my previous speech that this indicates that there is no real answer as to why a predominantly bourgeois and liberal government is raising taxes - in figures, not just in words and concern expressed from this rostrum, but in concrete kronor and öre. It is about 6 billion kronor in tax increases for entrepreneurship and jobs and an abandonment of the work principle where benefits, at the Sverigedemokraterna's request, now take precedence over jobs.

Why is it being raised by 6 billion kronor? Why is the employer contribution being shock-raised to hire young people? Why is the employer contribution being shock-raised for the second employee in the small, growing companies that account for four out of five employees? What, once again, is it about that which is conservative and liberal?

And one more addition to avoid it coming back: We want it long-term so that we can get through the crisis.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, for that clarity. I believe we all know - and that is good - what the Center Party's basic position on employer contributions is. We have lowered them many times together with the Center Party. I just wanted that said.

The work line - I appreciate that Martin Ådahl takes up that thread, because it is incredibly important for Swedish prosperity in the future. Today, the work line is very much about the fact that far too many people who have immigrated to Sweden never get a chance to enter the labor market. Many do not support themselves but live on benefits year after year.

Arbetsförmedlingen, which Martin Ådahl so gladly wanted to be involved in reforming, has let people down. The policy that he also supported during recent years has left people in long-term unemployment and social exclusion. The most important thing we can do for them is to create activity and ensure that they get out to workplaces or internship placements and learn Swedish.

It is also important to ensure that the benefit systems have a work-oriented profile. It should always pay to take a job instead of stacking benefits on top of each other. That is my answer. We will work very hard to implement a new benefit reform that actually encourages work.

And so briefly about the unemployment insurance: It is no secret that we are four different parties who have wanted slightly different things, but in this time of high inflation where the unemployment insurance is not indexed, there is a point. When Martin Ådahl voted through higher unemployment insurance a few years ago - it was actually two years, I believe - it was not a problem, but when we do it now, we are apparently anti-liberals. I actually do not think that is the truth, Madam Speaker.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Much of this debate has been about broken promises and the austerity measures that the welfare state faces, but I wanted to take hold of what the Minister for Finance said in the previous exchange regarding the fact that there is room for maneuver if the economy weakens further.

We already know through the budget bill that we are heading towards a recession and increased unemployment, and my question is: What in the budget is the government doing to meet that recession? What in the budget handles the risk of ending up in a worse economic situation?

Some examples that I bring up are that you are choking off the investment support, cutting back on labor market training, and scaling down the education policy. And now I saw that the business community is also reacting to the budget. They say it is the wrong time to reduce educational opportunities, because there are so many sectors that have a shortage of labor.

Apart from the electricity price, which is the most acute issue for the business community now and where they want answers on when the money will arrive so that they can make it through the winter, it is often about the ability to recruit the right personnel in order to be able to grow and hire more.

Why is the government cutting back on educational opportunities now as we head towards a recession? It must have the opposite effect for the economic policy. And above all – what does the Finance Minister say about Kristersson betraying the promise regarding the university college? Several industries in Swedish business are warning that it will become harder to recruit people both here and now and in the coming years.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damberg, for many wise questions. I would first like to welcome that the Social Democrats stand behind pretty much most of what we do in this budget. I think that is good. It shows an even greater majority for many of the things we do.

When it comes to the economy, I completely share the view that it is important for people to be active. It is not always the case that more money for Arbetsförmedlingen makes people more active. We have seen typical examples of this in recent years when money was funneled back from Arbetsförmedlingen because no one received the interventions they actually needed. It is very important to say, I think, that it is not always about the money itself but about what one does with it.

During Mikael Damberg's time in the government, the number of internship positions was almost halved, and the number of new-start jobs fell. What we know works, the government ended. It is then not strange that Sweden, instead of having the EU's lowest unemployment, almost got the EU's highest.

When it comes to educational places, Mikael Damberg probably knows how it is - I have high thoughts of you. You can read and see how many educational places there are now anyway. From the latest budget, which Mikael Damberg did not get through but which was nevertheless laid on the Riksdag's table, it appeared that very many of the places that the previous government gave money for were never filled. There are as many empty places as you like on everything from the police training to the universities. It is not good politics. Money should be used in the right way, and now there is a lot of money for educational places and labor market policy.

Finally, Madam Speaker - welfare is also very important. We are doubling the general supports in relation to last year's budget. Magdalena Andersson put 3 billion on the floor of the Riksdag just over a year ago. We are putting 6 billion on the general supports. We are also putting just as much on the temporary and other supports. That is 12 billion in investments.

It is our assessment. I may be wrong, and in that case, I will return here because I am the kind of person who admits when I am wrong. I will also take responsibility for what I am responsible for.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to welfare, I believe the Moderaterna are living in their own little bubble. There is no region that expects to run with a surplus or meet the budget for next year. The reason they still manage their finances reasonably well is the surpluses that we have built up. These are state grants that they have received previously and which they can use to cover the deficits you create. The risk is that welfare faces a steel bath because you do not take this into account. It is not smart economic policy either.

One is making roughly the same mistakes as in 2008-2009, and that is what I warn against now. I really hope that the Moderaterna back down from this and ensure that the welfare receives more money.

Now it concerns educational places. Yrkeshögskolan is an example that the business community warns that too little is being invested in.

It is one of the areas where we are expanding more. We know that nine out of ten who undergo a YH education get a job afterwards. It is the industries that tailor the YH educations based on the shortage situation in the labor market. That is where the money goes. Then it is important to have the strength to invest, especially when heading towards a recession. Otherwise, the individual is affected by increased unemployment or lost opportunities, but society also loses out on it. And if we get a less functioning labor market with poorer education, there is a risk that inflationary pressure increases, that we get higher inflation and thus higher interest rates.

I think it is a sign of weakness that the government has no idea how to meet a recession within the framework of the budget it presents. We risk paying for it. Not least, Swedish companies will find it even harder to recruit staff when they need it most in this situation.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damberg, for the claim, which I now correct! The government truly has an idea of how we meet the recession. We are strengthening adult vocational training, for example. I believe many know that more places are needed there. There are many who have come to Sweden and who need vocational training to get in. It is an important initiative together with internship placements and together with an active labor market policy.

We have a thought, and we have an idea. That is why we also double the general supports to municipalities and regions. Will it be enough? We will have to see how it develops. We will have to see how the economy develops. But we make the assessment that this, taken as a whole, should not need to reduce employment in the public sector.

And just to have it said: I have sat in the Committee on Finance for quite a few years. You who sit there now know that I have several times cooperated from right to left regarding precisely welfare. We stopped the Miljöpartiet's free year and ensured that welfare received funding. During the recent years, we have made a major investment together with Vänsterpartiet and Kristdemokraterna to strengthen elderly care.

Do not come and talk to me about us weakening the welfare! In recent years, we have contributed to a stronger welfare.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Prime Minister Kristersson was clear in Sunday's party leader debate that the Swedish climate goals shall be reached. It was good to hear because the Finance Minister has drifted a bit on the goal - if we do not reach them, then we do not reach them.

If we look at this budget, it seems that it is the Finance Minister who is the one deciding the government's policy, because it is going in completely the wrong direction. Over one-third of the reform space is going towards increased fossil subsidies, which result in increased emissions, continued dependence on oil states, and a welfare system that risks large cuts as a consequence.

In the government's rhetoric, the climate has become synonymous with investments in nuclear power, but no nuclear power in the world can reduce the emissions from the fossil fuel cars that roll on our streets today and that will be purchased in the coming years.

A car in Sweden has an average lifespan of about 17 years. The climate goal for the transport sector is to be reached in 8 years – that is something the Prime Minister has said we should achieve. But the government is lowering the fuel tax and wants to significantly reduce the reduction obligation. It simply does not add up.

I would like to ask Elisabeth Svantesson: How are Sweden's climate goals, adopted by the Riksdag in broad agreement, actually to be reached?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Janine Alm Ericson, for the opportunity to answer the very wise question!

There are perhaps few quotes in recent times that have been written about as much as this and that have been misinterpreted as much as this. But let me be clear: Of course, the government's ambition is that we should reach our climate goals.

