The State Budget 2024 - The Framework Decision

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I omitted the part in my speech about winter having now arrived across all of Sweden. But that part perhaps would have been appropriate, now that even the Speaker is late because of a bit of winter weather. It is harsh with the season of winter. It is also harsh in our global environment and in the economy. Sweden, Madam Speaker, is a small export-dependent country on the edge of Europe. Trade with other countries has made us a very wealthy country. War and unrest in our global environment affect us both humanly and economically, not least because we are a small trade-dependent country.

The situation in the world is also much worse than it has been in a long time. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine continues with full force and full strength. We have war in the Middle East. We have much unrest in the world around us and many risks. In Sweden, we have shootings and explosions. Gangs murder each other and innocent people who come in their way. They murder completely ruthlessly.

Madam Speaker! Very many in Sweden are having a very tough time financially right now. People feel great anxiety about how they will make their private finances work out. Inflation is truly the workers' worst enemy. The trial that we are going through right now is real, and it is felt in many Swedish households. It is high housing costs, high food costs, high fuel costs, and high electricity bills. It has been difficult, and it is difficult. To all of you who are following the debate, I want to say that we see you, that we see how you are struggling, and that we will do everything we can to mitigate the consequences and ensure that we get through this as well as possible together.

Madam Speaker! We will not be able to compensate for everything. We will be able to do some, but really far from everything. As problems deepen around the world, it will also affect Sweden, not least because we are dependent on trade with many of the countries that are now having a hard time. It could spill over into much higher unemployment than we would like. Unfortunately, the risk that it will get worse before it gets better again is quite large. But it will get better, and we will get through this as well.

The Tidö parties are now presenting the second state budget for the mandate period. It contains large and necessary investments in police and defense. We must make Sweden safe again. Both internal and external security need to be strengthened. We must get the safety in order. Gangs and organized crime must be fought with full force, and we must equip Swedish defense in a restless time.

We are now carrying out major investments in welfare. All of you who work in Swedish welfare, teaching our children, taking care of those who are ill, or taking care of our elderly, shall have reasonable conditions to do this. Therefore, a large part of this state budget is allocated to strengthen and facilitate it.

We are implementing tax cuts for everyone who works and for our retirees who have worked. At the same time, we are increasing benefits and compensations for those who have it the toughest. We have received criticism for not lowering the tax enough for those who earn the most. Of course, we Moderates want to lower the tax for everyone. But in tough times, one cannot do everything one wants, and then one must prioritize. We must also bear the burdens of inflation as fairly as possible if we are to get through this together.

We are also implementing a tax cut on gasoline and diesel. We are lowering the reduction obligation at the turn of the year. We promised the voters – we promised you – that it should be possible to live and reside all around in the whole of Sweden. The world's highest fuel prices began, under the previous government, to create a divide between city and country. We are now going to stop that. We will lower the fuel prices. We have done it step by step. By the turn of the year, we will most certainly have delivered what many of us went to the election for: a substantial reduction in fuel prices by at least 5 kronor at the pump. It is good for all those who are dependent on the car, because then they can make their daily lives work. It is also good for the companies that are dependent on transport.

We are also, Madam Speaker, making major investments in environment and climate. We are presenting one of the largest environmental and climate budgets ever in Sweden's history so that Sweden will be at the forefront. We are expanding the charging infrastructure and helping industry to transition. We do what is necessary and what can, in the long term, create the jobs of the new economy. We do all of this within the framework of a restrained and responsible budget that contributes to fighting inflation and supporting hard-pressed households. We see how you are struggling.

Madam Speaker! We will surely hear representatives from the four opposition parties attack this government for doing too little during the day. I may be wrong about that, and in that case, I apologize in advance. But if that is the case, it is important to include the history of the eight years with a Social Democratic government and the things that happened during that time. I will also spend some time talking about the opposition's various budget proposals.

Those listening to the debate should remember that many of the problems that we now must solve with this government are problems that the previous government has either been involved in creating or has been involved in worsening. The previous government, of course, does not bear responsibility for everything that goes wrong. We have a small and open economy and are affected by everything that happens in the rest of the world. But some things the previous government and its coalition partners actually bear responsibility for. Decommissioned nuclear power, the world's highest fuel prices, an inability to reverse the crime trend, and poorer economic growth than in large parts of the rest of the European Union - that, Madam Speaker, is what the previous government is responsible for together with the parties it collaborated with.

They shut down fully functioning nuclear power from their side. It has caused a large part of the high electricity prices that are now plaguing households and companies. Sometimes some representatives for those parties try to take the credit for what was done, sometimes it is claimed that it was the market that did all of this. But, Madam Speaker, it was not the market that in this chamber voted against saving nuclear power, and it was not the market that, after winning by a one-vote majority, sat and applauded that nuclear power was being shut down. That, Madam Speaker, was not the market, but it was the four parties that are now in opposition. They bear the responsibility for this.

Now we have begun the work to rebuild nuclear power, to rebuild that which constituted much of the backbone of the Swedish economy: cheap, safe and carbon-free electricity production.

This has cost the taxpayers tens of billions in paid-out electricity subsidies. This, Madam Speaker, has cost individual households and companies many thousands of kronor in increased electricity bills. These are funds that these people and companies could have used for other things.

The four opposition parties also raised fuel taxes and implemented the reduction obligation in such a way that Sweden received the world's highest fuel prices. It hit the Swedish countryside hard, and it hit many companies hard.

At the turn of the year, we will lower the reduction obligation, we will continue step by step to lower the taxes on fuel, and we will fulfill the promise we made to the voters: It shall be possible to live and reside in all of Sweden.

Despite the fact that gang shootings and serious crime increased, Madam Speaker, the previous government and its supporting parties failed to prioritize sufficient resources to reverse the development. Now, the Tidö parties are investing in the entire justice chain. There will be major investments next year and in the coming years so that we can reverse the development. We are investing in the police, we are expanding prison places, and we are increasing the penalties. We are now doing everything that will be required to begin reversing the development.

Madam Speaker! Sometimes the political debate becomes a debate about how to distribute this year's budget space among all the state's important areas. All too rarely do we talk about how we can increase revenues for both wage earners and companies, but also for the state. How do we build welfare and prosperity? Which reforms contribute to higher economic growth and to more jobs?

Sweden went under the previous government from being one of the fastest-growing economies in the European Union to becoming one of those with the lowest economic growth. In the global boom, which the previous government had the opportunity to utilize, Swedish unemployment hardly decreased at all while it was halved in the rest of the European Union. Sweden, Madam Speaker, wasted away the global boom. And now, as we face harsher times, we have to pay the price for all of this.

When the opposition parties today present the various budget proposals, many of you listening will find it easy to agree, as they will add things that most would like to have more of. But remember to ask two questions: How do they intend to finance their proposals? And with whom do they intend to implement that policy? We have four divided opposition parties today, and these questions should be asked every time they propose an extra investment.

Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want to borrow hundreds of billions in their budget proposals over the coming years to fulfill all their promises. It is so irresponsible that I believe the two other parties in the opposition do not even want to be associated with this. It would fuel inflation, it would lead to higher prices and higher interest rates, it would affect households and it would affect companies.

That kind of policy would quickly lead to what I believe will become the subject of debate during the spring, especially in many other countries. When the state borrows and pursues unfunded policy, one will have to use an ever larger part of the own budget space for the state's expenditures for interest payments on the national debt. Instead of hiring more police officers and more nurses in healthcare, money will have to be used to pay off national debt interest. We will hear more about this in the debate across Europe, and if this type of policy were to gain a foothold in Sweden, Madam Speaker, we would end up in the same situation.

We have four split parties in opposition. They stand very far apart from each other. Many of their proposals are furthermore not even feasible until next year. In today's difficult situation, it is good that Sweden has a government with a stable budget majority so that we actually know which policy will be governing next year.

The Tidö parties are delivering step by step what we promised the voters. We agree on which problems we need to solve. And we do all this in a very difficult situation with high inflation. We are fighting inflation, Madam Speaker, and we are supporting households. We are upgrading the justice system and the defense. We are investing in welfare. We see that many of you are having a very tough time out there, and we are now doing everything we can so that Sweden can get through all of this in the best way possible. And we will do it together.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the Finance Committee's proposal for a decision.