But I also know that Janine Alm Ericson and I have had many discussions precisely about the car, because very many people are struggling. I usually mention the nursing assistant. It could be the bus driver who struggles to get to their shift at four o'clock and who must have their car. It may come as a surprise to Janine Alm Ericson, but not all nursing assistants and bus drivers can afford an electric car.

For us, it is incredibly important that the transition is accelerated - the transition of the transport sector but also of the industry. I look with pride at the Swedish industry, which is leading the way, and at Swedish households who, when they can acquire a hybrid or an electric car, and who are now struggling to install solar cells and heat pumps to keep down energy consumption but also to produce more. We can do this together.

I said earlier that it was a utopian energy policy. It might be better to say that it is naive. But we must include all people, and all people must be able to be part of this journey.

An absolute key is electrification. Janine Alm Ericson knows that I think so. To manage this, we need more clean electricity but also charging infrastructure. Many people can afford an electric car, but in many places in Sweden, there is no charging infrastructure between point A and point B. These can be quite long distances. I know this as someone who has spent much of my time in the northern parts of Sweden.

One can and must have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. One must push down emissions but also ensure that people can live their lives and make their own choices as well as they can during that time.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is very pleasing that Elisabeth Svantesson speaks about how one must be able to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time, because that is precisely what is needed here. I know that a question was asked as to whether anyone had listened to Elisabeth Svantesson's speech here, and that was it. But I must then ask if Elisabeth Svantesson has listened to my speech, because I took up precisely what she is saying now. The people who are dependent on their car must also be able to be part of this transition, the one that actually must be made for us to reach Sweden's climate goals.

What is remarkable is that the government says good things, as the Prime Minister did on TV, but then pursues an economic policy that goes in the opposite direction. Some parts are being done. Industriklivet is being maintained – that is incredibly important. But despite the fact that the government maintains it, we see how companies in Sweden today are desperate over the policy being pursued. They are constantly asking for a bold climate and environmental policy. But instead, one counteracts Swedish business's ambitions in this area.

We have been able to be at the forefront. It is an incredibly important part of our economic development, and it is important for Sweden to be able to stand strong in the competition ahead. We know that. The whole world knows that we must transition. If Swedish companies can be at the forefront, we have come a long way. But also everyone else must be able to keep up.

The question is actually: Which one is correct? Is it the government's stated ambitions to be a part of the climate transition and ensure that climate and environmental goals are met? Or is it what we see in practical politics, where the opposite is done?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions. It is obvious that Janine Alm Ericson has not read the budget bill. Large-scale investments in carbon capture are a key moving forward. The charging infrastructure is a very important key moving forward. Nuclear power is an important part.

Speaking of courage: I met a colleague from another country who was a member of the Centre Party and who was in favor of nuclear power. I know that many of the Greens around Europe are in favor of nuclear power. I think it would be courageous if the Green Party in Sweden could join that side that now wants more nuclear power, so that we get clean electricity and so that we can transition the vehicle fleet, industry, and our homes faster. That, Madam Speaker, I think would be courageous.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Even though the grandiose and extensive election promises that, among others, Elisabeth Svantesson put forward during the election campaign have now failed to meet reality, we can discern the contours of the bourgeois social construction in the budget bill, where the common project and welfare are to pay the price.

Perhaps this is most clearly embodied in their view on how they want to inflation-protect the incomes for those who already earn the most, while the concern for ordinary wage earners, who at best may have to settle for a nominal wage increase of 4 percent, is completely absent.

The Minister for Finance spoke in his opening remarks about justice, among other things. Here, there is obviously something that grates. Where is the justice in inflation-protecting the incomes for those who already earn so well, but showing no concern whatsoever for ordinary wage-earning groups?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a question that has been debated for a few hours, so I shall be quite brief.

This is an income tax law that you yourselves have followed for many years. We have followed these systems. The interesting thing, therefore, is not what Niklas Karlsson is now telling me, but the interesting thing is that Niklas Karlsson will actively want to raise the tax for very many wage earners from January 1, for example for midwives and police officers. The effect of Niklas Karlsson's policy is also that more people will pay state income tax.

I have full respect for the fact that we disagree on this issue and that you want to change the law after the turn of the year. Our coalition partners do not want that. However, this is not part of a negotiation or an active decision in that way, and Niklas Karlsson knows that. This is how the systems work.

As said: You promised before the election not to raise taxes, and that is exactly what you now want to do.

Madam Speaker! If there is anything this budget does, it is to meet reality. I just want that said. This budget ensures that children get more schoolbooks, that we get more police, that we can expand prisons. This budget ensures that more can feel safe here in the country after eight years when insecurity has taken root.

This budget meets reality. I meet reality. I have responsibility now, and I intend to take responsibility. I do not intend to do as Mikael Damberg did, who in his speech blamed Fredrik Reinfeldt. I intend to take responsibility for what I see now, and therefore we are now presenting a budget that is restrained and that has room for action but which at the same time can prioritize the very most important things for Sweden, for Swedish households and for Swedish companies.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It becomes obvious how the Minister for Finance is trying to dodge the issues and how she has searched with a flashlight for police officers and midwives who earn more than 53,000 kronor a month.

I amused myself by looking at SCB to see what the median wage is in Sweden - 33,200 kronor. But it is the occupational groups that earn the most - managers within banking, finance and insurance, general, county and municipal directors, IT managers, professors, ministers and Elisabeth Svantesson's colleagues, us Members of Parliament - who receive an income that is inflation-protected, while the occupational groups that have a median wage that does not even amount to half of where each bracket limit is today are home service personnel, cafe and pastry assistants, machine operators and restaurant and kitchen assistants. The care for these occupational groups is conspicuously absent in the budget bill, but we who already earn well shall have it even better.

For me, it is not justice. But it obviously is for the bourgeois government.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, honorable member who sits in the Committee on Taxation and therefore should have some knowledge, I might think, on how many people pay state tax!

My husband is a psychiatric nurse. He earns below the limit, I must admit, but many nurses actually earn more. It is not I who have made that up, and it is not I who have made up that many police officers earn more than what Niklas Karlsson now mentions.

I know that many are struggling with their finances. That is not what we are talking about now. But there are also many, more than in this chamber, who would have to pay state income tax if Niklas Karlsson were in charge. Now he is not, fortunately.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I can state that the Social Democrats have had a high tone here in the debate. The last thing they did when they handed over power was to raise fuel prices by 1.30, and they continue to have a reduction obligation that makes it impossible for people to use their cars. They are raising the tax on fuel.

You are welcome to argue that we are pursuing the wrong policy. But the voters said something else. Now we will get Sweden in order!

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! There is a tradition among Social Democrats to complain about the situation when they have taken over after a bourgeois government. Olof Palme said: "They have not only eaten up what was on the table. They have emptied the pantry, eaten their way through the storeroom, let the fields lie fallow and chewed their way through other countries' bank vaults on credit cards issued to the Swedish taxpayers." Effective, but not true.

Not as witty, but in the same spirit, Magdalena Andersson complained when she became Finance Minister in 2014. "It has become very clear that the barn is completely empty. It is not a set table we are coming to - it is completely stripped bare," she said. Nor was that statement true.

Now we have four coalition parties that have taken over after a Social Democratic government. If I were to continue with the table metaphors, I would say that the table, left by the Social Democrats, stands in a very cold and very dark room, because Sweden's secure electricity supply under the Social Democrats, in the Green Party's leadership, has completely collapsed from being one of the world's cheapest and most reliable to the point that the Scanians and others in Southern Sweden are paying 6 kronor per kilowatt-hour these days and planned power outages are being prepared because there is not enough electricity for everyone. Furthermore, the table is set with dishes that are neither appetizing, easy to chew, nor easy to digest: unemployment, enormous exclusion, and system-threatening crime.

That is why the coalition parties have presented a responsible and well-considered budget that will get Sweden on the right track. It is a budget that prioritizes the most important things - supporting households in tough times and investing in the areas that were neglected by the previous government, the justice system and defense. And this must be done within the framework of a budget that does not risk fueling inflation.

Why is it then so important to fight inflation? During the last ten years, households have built up a large level of debt. The low interest rate has enabled people to realize their housing dreams and buy their homes despite high prices.

But raised interest rates and eroded purchasing power due to rising inflation, driven by the extreme energy prices, risk leading to people selling their homes. People may be forced to leave houses and homes, something that can quickly lead to a price collapse on apartments and houses. A downward spiral leading to a new real estate and mortgage crisis could be a fact, something that those who have been there before know must be avoided at all costs.

When the increased housing costs, raised interest rates and rents, as well as electricity and fuel costs have been paid, a significantly smaller sum of money remains in the household budget. This is to suffice for food and other necessities that have become much more expensive due to inflation.

Then one cuts back on other consumption. There will be no new clothes for the children, no restaurant visits, and no trips. It hits the companies, which, without customers and revenue, are forced to lay off staff. Unemployment becomes even higher, and it is a nightmare situation both for those affected and for the country's economy.

The risk of a mortgage crisis and the households' severely eroded purchasing power mean that there are things that are more important than anything else to take into account in this year's budget, namely to keep inflation in check, to re-establish the work principle, and to secure the energy supply.

Therefore, we cannot fulfill all expectations for lowered and abolished taxes in this budget, but we will fulfill all our promises when the economy allows. I think it is important to be open and honest about that and also to explain why we are forced to prioritize.

And we have prioritized that which promotes the work line and gets more people to go to work. People who have long distances to their workplace and live in places without public transport have had to pay higher marginal taxes because it costs them more to acquire their income. This is because the travel deduction is significantly lower than the cost of getting to work. It would have been even more unfair for people who are dependent on the car if the travel-neutral model had been introduced. Thank goodness it will not be introduced.

Furthermore, the standard amount that can be deducted for costs of business trips with a private car is increased from 18.50 SEK to 25 SEK per kilometer. The deduction for fuel for business trips with a company car is increased to 12 SEK per kilometer for gasoline and diesel-powered cars. Employees who charge their own car or a company car at the workplace shall not be taxed for the benefit of that.

Another priority that promotes the work line is the enhanced earned income tax credit for people who are 65 years and older. Given the skills shortage on the labor market, it is important to stimulate people to work longer.

Madam Speaker! A statement attributed to Percy Barnevik reads: We have cheap electricity, we have clean electricity, we have secure electricity, we have, in short, the energy supply that all other countries would want to have. And our main concern is how we can get out of this situation in the shortest possible time.

Regardless of who the author of the statement is; one thing is certain, namely that Sweden has emerged from this situation. The parties that pushed for the decommissioning of well-functioning nuclear power were punished at the autumn election. The coalition parties agree to invest heavily in nuclear power, but these investments take time.

During this time, it is important to gather all the small streams. One of these is the abolition of the waste incineration tax. It is a tax whose introduction caused power and heating plants to revise their investment plans, which has negatively affected the power situation.

To alleviate the ongoing electricity crisis, the carbon tax on fuel in combined heat and power plants and heating plants is being abolished. By abolishing the tax, the profitability of these operations is improved, which can create conditions to increase simultaneous electricity production in combined heat and power plants. And increased electricity production is something that is truly needed.

Madam Speaker! It is a strength that there is a majority in the Riksdag that stands behind the budget. It is a budget that is based on Sweden's problems. We also have a government that is firmly determined to do what it can to reverse the negative development that we have seen in Sweden for many years. This budget invests in the most important things without fueling inflation.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal on all points.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We have now come to what some of us consider to be the important part of the budget debate - though perhaps not everyone agrees - namely, the tax policy.

For me as a social democrat, I believe in the idea of defining common affairs that are important for all of us. These common affairs are ones we are prepared to finance together. We finance the welfare and the security together.

This social contract, this idea of the common, the Swedish and Scandinavian welfare model, is based on a number of principles that have given people tools to free themselves from the shackles of economic subordination. It has created perhaps the world's most equal, free, and generous society.

This is based on a public service principle, that is to say that we allocate resources together, for common affairs that we believe should be used for what they are intended for, and that we contribute jointly according to our ability so that welfare is there where it is needed, distributed according to need.

Opposed to this Swedish welfare model stands a bourgeois, conservative view of society, where market logic shall govern how welfare resources are distributed, where the common project and common concerns are significantly fewer, where those who have the most also get the most. Ultimately, it is a question of a social construction that implies that the opportunity to succeed in life depends on one's own ability. Everyone is the architect of their own fortune.

This is also visible in the tax policy, even if the, as I said in my exchange with the Minister for Finance, very cumbersome and extensive election promises that were put forward during the election campaign failed to meet reality. But the ambition is clear. Tax cuts for high-income earners take precedence over families with children. One falls back to the principle that those who already have the most should also get the most. It is a policy that divides and retreats into the future.

Madam Speaker! In order to build a better Sweden, we need stable and long-term financing of our common commitments. Step by step, we Social Democrats therefore want to increase the legitimacy of the tax system by ensuring that welfare and security are financed according to ability to pay, while simultaneously making it harder to commit tax fraud and tax evasion.

To ensure the long-term financing of the welfare state and our common commitments, we Social Democrats seek a broad political tax reform, built on the principles of uniformity, neutrality, and consistency with as few exceptions and special rules as possible. But it must also be built on the principle that burdens are borne according to ability, where we consider how those with the highest incomes and wealth can contribute more to the general welfare.

For example, we do not consider it the right priority to let the indexing of the threshold for high-income earners go through fully, which is why we propose that it be paused for 2023. We propose that the tax gap for persons with sickness and activity compensation be closed. The Funkskatt shall be abolished. We want to reduce the possibility for foreign shareholders to avoid Swedish withholding tax on dividends through tax planning. We want to introduce a readiness tax where a first step is to look at the so-called 3:12 rules. It is a tax that shall be paid by those who have the greatest capacity to pay. It shall be easy to pay and administer and difficult to tax plan around, and primarily contribute to the financing of the defense's important growth.

Furthermore, the Swedish Tax Agency should be given better legal conditions to follow up more effectively on those who have been approved for so-called F-tax. All of this is because it is fair and because it upholds the principle that we shall bear the burdens according to ability and distribute welfare according to need.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the fiscal significance of tax policy, that is, how we choose to finance the welfare—what we define as common commitments—the opposite relationship naturally also holds. Every tax cut that any politician places on the table of the Riksdag and wants to implement must, of course, also be paid for. When those who already have much are to receive more, it is not those who have a little less who are to forgo the little they already have.

Every time we hear calls for tax cuts, we must also ask ourselves: Who will pay for it? And that must be answered. Will there be fewer resources for the school? Will there be fewer teachers and larger classes? Is it healthcare, which already faces great challenges, that will pay the price? Or is it the elderly, who have worked and built this country and deserve good and secure elderly care, who will have to forgo that help at the nursing home or not be able to pay for the home care so that it can be charged?

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude in a way that might possibly be perceived as high-flown, but which in a concise and almost poetic way summarizes what I believe in and represent as a Social Democrat. The fact is that the Swedish welfare model has developed over decades and has been sculpted and perhaps best embodied by the former Prime Minister and Social Democrat Per Albin Hansson, who already in 1928 expressed himself as follows:

Here we do not know any privileged or marginalized, no favorites and no stepchildren. There, one does not look down on the other, there no one tries to gain an advantage at the expense of others, the strong does not press down and plunder the weak. Here equality, consideration, cooperation, and helpfulness prevail. If Swedish society is to become the good community home, the class difference must be removed, social care developed, and an economic equalization take place.

It may happen that someone raises their eyebrows at the high-flown language, and it may happen that someone feels a sting of pride. But my point is that the line that Prime Minister Hansson established has become guiding for the development of welfare in Sweden. And it is still a portrait of what characterizes social democracy, in its theory formation and in its practical design.

The purpose of politics is to make life better for the great majority. And we thus avoid having to give up large parts of our lives to take care of loved ones who need services in a market that they cannot afford to buy. Welfare, the common concerns, is something we do together. Healthcare, school, and care are important for people's opportunities in life. Life chances, in fact, become smaller when they do not exist.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I was actually moved by the quote that Niklas Karlsson read out. I think it was better with the old Social Democrats, who thought that one should do one's duty and then demand one's right, instead of the new system that Niklas Karlsson and many of his party comrades have introduced: Demand your right - that is your duty.