Madam Speaker! I also just want to do one last thing. It is the case that we have a member of the Committee on Finance, Ali Esbati from Vänsterpartiet, who will be participating in his last debate today. I want to take the opportunity to thank Ali Esbati for everything he has done here in the Swedish Riksdag. We are not in any way in agreement on the main features of Swedish politics, but one does not need to be. Ali Esbati is a person I have very great confidence in, both as a human being and as a politician. And we are going to disagree; that is the very foundation of Swedish democracy. We have also had the privilege during the pandemic of negotiating a number of things together—everything from reduced fuel taxes to a public transport initiative. I will not say which party defeated it, but you, Ali, can tell that at the appropriate time if you wish.

Thank you very much for all of this! You will be missed at the meetings in the Committee on Finance when you leave the Riksdag. You will also be missed in the debate. It has been fun to meet you in these forums.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is currently burdened by several parallel crises. Gang violence is escalating. Costs are skyrocketing for households. Healthcare is being pushed to its knees. And, Madam Speaker, the biggest news today is perhaps not that the snow and winter have arrived across all of Sweden, but that the Swedish economy is entering a recession.

It is clear that the SD government does not see how the Swedish people are doing. In the toughest economic situation in decades, the SD government chooses to sit in the stands and let the crisis hit with full force. They consistently blame someone else and shift the responsibility onto others. They let the Swedish people alone bear the burdens of the cost crisis.

Food prices have increased by 26 percent in two years. One in three families struggles to make ends meet every month. The inflation crisis and the economic downturn affect all of Sweden and all Swedes.

But instead of meeting the national and even global crisis together, the government's message is clear: The responsibility to manage the crisis lies primarily with the individual. People are urged to shop around, change banks, review their electricity contract or, as it was put, put on underpants when the electricity becomes too expensive.

The exhortations sting the eyes, not least because we know that those with the smallest margins, those who are hit hardest by inflation, have already done what they can to reduce their costs. Or as first deputy Governor of the Riksbank Anna Breman has expressed it: "We see that the high inflation has increased the difference between inflation for different households." She also says: "Households with small economic resources have been more negatively affected. This is due, among other things, to the fact that their opportunity to substitute expensive goods with cheaper ones is smaller."

We Social Democrats propose instead that the policy acts here and now to support households. We want to see a fair tax cut for ordinary people, which hits all earned incomes and which targets low- and middle-income earners. We propose an extra payment of the child allowance, an increased maintenance support for single parents of 500 kronor per month, and a tank discount which means that a family in rural areas would receive 2,000 kronor per car to cope with the high fuel costs. We also present a sharp proposal to abolish the unfair funkis tax.

Madam Speaker! The SD government is also shrugging off the responsibility for the funding of schools and healthcare. Welfare has not been this tough since the 90s crisis. The deficits and the cuts are reaching record levels.

The Minister for Finance stood at a press conference some time ago and claimed that on an aggregate level, the government's budget is sufficient to maintain employment. With that, she washed her hands and shifted the responsibility onto the country's regions and municipalities. But now we have, so to speak, the answer from reality: layoffs, terminations, and hiring freezes in region after region.

It didn't have to be like this. We Social Democrats believe that politics should instead step forward and take control of the development. We propose that the supplements to healthcare be doubled, and we want to invest 6 billion kronor beyond the government's budget. We also want to see a new principle for how welfare should be financed. We want resources to automatically increase in line with inflation so that we do not end up in a situation where healthcare is forced into stealth savings every year while politicians of different political colors talk about investments. In total, we want to increase the supplements to the municipal sector by 26 billion kronor next year.

Madam Speaker! We also find ourselves in a serious security policy situation with an increasingly restless world and an elevated terror threat against Sweden. In this situation, the Sweden Democrats choose to make statements aimed at inciting and dividing, which risks increasing polarization and complicating the NATO process. The Sweden Democrats choose to wage a culture war with Swedish security and the safety of the Swedish people as the stake.