I and Niklas Karlsson have different views on justice. For Niklas Karlsson, justice is obviously that everyone has an equal amount in the end, regardless of whether one has exerted oneself, worked hard and taken risks. Everyone shall have an equal amount in the end.

For me, justice is that people should have the same opportunities. There should be a good school, and there should be a basic security: when people send their children to this school, they are not robbed, assaulted, and humiliated on the way. For me, it is important that the state takes care of the basic responsibility that lies with it: to ensure that people are safe and to have a good defense and a good justice policy.

To return to my question: In the Socialdemokraternas budget, they want to tax approximately 1.3 million wage earners - nurses, police officers, industrial workers, teachers. Does Niklas Karlsson think this is morally right?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! That the Moderate Boriana Åberg liked that I read out the quote by Per Albin Hansson from 1928 is perhaps not surprising, as he is not the first Social Democrat who has been quoted in today's debate. Boriana Åberg had looked up Olof Palme's old speeches, and it pleases me that Social Democrats can inspire bourgeois politicians.

But it is not enough to read the critical speeches that Social Democratic representatives have used against bourgeois representatives in various parliamentary debates. One must read a bit more, and preferably one should also understand what is written there. Justice for me as a Social Democrat is not that everyone should have an equal amount in the end – that life should look the same for everyone. In that case, one has, at best, read but far from understood from the bourgeois side.

For me, life is built on a principle of equality. And equality is about people being given life chances to be able to live a good and meaningful life. Since the prerequisites for Boriana Åberg, for me Niklas Karlsson, and all other people in society are quite different, we also need different types of support to have a good and meaningful life. The social democratic idea, therefore, is not built on everyone's lives having to look the same. It is built on the idea that everyone should receive the conditions they need to have a good life.

This is not what Boriana Åberg and the Moderaterna stand for. They believe that everyone should be the architect of their own fortune. We see this throughout their politics. When the Moderaterna now choose to highlight examples in the debate to confront me, the focus is on inflation protection for those who earn the most. It illustrates very clearly what the Moderaterna stand for. To those who already have everything given, as it stands in the Gospel of Matthew. It is a pretty good summary of what your politics mean.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! For us Moderates, it is important that it pays to work - that work is appreciated and that effort, dedication, diligence and integrity are rewarded.

That I quote Olof Palme and recognize the quote by Per Albin Hansson shows, I think, that I have made an effort to get to know my opponent. I wish that Niklas Karlsson had also read bourgeois politicians' speeches and been able to refer to them in a positive way.

For us Moderates, it is not important that a - not so small - part of the population is taxed as much as possible. It is important to have a broad tax base, where more people work and contribute to the common prosperity. This the Social Democrats have destroyed with the benefits that make it not worthwhile to take the step from benefits to work. In Malmö, for example, social benefits are paid out to people who do not have the right to stay in Sweden and are avoiding deportation.

The Social Democrats have betrayed their own heritage by betraying the work line, which was actually fundamental for Per Albin Hansson. But we have taken over the work line, and we try to defend it by all means by letting people who work and exert themselves keep a small part of the fruits of their labor.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Åberg is truly reaching for the stars and looking for the wrong things. There are plenty of quotes from Social Democratic representatives that the member could have used and which would have fit better. Instead, she finds a statement about how one has eaten their way through the pantry and how the fields stand fallow that could not be more misplaced.

Sweden's economy is very strong. We have not eaten through any pantry. We have a state debt of 23 percent and a consolidated gross debt of just over 30 percent. If this development continues, we have introduced a debt anchor in the fiscal framework which means that the state is forced to borrow so that one has a debt amounting to 35 percent plus minus 5 percent. We also have a high employment rate. We can stack the statistics on top of each other, and as usual, the bourgeois government has been given good conditions. We shall have to see how it looks in four years.

I will agree with Member Åberg on one point, and that is the importance of broad tax bases. I doubt anyone in this chamber has a different opinion. Everyone should contribute, but one should do so according to their ability. But I cannot reconcile it when Member Åberg says that it is important to work and that it should in some way be an argument for why we should not bear the burdens according to our ability. Why is that reasonable? If I am a bit larger and stronger, do I not also have a somewhat greater responsibility in the care of others?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Member Niklas Karlsson speaks about how our tax system should be uniform and neutral and that the burdens should be borne according to ability. I think that sounds wise and good. The member also says that the tax should cover our common affairs. That is true, and for me, the common affairs are the external and internal defense, the school, and the care. But the member, like the Social Democrats in their budget motion, proposes that the cost for Sweden's defense should be paid by Sweden's small business owners.

I am just as knowledgeable as the member regarding old quotes, but let me quote from the Social Democrats' budget motion: "The Government should return to the Riksdag with proposals on the design of a new readiness tax, where a first reasonable step as part of such a solution would be to look at the regulatory framework surrounding 3:12 before 2024. The readiness tax shall be paid by those who have the greatest capacity to pay. It shall be simple to pay and administer, difficult to tax plan around, and shall contribute with financing to the defense of 6-8 billion kronor."

I do not understand how the Social Democrats and the member have managed to conclude that the country's small business owners are those with the greatest capacity, and that one should therefore target the 3:12 rules. What is the thinking when one wants to place the burden for the country's defense on our small business owners?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The financing of the defense through a readiness tax has been known since earlier. We Social Democrats went to the election on this, and it is based on the principle that one should bear burdens according to one's ability.

The wealth tax that the Liberals fought so hard to abolish so that those with high incomes would receive a substantial tax cut, we want to reintroduce, precisely based on the principle that we should bear burdens according to our ability.

In this context, we have also identified that the 3:12 rules may be something to look at, as it is a very generous system. One should probably be careful about saying that it is the small businesses that are affected and first see what the reality actually looks like.

A few weeks ago, I had a lunch meeting with an entrepreneur in Landskrona. We have been in contact for some time, and he wanted to hear how things were going in the Riksdag with my new responsibilities in the Committee on Taxation. For some reason, we ended up talking about the 3:12 rules, which mean that one can pay tax on income from capital instead of income from employment. He is not a small business owner but a shareholder in a closely held company. He is covered by the 3:12 rules, but he turns over quite a lot of money. Today's tax system meant that he could take out a profit of 10 million instead of him being able to contribute a bit more if we had had more just tax rules. For him, it was no problem.

I believe it is important that we dare to lift all the stones and reason about how this ability shall be borne fairly. If it is the case that sole traders have a much more generous tax than ordinary wage earners, it is reasonable to also discuss that.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I am still amazed that the Social Democrats, in their budget motion, consider those with the most purchasing power in Sweden to be small or closely-held companies that use the 3:12 rules. Member Karlsson may have spoken with a closely-held company owner in Landskrona, and I am quite sure that he can pay higher tax if he wants to.

I have also spoken with a number of small-scale and sole proprietorship owners around the country. Four out of five jobs are created in small companies, and it is they that sustain Sweden both by creating employment and hiring and by paying tax to our common welfare system.

Member of Parliament Karlsson said in his speech that we should have a common, solidary tax system where we bear the burdens according to our ability. But is the defense of the country not something fundamental that should be funded by our current tax system? We should not have to impose an extra tax on small-scale and low-income entrepreneurs in order to be able to protect Sweden.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that the old principle which first the Folkpartiet and then the Liberals stood for, that we should have a tax system that is uniform and consistent, no longer applies to them. Here they defend the exception and the special rule that the 3:12 rules are and think it is reasonable that ordinary wage earners pay more tax than small business owners.

I think it is unfair. I think there is a point in the tax system being uniform, neutral and consistent, and that we therefore must dare to discuss such things.

If the Liberals are not prepared to levy another small tax to finance the defense, all of us others in the chamber wonder curiously: How will it then be financed? Who will pay for the defense? Is it elderly care? Is it the state grants to the municipalities? Is it the social security systems? Is it the unemployment insurance? Who will pay for the reinforcements of the defense if we do not dare to discuss a tax policy and a tax system based on uniformity, similarity, and neutrality?

For me, this is not social democratic justice, but today I have understood that it is bourgeois justice.

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Our country is in a difficult economic situation, and the forecast for the future is worrying. High inflation hits households' everyday lives as the prices for food, travel, and housing increase at a rapid pace. It is a situation where vulnerable groups need to receive support to get through this difficult time. There are, of course, several ways to do this, as we have seen in the different budget options.

The government parties and the Sweden Democrats intend to achieve this by reforming the taxes and regulations that have driven up cost levels in our country, not least regarding transport costs.

I intended to mention some of the tax reforms proposed in the budget bill. Several of them are necessary as a first step in mitigating the effect of inflation and correcting imbalances in the system.

Madam Speaker! The sale of electric and hybrid cars has increased, and today many own just such a car, for natural reasons primarily in larger cities. Electric cars are not entirely cheap to buy, and for it to be profitable, one needs to be able to offset the investment cost against the operating costs. Unfortunately, the calculation changes for the worse with the drastically increased costs for electricity that we have seen. In that case, it can be advantageous to charge one's electric car at work when one has driven the car there anyway, but even there one encounters problems. This is because it leads to benefit taxation if one does not pay for the charging at the workplace, and how much it actually costs the employer is also difficult to calculate.

To facilitate the transition to a fossil-free vehicle fleet and favor business trips with electric cars over less environmentally friendly alternatives, a temporary exemption from taxation of the benefit of charging at the workplace should be introduced. Such an exemption is also expected to reduce the administrative burden for both employers and employees when reporting this type of benefit.

Madam Speaker! The intention behind the introduction of the job tax credit was that it should be higher for older people in order to get more in this group to remain in the labor market instead of going into retirement. Since 2009, the regular job tax credit has been strengthened on several occasions, while no increase has been made to the tax relief for older people. This has led to the fact that the job tax credit for older people today is lower than the job tax credit for persons with work incomes exceeding 30,000 kronor per month. To rectify this distortion, it is proposed in the budget bill that the job tax credit shall be strengthened for persons who have reached the age of 65 at the beginning of the tax year.

Madam Speaker! Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in combination with the weak Swedish krona, has had major effects on fuel prices. Now, the entire price increase should not be blamed on Russia's violation of international law in its attack on Ukraine, even though it is a strongly contributing cause. The increase began as early as the spring of 2021 when both the price of gasoline and the price of diesel were below 16 kronor. Before the turn of the year, the price for gasoline had gone up by approximately 2 kronor per liter and the price for diesel by around 4 kronor per liter.

Another blow came on 1 January 2022. That was when the effect of the increased reduction obligation kicked in and raised the price of diesel by an additional approximately 1.20 kronor per liter. For gasoline, the price increase was more modest and ended at approximately 35 öre per liter, with the reservation that the prices are approximate.

Overall, fuel prices have been a major contributing factor to the increased costs for households. Furthermore, the increased fuel prices affect different parts of the country with varying severity. Primarily, it is those who live in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas, where public transport is lacking, who are affected. They often have no other alternative than to take the car to work or to drop the children off at football practice.

Madam Speaker! With the current gasoline prices, it has never been as expensive as today to get to work for those who lack access to public transport. In order to alleviate the costs for necessary travel to and from work, the travel deduction is therefore maintained, and the mileage allowance is increased significantly from today's 1.85 kronor per kilometer to 2.50 kronor per kilometer. No such increase has been made since 2008, when fuel prices were between 10 and 14 kronor.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only those who are dependent on the car as a means of transport who are affected by the high fuel prices. On the contrary, they hit our entire society broadly. Every link in the production chains, from producer to end customer, is affected by the increased prices on fuels. It can be costs for fuels for our farmers when they produce the food we eat. It can also be costs for transport of all kinds of goods that cause prices in retail to increase.

But even public services are affected. Last winter, many contractors were concerned about the increased costs for fuel, which largely made it impossible to fulfill contracts regarding, for example, snow removal without incurring large losses. Without snow removal, most of the country's municipalities face major problems, as you all know.

There are more similar examples that lead to increased costs in subsequent links in production and service chains. Therefore, it is important to powerfully counteract price increases on fuels.

Madam Speaker! In the budget bill, it is proposed that the temporarily increased reduction of tax on diesel used in work machinery etc. within, among other things, agriculture and forestry shall be extended throughout 2023. The Government will also work to ensure that these taxes remain at the EU minimum level during 2024 and 2025. This creates necessary conditions for the green industries in a restless time when our self-sufficiency rate is alarmingly low and needs to increase significantly. It also mitigates the price development resulting from the high gasoline and diesel prices, while it can be expected to counteract inflation somewhat.

Madam Speaker! I have just described some of the measures to address the effects of the high fuel prices. Let me also say a few words about perhaps the most talked-about proposal in the budget bill, namely the proposal to lower the tax on gasoline and diesel.

It has been said to be a betrayal of the voters since larger reductions than those now proposed were promised. In the budget bill, a reduction of the energy tax for gasoline and diesel of 80 öre is proposed based on the tax rates that would have applied from January 1, 2023, with applicable indexation rules. Without this reduction, the price for fuels would go up further at the turn of the year. The increase would be approximately 1 krona per liter for diesel at the pump.

We have now, in a first step, proposed a reduced tax on precisely these fuels to compensate for the index increase of the petrol tax which would otherwise have increased prices at the pump. I am aware that it is not as large a reduction as we spoke about during the election campaign, but we are continuing our work and will return with more proposals to lower fuel prices further.

The next step is a reduction of the reduction obligation from 1 January 2024, something that unfortunately is not possible right now. This will have an effect and provide further reductions of fuel prices.

(Applause)

In this speech, David Lång and Eric Westroth (both SD) agreed.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! There is much to say, and several exchanges of remarks are already complete. There are many proposals in the budget bill that I find noteworthy, but there is one that really stands out. Furthermore, I recoiled when I watched the budget debate last year and saw how the Sverigedemokraternas representatives handled this issue. It concerns the tax for sickness and activity compensation.

The Sweden Democrats chose to actively reintroduce a higher tax for those who are ill and receive sickness and activity compensation, the so-called "funkisskatten" (disability tax). With sugar-coated promises, they tried to tell these people during the election campaign that they stand on their side and will do what they can to make their lives more bearable. But when reality strikes, which it apparently does quite a lot in the Sweden Democrats' office, none of these promises were kept.

Now we see that the funkisskatt remains. I wonder: Where is the Sweden Democrat justice in that those living under meager conditions on sickness and activity benefits should pay higher taxes than, for example, an ordinary wage earner?

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Karlsson, for the question!

The budget bill is the result of a negotiation between four different parties and has been prepared in a very short time.

We will, of course, have reason to return to this further ahead. There are several things that we need to return to, as we are not completely finished with the measures that need to be taken to rectify the problems that have arisen during the last eight years.

There is no actual disability tax; what exists are tax differences between those who work and those who do not work. There are plenty of people with disabilities who contribute to the labor market and pay the same tax as everyone else, and a lower tax than those who are unemployed and not disabled.

It is a bit strange to see people with disabilities as a problem in this way. Many of them do a great and good job in our society, and we should truly be grateful for the contributions they make.

I do not want to say, as I have said, that there is any real functional tax, but we will continue to work on this issue.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is said that the Lord's ways are inscrutable, but sometimes I wonder if this also applies to the Sweden Democrats. In his speech, Per Söderlund tries to conjure away the funkis tax. It does not exist – that is incorrect. Everyone who pays it will surely be astonished when they hear this. They surely want advice from the Sweden Democrats on how they should behave now. Do they pay this tax or not?

At the same time, the member says that if it now exists, it should be removed. He says that this has been the subject of negotiations but that they have not succeeded this time.

The problem is only that the funkis tax did not come now. You reintroduced the funkis tax last year before this budget year. In the debate, the Sweden Democrat member also argued that this was common sense. For me, it is not common sense. For me, it is wrong. For me, the funkis tax exists, and in my opinion, it should be removed.

What is it actually for the Sweden Democrats? Does it exist, or does it not exist? And if it does exist, should it be removed or should it not be removed? And why, in that case, was it not done last year when it was chosen, together with the other bourgeois parties, to reintroduce it?

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Member Niklas Karlsson is well acquainted with how budget negotiations between different parties proceed, after the Social Democrats have negotiated with other parties during the last two parliamentary terms.

No, I would not call it a real disability tax. It is usually called that. But it is not all those who are disabled who pay this tax. That is what I am saying. Many of them work and have a regular income anyway. In that case, I do not want to speak of a real disability tax.