At the same time, Sweden has also become more dangerous. The gang-related shootings are becoming more frequent and more brutal. Children are murdered and are being murdered. Innocents are losing their lives in the gangs' war for status, money, and drugs. The government has proposed cuts to the targeted investments to break the new recruitment in precisely those vulnerable areas. This is incomprehensible, because the harsh reality is that for every gang criminal who is put behind bars, even younger guys are ready to take their place. If we are to succeed in stopping the gang crime, the shootings, and the violence, and I believe that everyone here wants that, we must also break the new recruitment.

In the fight against the gangs, the entire society must be mobilized. We want to strengthen the social services and the school's ability to act early, expand the equality grant to the school, and increase the general state grants to the municipalities, for it is they who stand on the front line in the fight to stop the new recruitment, and they need resources to do their job.

The state must also continue to expand the police and the justice chain. The government is injecting money into the criminal justice system and fulfilling our ladder for the expansion of the police, which is good. But we Social Democrats want to see additional resources for a technological leap for the police, and we propose doubled investments in customs next year. Every gram of narcotics stopped at the border is a lost revenue for the gangs. Every weapon stopped can prevent another life from being extinguished in the gang war.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is becoming poorer. Sweden is in recession. Unemployment is increasing. Housing construction has ground to a halt. But the truth is that the government has no plan to meet the downturn and build Sweden stronger.

We Social Democrats want to meet the situation with more resources for an active labor market policy and more places in adult education so that people can get a job. We say no to the government scrapping CSN loans for driving licenses for young people. To counter the decline in housing construction, we have proposed a state construction stimulus for youth and student housing. We have also proposed that this construction stimulus should be given in locations with large industrial establishments. We also want to see state construction credits to lower financing costs and get housing construction moving again. We say no to the government's luxury-rot and want to see targeted investments for energy efficiency of housing for ordinary people instead.

Madam Speaker! The burdens of the economic crisis are not shared equally today. During last winter, we saw how the electricity companies made enormous profits when electricity prices in Europe soared in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We have seen how giants in the food industry have maintained high prices on their goods, and during the autumn, we have seen how the banks have made record profits on the rising interest rates. They have all been able to profit from the global situation, and it has been possible because the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have chosen not to act. It has become deeply unfair.

The excess profits do not arise in a vacuum; on the other hand, someone is paying the price. We Social Democrats know that it is ordinary people. Ordinary wage earners have lost ten years of real wage increases, and the alarms about bankruptcies among small business owners are sounding frequently.

The Sweden Democrats and the government describe the development almost as a law of nature. There is nothing to be done, it sounds like. It is the complete opposite of what was said during the election campaign. Then, one promised lower prices for falukorv, electricity support on November 1, and 10 kronor lower fuel prices. But now, it is as if nothing is possible anymore. It is a huge dissonance.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats know that it is certainly possible to do something. In our budget for 2024, we have proposed a tax on the banks' excess profits to support households in a difficult time. The Finance Minister has consistently chosen to dodge the debate on this. But if any representative for the SD government dares to step out into the debate, the best argument against the tax on excess profits is that there has not been time to get such a tax in place. We recognize this argument. It sounded the same last winter when the government failed to tax the electricity producers' excess profits and return them to households when prices were high. Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy and the Czech Republic are all countries where the government has taken the time to get a tax on the banks' excess profits in place.

Let us be honest. The Sweden Democrats' and the government's opposition to a tax on the banks' excess profits is not about a lack of time but about a lack of political will. Instead, they place the responsibility on the individual: Change banks! Negotiate better! But, Madam Speaker, if the government cannot stand up to the banks, how do they expect the pensioner or the single mother to do so? A report from the Financial Supervisory Authority also shows that much suggests that the banks have deliberately made it more complicated and more difficult to change banks and that the same person who is your advisor is often the one you are supposed to negotiate your interest with.

I believe we in the chamber agree that we want to improve competition in the banking sector and make it easier to switch banks. But while waiting for such proposals, which may not come into effect until January 2025, measures are required that can be implemented now to return some of the profits the banks make to households in a difficult time. It is only right that the banks are involved and contribute.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservations and proposal for the 2024 budget. It is a budget to hold Sweden together in a difficult time. While the SD government describes the development as a law of nature and has put politics on the shelf awaiting better times, we show that there is a political alternative that puts ordinary people first. It is possible to provide relief for ordinary wage earners when the cost crisis is at its worst, while at the same time healthcare and schools receive the money needed to retain nurses, nursing assistants, and teachers. It is possible to prioritize resources for Sweden's security, both to secure our borders and to help crack down on serious crime, while at the same time the work to break new recruitment is strengthened. By having those who have it the best and the banks that earn large sums from the crisis contribute a little more, we can build our country a little stronger.

We move forward with a proposal for a fair tax cut for ordinary people and an extra child allowance, which could be paid out during this year's perhaps poorest month. We want to see a new principle for how the welfare shall be financed and propose a doubling of the investments in Swedish healthcare. We propose urgent measures to stop gang violence and break the new recruitment. All of this fits within the same budget space as the government's – it is all about prioritization.

Today's difficult economic situation places great demands on leadership, a leadership that sees how the Swedish people are doing and that has a will to do something about it. That is lacking in Sweden today.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! An important issue for private individuals, the possibility of growth for companies, and the climate transition is that we have a robust fossil-free energy system throughout the country that produces energy every day of the year and every hour of the day. This is an urgent issue that has a major impact on many areas and definitely on growth, climate transition, and the economy.

Do the Social Democrats stand behind the energy policy that the government is pursuing, with more and new nuclear power as a base load in more places in the country and renewable energy on top? Given yesterday's debate and that you have a reservation in today's vote in the chamber, I would like to know what the member's position is.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Cecilia Rönn, for an important question!

We would need a long-term, broad energy agreement that creates stability and that creates interest for investors to make the large investments that Sweden needs to manage not only the climate transition but also the development of industry in our country.

We Social Democrats are disappointed that the government has not taken this issue more seriously and invited deliberations and long-term thinking. We have been open to this and still are, because we believe that this issue is too important for a small country like Sweden to be reduced to some form of culture war between those who are for tearing down wind turbines in Sweden and those who want to build nuclear power.

We are interested in a robust energy system that provides our industry and our country with good conditions to manage the transition.

We have proposed a new energy policy goal. That is why we have a reservation. We believe that the energy policy needs to be supplemented with a new energy policy goal of 60 new terawatt-hours by 2030.

We use the term fossil-free. I have perceived that the government parties also like to speak of fossil-free. Can we agree that Sweden needs 60 new terawatt-hours by 2030 so that the industry will place the investments in Sweden and so that we will reduce the electricity bills for consumers? Then the electricity needs to come now and in the coming years, because if the investments do not come now, they will instead end up in Finland, in Norway, in Canada and in the USA. Then we will have missed the chance to achieve both the industry's development and our green transition.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. It sounds very good, but how will the Social Democrats be able to act in a credible way in these issues which, just as the member says, are important for the climate, the new industrialization, the jobs and ordinary people's electricity bills, when their potential government basis is fragmented and sets ultimatums that go completely against other parties in the same possible constellation?

It would be better if the member answered my first question: Do the Social Democrats think that the energy policy being pursued right now is good and sensible, and if so, how is it that a reservation is being left today?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! As I said, I am open to an agreement, but I do not think today's energy policy is sufficient. Too little is being done to achieve the large investments in new energy production that we need right now.

One has also deliberately, for political-ideological reasons, made it more difficult to expand, for example, offshore wind power. Why is this being done when Swedish industry says that they need it? And one has postponed the question of better processes to be able to guarantee onshore wind power, which is the cheapest type of energy, which the industry needs most of all in our country and which could press down electricity bills.

We think it is strange that there is money in the budget to build a new power cable to Germany. We do not think any new power cable to Germany is needed until Germany has gotten its energy policy in order.

We are, therefore, not satisfied with the government's energy policy, but we understand that long-term perspective is needed for the investments to materialize and for Sweden to become a success nation also for industrial development. Stability and agreements are required that ensure the investments come to Sweden.

We Social Democrats have shown throughout history that it is we who have built up the energy system. We have expanded nuclear power. During the last parliamentary term, we expanded energy production in Sweden. And if one is to be honest, Sweden last year, despite difficult economic problems, was the country in the world that produced the most nuclear power per capita. We also had the lowest energy prices in the EU.