Then there are, naturally, differences in taxes that need to be leveled out. We will, as I say, return to that.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by congratulating all Members of Parliament on a tax cut of 1,400 kronor per month next year. Or congratulations and congratulations, it is, after all, a small Christmas present that you are giving yourselves and all other high-income earners. Last week, the Finance Committee had the opportunity to stop the tax cut but chose to vote down the proposal.

The tax cut is a result of the threshold for state tax increasing by just over 10 percentage points. The more one earns, the larger the tax cut one receives. It is clear that high-income earners should be compensated for inflation, argue the bourgeois parties, while those who earn under 46,200 kronor receive up to a couple of hundred kronor in inflation compensation. Those who already have difficulty making ends meet will have to tighten their belts even more.

Preschool teachers, teachers, nurses, nursing assistants and other professional groups in the welfare sector get hardly a crown, but instead see the gap to those with higher salaries increase even more, while the government does not provide enough to municipalities and regions so that they can meet the welfare sector's challenges. Employees in the welfare sector will have fewer colleagues, more pressured schedules and less room for wage increases, tougher with the economy at home and tougher with the economy at work.

It would require 20-30 billion kronor for municipalities and regions to be able to avoid cuts during 2023. The government is injecting 12 billion kronor.

The tax cut for high-income earners, which I began with, costs 13 billion kronor for 2023. That is, therefore, more than what the Sweden Democrats and the government are contributing to schools, healthcare, and elderly care. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to instead freeze the threshold for state tax and allocate these funds to welfare. In total, we are allocating 24 billion kronor more than the government to welfare - a 33 billion kronor increase, in addition to other investments we are making in municipalities and regions, for example public transport.

Madam Speaker! For some years now, Sweden has been at the top of the world when it comes to the number of billionaires in relation to the population. In June 2021, 542 Swedes were billionaires, of whom approximately 80 were also dollar billionaires. At that time, the number of billionaires was also increasing rapidly, by approximately 14 people per month. That was the observation of the journalist Andreas Cervenka. If one looks at that increase, we can perhaps count on there being nearly 200 more since then.

With a lot of money come also capital incomes. 95 percent of the capital incomes are held by the 10 percent who earn the most, and a full 59 percent of Sweden's capital incomes went to the 1 percent of Swedes who earn the most. According to Skatteverket, it is also the richest 10 percent who have the most assets in ISK accounts - closer to 75 percent.

Our distribution of wealth and capital income is among the most skewed in the world. Today, taxation on capital income is low and actually non-existent on wealth. The underfunding of the welfare state, the climate crisis, and the high unemployment are linked to tax cuts and completely abolished taxes for the wealthy. Rut and rot deductions involve further redistribution from low-income earners to high-income earners.

Vänsterpartiet presents proposals on how taxes can become more just. This concerns both that all types of income should be taxed equally without different special solutions and that there should be a uniform capital and wealth tax. We believe that the tax gap needs to be closed for all incomes, for example sickness and rehabilitation allowance, unemployment insurance, and parental insurance. This means lower taxes for groups with small economic margins. Of course, we also need a tax deduction for the union fee.

Lower taxes do not yield higher tax revenues. It should be a self-evident fact. But in the new Sweden, we have a government that argues that by lowering the incomes for those living on the margin or below, they are pressured to work more, while those who already earn a lot should be encouraged to work more through lower taxes. It is a reverse Robin Hood policy - take from those who do not have and give to those who already have.

A recently published English study concludes that tax cuts for the wealthy increase economic inequality without significantly affecting unemployment or economic growth. In the United Kingdom, for the record, the Prime Minister resigned when she wanted to lower taxes for high-income earners. Here in Sweden, it passes with a shrug of the shoulders.

Madam Speaker! This budget also hits the climate hard. Vänsterpartiet believes that Sweden should follow the climate policy framework that was adopted by the Swedish Riksdag in 2017 with a broad majority. In that case, we must, among other things, reduce emissions from road traffic more than they are reduced today. A distance-based and mode-neutral travel deduction is an effective steering tool to lower greenhouse gas emissions for work commuting. The new right-conservative government chooses to retain the current travel deduction and furthermore significantly increase the deduction per kilometer, but only for work trips by car. Car drivers are favored at the expense of everyone who could receive compensation for travel by bus, train, taxi, or bicycle.

Vänsterpartiet regrets that the government chooses to retain the current travel deduction instead of replacing it with a travel-means-neutral distance-based tax reduction.

Even the government's proposal to lower petrol and diesel tax counteracts the green transition. We need policy instruments that are good for the climate and that reduce the gaps between urban and rural areas. Therefore, compensatory measures may also be needed to take the perspective of fairness into account.

The abolished waste incineration tax, the reduced tax on diesel, and the scrapped carbon tax in power and heating plants are some of the abolished or reduced taxes that will increase emissions, increase energy use, and reduce the possibilities for Sweden to reach the climate goals. These are ill-considered tax proposals from the right-conservative government. Or are they perhaps well-considered by a government led by a party that does not believe in climate change and Sweden's part in slowing them down?

Vänsterpartiet sees a need for a comprehensive tax reform that levels economic and regional disparities and promotes sustainable resource utilization with low environmental and climate impact in accordance with our climate goals.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for the approval of the Left Party's reservations in the report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ali Esbati (V) concurred.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

Sweden faces several challenges. High inflation and rising interest rates are pressuring households and companies, and Swedish welfare needs resources. Together with the new government, we now begin the work of turning the development for our country in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! Unemployment in Sweden is high compared to other European countries. This applies particularly to those who are foreign-born. Economic policy needs to focus on reforms that provide for small businesses, research, and investments. It will be particularly important to create a more favorable tax climate moving forward.

Madam Speaker! None of the government's initiatives would have been possible if it were not for all the taxpayers across Sweden. The money we are debating today does not belong to any of us, but it is the taxpayers' money – those who get up every morning to go to work. Our responsibility is to try to prioritize in the best way with their money.

With our budget, we take steps to break the situation that has prevailed in Swedish politics for a long time and which has led to us having a growth rate that is among the lowest in Europe and an unemployment rate that is among the highest. We allocate resources to reduce unemployment, combat crime, and improve the situation for our population.

Madam Speaker! We need to safeguard the trust in our welfare system. Therefore, we must ensure that payments are only made to those persons who are entitled to support. The Christian Democrats have long spoken about this, and the government now prioritizes strengthening the authorities' work to reduce incorrect payments and counteract tax fraud. I am pleased that funds are allocated in the budget, among other things, to improve the population registry through a census.

Madam Speaker! Today's travel deduction facilitates those who commute longer distances to their work or are considering doing so. The travel deduction system should therefore be protected and strengthened for those who do not have access to public transport. The mileage compensation is increased significantly within the existing travel deduction system, which we have heard earlier today - from 18.50 to 25 kronor per mile.

To facilitate for those who have long work commutes or live far from services, we are lowering the tax on fuels by 1 krona at the pump. It is naturally not enough, and it is only part of what we want to do. That also involves the reduction obligation and the VAT, which affect the total price. Furthermore, the extended reduction of tax on diesel used in work machinery within agriculture and forestry is being extended. This provides better conditions for this industry, which is very important for our country.

Mr. Speaker! In order to accelerate Sweden's climate transition, we propose, among other things, a reduction in the buyer's cost for solar cells, which would stimulate demand. Therefore, the tax reduction for an installation of solar cells is increased from 15 to 20 percent. We also grant tax exemption for a charger at the workplace as a benefit, in order to increase the transition to fossil-free cars. The waste incineration tax is abolished by repealing the Act on tax on waste that is incinerated. All of this constitutes investments we are making for a better climate in our country and so that we can reach the set climate goals.

Mr. Speaker! There is hope for Sweden. Together we can make our country better. For all our taxpayers in this country, we make the priorities we make in this budget. I move, as I have said, for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I told someone earlier that it almost feels like the curse is coming after the rock band. By the rock band, I mean the Finance Committee, which has already focused very much on the issues we are debating now. But repetition is the mother of learning, so we go again!

Today I heard a woman on the radio who was very worried about her finances. She had three teenage children, and she said that the tragic thing, and what hurt so much, was that she might not be able to afford all the meals now when they are going to be off from school during the Christmas break. Her finances were that tough. Given the electricity bills we see now and given the fuel prices and food prices, it is perhaps not so strange. It is clear that it is tough for everyone, but for some, it is appalling.

We find ourselves in a very serious situation now, and we need to focus on what is truly important. That also includes reduced climate emissions. More people need a job to go to, and people must be able to manage their household finances.

Centerpartiet thinks that the proposal to lower the tax for those who work and are over 65 years old, as many have mentioned, is incredibly welcome. If nothing had been done about this, it would have meant that these people would rather have received increased taxes if they had continued to work. It is completely unreasonable considering that there are certain work categories where there is actually a very large shortage of people and where people who choose to retire later do great good.

Mr. Speaker! As a member of the Centre Party, I must just say a little bit about travel deductions and reduced tax on fuels.

In the government's budget, the compensation is increased from 18.50 to 25 kronor per mile. That is good. The Center Party has, however, gone a little step further: We choose a model developed by Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner which distinguishes between country and city. We are actually directing the entire travel deduction towards the countryside, that is, towards those who perhaps do not have public transport as an alternative and who many times have very far to work. This applies not least to northern Sweden, which I myself come from. In Västerbotten alone, the inland municipalities, which are six in number, cover an area larger than Denmark - and it is only the inland municipalities. Then one perhaps understands that these are very large distances.

We have the same thought when it comes to fuels. I know that the government intends to lower the reduction obligation next year, and at the upcoming turn of the year, the fuel cost at the pump will be lowered by 1 krona. If we are honest, it will be a bit less, however, because one must deduct the indexation that would have been. Therefore, we actually propose the same thinking there: We shall focus on a 3 kronor reduction for those people who live and live in the countryside, because they need that reduction the most. You who live in or near cities have a completely different range in the form of public transport than what people have in northern Sweden or in the countryside anywhere else.

I heard in the Finance Committee's debate that someone dismissed the proposal that the Center Party had, namely that this should be done through some kind of value certificate that people should be able to have. But do you know what? I absolutely believe that it is possible. We have gone to the moon, and furthermore, we are on our way to Mars. If someone were to say that it is completely impossible to construct some kind of value certificate for us rural folk, they would then have to come up with a better argument.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to go into a bit about the deduction for green technology.

The government wants to raise the level of the deduction for solar cells from 15 to 20 percent, and that is well-intentioned. The problem is only that it might be possible to use this increase for something better because the industry, the solar cell industry, does not even demand this increased level of the deduction. They have sufficient problems with delivering and installing solar cells for people because there has been such an enormous demand.

Then Centerpartiet thinks that we could perhaps focus on other things that are energy-efficient. One could broaden this deduction for green technology to include, for example, products for water saving or apps for smart-home solutions. One could set the car to charge at night if one happens to have an electric car or control the heat pump so that it shuts down at breakfast time when it is a peak load hour, that is, when very many are using the electricity and the price skyrockets. That could also be used when one is away at work and, for example, turn off the heat pump for a quarter of an hour now and then. These are just a few suggestions.

When it comes to the waste incineration tax, Mr. Speaker, the government wants it to be abolished. The Centre Party rejects that. We think that one could review the design of this tax and, instead of removing the tax for waste incineration, reward that which is already sorted – food for one, plastic for another, and so on. That would be significantly more environmentally friendly. Then one would also address that part.

Furthermore, the Centre Party considers, not least against the background of the strained electricity situation in southern Sweden, that it was unfortunate that full tax was imposed on bio-oils. We would like them to be tax-exempt. Had the tax on bio-oils been abolished, we would have received significantly more electricity. It would also have been more environmentally friendly, as in fact there are significantly fewer companies today that want to burn oil and coal. Therefore, it would have been better to make it cheaper to burn renewables than to burn fossil fuels.

I also want to say a few things about the reduction of the tax on diesel in agriculture and forestry.

The government wants to extend this during 2023, possibly for the entire year, and the Center Party thinks that is very good. We stand behind that. We were involved in introducing the temporary diesel deduction for agriculture and forestry last year. We saw that our farmers and foresters were down on their knees. That was also largely a consequence of the input goods becoming so very expensive due to the war in Ukraine. We also saw the need to maintain and strengthen our food production under these special conditions.

But the Centre Party wants to go further. We simply want to make the reduction of the diesel tax permanent for our farmers. It is not really that strange. We are one of the countries in Europe that imports the most food, and that makes us very vulnerable. We need to increase our own food production. Food is the most important thing we have – without food, we would starve if war were to break out. We believe that food production is part of the total defense, and therefore it is not sufficient to be as dependent on food imports as we are today.

A few months ago, I heard from LRF in Västerbotten that there were twelve farmers engaged in milk production who had signaled that they would shut down their farms. Twelve of them! What does it look like in the rest of the country? It is absolutely not okay. It is rather a frightening development and completely unacceptable.

Is it the case that you would like to promote Swedish agriculture and Swedish food security, and just as we see that it is an important part of our defense, we hope that you also see that an agricultural business is not just any business. If we want to keep our farmers and expand so that we get more farmers in Sweden, we need to think differently and perhaps be a bit more inspired by, for example, Finland. This is just a message to the sitting government.

In conclusion, I would like to propose that the Riksdag decides on a direction for the tax policy that corresponds with the Center Party's proposal. I do not believe that you will do so, but one can always hope. I stand behind the Center Party's motion.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! We have a difficult economic time ahead of us. It will be challenging in many ways to manage what is happening in the world around us with Russia's dreadful war against Ukraine and the energy prices that follow in its wake for the rest of Europe and for us.

On top of that, we in Sweden have an extra burden with our domestic energy crisis, which has been created by foolish political decisions. We face a literally dark winter with a greater risk of disconnection in southern Sweden than before and increasingly strained wallets for Swedish households.

Sweden is leaving a historical period behind. Interest rates have been very low, and indebtedness has been rewarded in that way. This has led to high indebtedness among households and that companies have grown at a high speed. Now a more normalized period awaits, but many households will enter it with large private debts as the Riksbank raises interest rates.

In these times, it is reasonable to present a tight budget. It does not help to pour more gasoline on the fire when the skyrocketing prices need to be held back. One does not need to do more than open a newspaper or speak with a citizen to understand that the cost crisis right now is the most important issue that needs to be managed in everyday life.

The government is therefore presenting a wise policy in a very difficult situation. To present an expansive budget in this situation, as we see some of the opposition parties doing, is to betray the most vulnerable who are affected the most by higher prices with this inflation.

It must become easier to run businesses, and those who work must be able to live on their wages. The work line is more crucial now than it has been in a long time. No one benefits from a policy that drives people into unemployment. Therefore, I am very pleased that there is a majority for this budget proposal and that the opposition's fragmented budget proposals with inflation-driving and destructive proposals will not become a reality.

Mr. Speaker! We can start with the income tax. In recent weeks, we have heard that we are favoring the very richest by lowering taxes. This is to state untruths. To call a CPI-adjustment of the threshold a tax cut is either a sign of great ignorance or pure lies. I do not know which is worse. I am glad that parts of the opposition today have called it what it is. It honors them. I hope that their party colleagues listen to the members of the Committee on Taxation, who know how things stand.

Many important parts of our sustainable welfare system's levels are linked to price developments. It is very important to speak in the right terms and be truthful towards the inhabitants.

The Liberals believe that predictability and stability in our economy are important. It is the opposition that instead wants to reduce the margins for important social builders such as midwives, police officers, and engineers. The various calculations made every year - not only for the state income tax but also for CSN grants for the country's knowledge keepers, guaranteed pension for the elderly who need extra support, and many more - shall cover cost increases and inflation in society.

In the end, it is our nation-builders who are affected. It is over 1.3 million people with professions that sustain our society - experienced police officers, teachers, midwives and engineers. It is those with these shortage occupations who would be affected by the opposition's tax increases, because that is exactly what it is. It would become even harder to attract people to these shortage occupations.

It is a stroke of luck for all of Sweden's nation-builders that you in the opposition do not come to power and that you therefore cannot reduce people's margins in these difficult times.

Mr. Speaker! I want to continue with the preparedness tax, which S wants to investigate in its budget proposal and which I asked the Social Democrats' Niklas Karlsson about. Let me point out again that the Social Democrats therefore consider that those with the most carrying capacity in Sweden are the small businesses that use the 3:12 rules.