We need an energy system that not only handles the situation here and now but that is also expanded significantly. Let us agree to expand the energy system with fossil-free energy by 2030 - why not 60 new terawatt-hours? That would benefit the Swedish people and Swedish industry.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I wish I had the same self-confidence as Mikael Damberg in the speaker's chair, especially if I had sat in a government that had decommissioned several nuclear reactors.

Still, one stands with this self-confidence and says that the Social Democrats want new terawatt-hours - 60, I believe that was the number. With this self-confidence, one says that the government is doing too little to get new electricity production, even though one himself, during his time in government, decommissioned the majority of the nuclear reactors that remained in this country. I wish, Madam Speaker, that I had that type of self-confidence when I discussed this.

I still do not think the question gets any answer. Either you are for building new nuclear power, as the Tidö parties want, or you are not. The Social Democrats should actually be able to give this answer to the members of the Riksdag and, above all, the Swedish people. Do you want to build new nuclear power or do you not? It is quite simple.

To say that one wants new electricity production, even though what one has personally done in a government position is primarily to shut down electricity production, becomes very strange, but it is said with great self-confidence from the rostrum.

Madam Speaker! Do the Social Democrats want new nuclear power? Do the Social Democrats want to re-establish the foundation so that we have a cheap, safe, and carbon-free electricity production in this country, so that households, who noticed how high the electricity prices became when nuclear power was phased out, get lower electricity prices and so that Swedish companies can get cheap electricity, which has been the basis for Swedish competitiveness and high Swedish wages in industry, which has also spilled over into other sectors.

Madam Speaker! Do the Social Democrats want new nuclear power - yes or no?

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It does not become any truer because one repeats a thing more times. It was not that we made decisions to shut down nuclear power, but it was not profitable. We had such low electricity prices that new investment costs in nuclear power did not become profitable, and then nuclear power was shut down in certain places.

It is not true that we reduced energy production, Edward Riedl. Be careful with your words! We increased energy production in Sweden during our time because we saw that we had a need for more energy and cheap electricity. We are clear that we need to expand energy production significantly in Sweden.

We believe that we will need to double the energy production in our country to meet the green transition but also to maintain the competitiveness of the industry. Therefore, we have proposed a new energy policy goal, and we actually do not think it should be so controversial.

I hear from you in the government parties that you want to talk about fossil-free electricity, so why can we not agree that until 2030, 60 new terawatt-hours are needed? That is our starting point in what we hope will become a consultation and discussion with the government parties about creating long-term perspective, because if one wants substantial investments in new energy production, those who are to make these investments need to know that the rules apply. There are few things that can create as much long-term perspective as agreements between parties.

We believe that more nuclear power will be needed. Yes, we have said that more nuclear power will be needed. In the short term, it will primarily be about renovating and investing in the extension of the nuclear power we already have. We are open to nuclear power in more locations where we have had nuclear power and where there may be a need for new nuclear power, but then investments must be made. There must be profitability calculations. There must be an idea of how it is actually to be carried out so that we do not get more expensive electricity but more cheaper electricity, which both households and industry demand.

We are a party that has consistently throughout our history prioritized energy production because we know how important it is for Swedish competitiveness.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Often I almost agree. I almost stand and nod when Mikael Damberg stands here and speaks, because it sounds so damn good. I do agree. It is just that Mikael Damberg, Madam Speaker, was involved in shutting down several nuclear reactors and ensured that we lost electricity production, which then caused Swedish households and Swedish companies to receive very high electricity bills. I do not believe, Madam Speaker, that those who have paid these high electricity bills agree that it was wise to shut down fully functioning nuclear power.

I sat in this chamber together with many of you who are here now when we voted on saving the last two reactors. At that time, four parties voted against saving nuclear power. The Social Democrats were one of them, and the rest of today's opposition were the other three. That was what was voted on! Had the reactors been kept, we would have had much lower electricity prices. Then Swedish electricity consumers and companies would have had much lower costs. That would have been good, but that is not how it happened. That is about history. The question is what one wants moving forward.

I interpret what Mikael Damberg says in the rostrum – it may be an overinterpretation, Madam Speaker – as that one wants to build new nuclear power. Cecilia Rönn from Liberalerna also asked why the Socialdemokraterna voted against the proposal to build new nuclear power in Sweden, when they now nevertheless seem to be for it. It is very difficult to understand.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! In the energy agreement that we made with other parties, including the Moderates, the conditions for Swedish nuclear power were improved. We agreed that our political decisions would not affect nuclear power. That agreement has been honored by the Social Democrats. The Moderates' description of the history is not correct, but I understand that it is your best argument. It is not any more true for that.

In the current situation, we face large industrial establishments in Sweden. Thousands of new jobs can come to our country. They are also linked to the green transition, and Sweden can create new jobs precisely by reducing emissions - not only in Sweden but also internationally and globally. Those investments depend on new energy production being realized quite quickly. Not at any point after 2035, but quite quickly.

You have made offshore wind power more expensive and more difficult. You have made the processes more difficult when it comes to onshore wind power. For some reason, you have made it more difficult and delayed permit processes and processes for making quick decisions on larger industrial projects in our country. It does not make it easier to get these investments in place.

We have proposed a new energy policy goal of 60 new terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity. It should be interesting for the government parties if they are serious about the fact that we need to have more fossil-free electricity on site in Sweden to push down energy prices and get the industry to function.

Unfortunately, it feels like even the Moderaterna have been drawn into some kind of culture war surrounding energy policy. One is supposed to be for one type of energy and against the other. We believe that it is dangerous, because Sweden is a small country that is enormously export-dependent and needs fossil-free energy to get the jobs done and reduce electricity bills. Let us agree on that and work long-term and across party lines on such an important issue!

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats support the government's budget bill, so I want to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal. The reason we support this budget is that it contains so much good policy.

Let me start by mentioning the 57s – that is, those born in 1957 – who have been hit by a completely unreasonable and unjust tax penalty. I do not know why the Social Democrats pushed through that tax injustice, aimed at just the 57s, during the previous parliamentary term. Was it due to incompetence or indifference, or did they just do it on a whim? They have to answer that themselves. What is relevant in this context is that the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have solved the problem. Over 100,000 of the 57s will be compensated in connection with us going to a vote later this afternoon.

Fuel prices remain too high, even if they - nota bene - are moving in the right direction. Now we are taking further steps to lower the prices and alleviate the situation for the country's motorists and not least the trucking industry. The petrol tax is lowered by 1 SEK and 64 öre now until the turn of the year and by a further 75 öre at the next turn of the year. The diesel tax is set down to the EU's absolute minimum level. Together with the significantly lowered level of the reduction obligation, which will finally be in place in just over a month, the hope is that this will dampen the prices quite noticeably.

There are obviously many other factors that affect prices, for example the exchange rate. We have had a fairly undervalued Swedish krona, and that drives up fuel prices. But the opposite also applies, of course; as the krona recovers, which we have seen recently, prices fall. The war, likewise, is a factor. We do not want to deal with Russian oil because we do not want to finance a state of war criminals and terrorists.

The main message is that the time when Sweden had the world's highest fuel prices - that is, under the Social Democrats' rule - is over. Lower fuel prices should also be able to put further pressure on inflation so that it falls back even a little more.

Madam Speaker! The investments in internal and external security continue at an undiminished pace. The Police Authority, the Prison and Probation Service, and the Armed Forces are agencies that are undergoing a very tangible expansion. They will do so throughout the entire mandate period and, preferably – if the voters so wish – also during the next mandate period.

The Armed Forces will reach NATO's minimum level of 2 percent of GDP as early as next year, as a result of this budget bill. There is no chance that it would have happened if the opposition had been in power. That does not mean the work is finished. There is much more work to be done here, and it does not only concern the military defense. It concerns, to at least the same extent, the civil defense and the entire society's crisis preparedness.

Madam Speaker! Current and former wage earners, that is to say pensioners, will receive a tax cut at the turn of the year in about a month. The parties in the Swedish labor market have taken great responsibility and agreed on relatively modest wage increases in relation to inflation. It is a steel bath that the wage earners have gone through with quite substantial real wage reductions, that is to say, the wage development in relation to inflation. The result is reduced purchasing power.

I believe that we, given the latest inflation figures and the Riksbank's latest decision not to raise the policy rate further, soon - not quite now, but soon - are through the ordeal or at least can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

It is not our role as politicians to involve ourselves in wage formation, but we can alleviate the situation of reduced real wages by lowering the tax for wage earners. That is also something we do.