I am astonished when I read this. Where is the sense of reality? Is it all the small businesses all over the country with their employees that carry Sweden that we are to hit now as we head towards a recession? The member answered me with the question of where we should take the money, as if it is either from defense or elderly care, either from defense or school. The Liberals do not see it that way. We are not to set different social functions against each other. We must have a policy that favors companies and work, education and the labor market - a policy that ensures we can afford all our social obligations. The important thing is the total tax base that comes into the state.

Thank goodness there is a majority in the Riksdag that knows how important our companies and employees are to get us through this crisis. We shall help them now, not hinder them.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight two initiatives that I think are very good for Sweden and for our continued competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker! I am very pleased with the reinforced R&D deduction that we propose in the budget. We are a small, export-dependent nation that benefits greatly from our success in driving forward both small companies and large companies that do not see Sweden as their only market, but the whole world.

Sweden shall continue to compete with its products and innovations. Therefore, it is good that the government increases the investment in precisely those companies that create tomorrow's progress. It makes us even more competitive internationally and opens up for even more companies to invest their money in Sweden, which leads to more tax revenues and more jobs.

Then it is also about how we strengthen the energy supply in the budget. The idea was that the tax on waste incineration would lead to increased material recycling, that if it were to cost more to burn the waste, the companies would recycle more. But the Swedish Tax Agency's review clearly shows that instead it has led to more expensive waste management and increased administration.

What we can see, however, is how this tax has not succeeded in increasing recycling. Combined heat and power is currently a hidden asset to quickly produce more predictable electricity production where it is needed most to stabilize the electricity system in the difficult time we find ourselves in now. It is especially important for us in the southern parts of Sweden.

In recent days, electricity prices have broken all records across the entire country. By the government now removing the misguided taxes and policy measures, combined heat and power can contribute the equivalent of electricity from up to two new nuclear reactors without us needing to build new facilities, without taking up new land, and without building new power grids. This is very important in the critical situation we are currently in, where the risk of disconnection is actually real.

Mr. Speaker! The budget being presented is a responsible budget for the entire Swedish people. We are now entering tougher times, and thanks to the government's restraint, we stand well-equipped. There is also room for further reforms if required.

In the future, we will be able to provide even greater incentives for work and diligence, because we in the Liberals know that it is not the tax levels that are decisive, but how much tax money we get into the system in the best way.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I take a bit of cover from Helena, who said that first came the rock band and then the curse. Then I wonder what the equivalent is for the one who speaks last today. Could it be happy hour or something like that?

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my support for the Green Party's budget proposal and also for reservations 4 and 8.

Miljöpartiet has a vision. We shall transition society so that we can manage the climate and the environment. We shall reach the climate goals that we have set, and we shall deliver what we have committed to through the Paris Agreement. We shall transition industry so that it can become even more competitive in a world that needs new solutions to meet the climate goals. We shall also transition in a fair way, so that we do not leave any groups in society behind.

It is important to understand that climate change is a reality that has already begun to manifest. The whole world is already being affected, including Sweden, and it will only get worse if we do not succeed in limiting climate change.

If we do not open the envelope and pay the bill today, they will come from debt collection and then from the Enforcement Authority, and the late payment interest will become astronomical. Our ability to pay that debt could become non-existent. The problem is that the debt will affect our children and grandchildren. We are putting unborn generations into debt for circumstances that we are responsible for. It is shameful.

In the efforts for a just transition, tax policy is a central tool. It is therefore with dismay that I note that the government chooses to allocate a full 6.7 billion kronor of the reform space to lowering the tax on gasoline and diesel. The sum makes it the government's single largest reform.

It is a very problematic reform for several different reasons. First and foremost, it will of course increase emissions and send a completely wrong signal about the transition that we are in the middle of. The government likes to talk about wanting to invest in electrification, but it seems mostly to be a lip service followed by this type of action which directly reduces the incentives to switch to electricity as a power source. Additionally, it increases the demand for fossil fuels in one stroke, which benefits all fossil-exporting countries, including Russia.

It is also not an effective policy to help those who struggle with high gasoline prices. The effect on the price for gasoline is 14 öre and for diesel 41 öre. For someone who drives as the average person does, we are therefore talking about a saving of approximately 75 kronor a month for gasoline and barely 200 kronor for diesel. It is not that impressive for those who really need to drive long distances, given how much this reform costs.

Finally, it can be stated that the fuel tax cut is also an unfair crisis support policy that gives the most to those who need it the least, but also to those who already have the most. A full 69 percent of the tax cut goes to residents in and near metropolitan areas, i.e., those who have the best conditions to get to work, school, and services without a car. Only one-fifth falls to rural residents. The richest third receives a good bit more than their fair share. In summary, the fuel tax cuts are an unfair, inefficient, and expensive way to work towards missing Sweden's climate goals.

Unfortunately, it is not much better with the travel deduction, Mr. Speaker. After long negotiations, the Riksdag agreed to reform the travel deduction system and replace the previous deduction with a tax reduction. The current travel deduction not only has the weakness that it only covers car journeys and is therefore a fossil subsidy. The Swedish Tax Agency assessed this spring that 44 percent of the total deduction consists of deliberate fraud and incorrect payments.

Mr. Speaker! We are, therefore, talking about over 3 billion kronor that are incorrectly deducted from the state's revenues. The tax reduction, on the other hand, would practically make fraud impossible, but the government now chooses to stop it. I do not think I am the only one who does not see how this adds up. But what we have heard from the Moderaterna and their coalition partners is that it is about getting Sweden in order.

The Prime Minister announced in Sunday's party leadership debate that the climate goals stand and shall be reached. How it is to be done is shrouded in mystery. But regarding the electrification of the vehicle fleet, we at least have a shared interest. Therefore, it is remarkable that the government and Sverigedemokraterna choose to abolish the electric car bonus. It most likely means that electric cars will not be purchased to the same extent as before and that we will instead get new fossil fuel cars that are to roll for approximately 17 years.

With the proposed abolition of the reduction obligation, the government is left with a toolbox that is gaping empty regarding getting down the emissions from the millions of fossil fuel cars that are now to roll on our roads for many years to come. No nuclear power in the world can lower the emissions from an already purchased internal combustion engine. That is how it looks.

In our motion, we naturally propose that the electric car bonus shall remain and that the penalty shall be doubled.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Green Party believe that we can manage to reach the climate goals and support households through tough times. We have therefore put forward a number of reforms to demonstrate this.

The vast majority of those who have a long way to work and community services and lack good public transport to meet these needs live in rural areas. It is an important but not particularly large part of Sweden's population. Instead of lowering fuel taxes for everyone in all of Sweden, we want to provide more targeted support to those who are hardest hit by the expensive times we live in. During our time in government, we introduced a tax reduction for everyone who lives in rural areas. What we are now proposing is to increase it to 4,000 kronor per person. It will be a significantly larger addition to the treasury, but it does not go to city dwellers. We also want to add 10,000 kronor to the electric car bonus for those who buy an electric car and live in the countryside.

Economically difficult times have certain patterns. It is those who live closest to their margins who risk falling over the edge and falling through society's safety net. Therefore, the meshes in those safety nets must be finer right now. For this reason, we have moved forward with an increase of the sickness and activity allowance, an inflation adjustment of important benefits, and a proper increase of the pensions.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: The green transition is an enormous opportunity, not least for the northern part of the country. Now that we are facing a recession, it is very important that companies can find the right workforce and that as many as possible can keep their jobs so that we can keep unemployment as low as possible. Therefore, we propose a deduction for skills development of the existing workforce for companies undergoing a green transition. In this way, we ensure that we better match the workforce to the new and often groundbreaking tasks we have ahead of us.

Finally, I want to draw attention to Sweden's farmers. Agriculture must be part of the transition. There is a very large potential here that we need to utilize better. In parallel with that, we need to ensure that agriculture receives the support it needs to become fossil-free. Miljöpartiet therefore proposes a general agricultural deduction that shall replace the diesel subsidy that exists today. The agricultural deduction shall be equally extensive but not specifically aimed at making fossil fuels cheaper.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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