This leads into the larger discussion where there are those who think that one should do much more, invest more and run the state with large deficits despite the risk that it may fuel inflation. That goes against the line that we four parties - the Tidö parties - have chosen. It is a rather cautious approach with fairly restrained budget bills and definitely no expansive fiscal policy. That allows the Riksbank to focus on its task, which is price stability.

There are actually quite a few things that indicate we have done the right thing, even though it has not been easy. I believe we have done the right thing. The latest figures show that we are well on our way to winning the battle against inflation. The opposition is obviously making a different assessment. In the Left Party's alternative, they want to increase the national debt by 175 billion kronor and in the Green Party's budget by 220 billion kronor. Then inflation would not have been on the decline. It would have continued upwards, and the interest rate likewise. Mortgage holders would not have been able to cope. And these two parties want the Social Democrats to form a government with.

Madam Speaker! A few weeks ago, a report from the Scandinavian Policy Institute was released, which has received some attention in the media. The report concerns the allegedly fossil-free steel to be produced in Norrland, for example Hybrit and H2 Green Steel, and it is not favorable. I urge you to read it. Just as I and the Sverigedemokraterna have warned, this risks leading to us waking up to a world-historical hangover. There is so much that can go wrong here.

It is actually enough to mention the most obvious thing: Where are we going to find all the terawatt-hours? Is there someone sitting there pressing 70 terawatt-hours and who hasn't volunteered? If there is no one sitting and pressing 70 terawatt-hours somewhere, this will, in fact, drag up electricity prices in primary electricity area 1, that is, Norrland, something pyramidal. And when a number of hundreds of thousands of damn Norrlandians cannot afford to heat their houses in the winter, I want them to at least know who they should be damn angry at.

I want to emphasize that I am not against risky entrepreneurship per se, Madam Speaker. I may not want to invest in it myself – or perhaps I do, for all I care, but what I do with my money is my own business. I am, however, against the state playing venture capitalist with taxpayers' money, because that is not the state's task. Furthermore, the state is notoriously bad at playing venture capitalist. There are so many historical examples that serve as a deterrent and from which one reasonably should be able to draw certain conclusions.

Either it is a bad business case because it is not possible to build any profitability in it, and then the state should not waste taxpayers' money on it. Or it is a good business case, and then the state should also not provide money because it will then be no problem to find private, risk-tolerant capital from investors, from the bank, or on the bond market on entirely market-based grounds. The state's role in the business sector is to be the referee, i.e., the one who sets the rules of the game, not to be one of the players.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I shall pose a question. I know that I asked the same question the last time we had this exercise, but it is relevant. What is the opposition's alternative, and what does that alternative entail? What migration policy should be pursued? Should taxes be raised or lowered? Is it planned economy or market economy that applies? Should Sweden be in Nato or not?

It is going to be expensive to drive a car; that much we know. Fuel taxes are to be raised, and the reduction obligation is to increase. We know that – but what more? Miljöpartiet has issued an ultimatum: no new nuclear power. The Social Democrats' line is somewhat unclear and wavers quite a bit back and forth depending on the day's form. Sometimes one is open to new nuclear power, sometimes one is not. At the same time, political decisions have been made to decommission fully functioning nuclear power, the effects of which we have seen. It becomes more expensive for households, and it deters companies from investing.

I can imagine that there is one voter or another who is interested in knowing: What do I get for migration policy, what do I get for energy policy, and what do I get for tax policy if I vote one way or the other? But there is no answer to the question of what the opposition intends to do, because they do not even know it themselves.

Madam Speaker! I also want, however strange it may sound, to say: I will actually miss you, Ali! It is fun to debate with you. I do not need to clarify that we most often do not think alike, but I will miss you. Thank you for the time we have sat together in the committee - it has been fun to have you there!

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! Now Oscar Sjöstedt got what he wanted, at least in this matter!

Yet another day we stand here and witness an impressive Sweden Democrat split that is becoming ever wider. There is an increasing discrepancy between, on one hand, what has been said and is being said, and on the other hand, what has been done and is being done. The Sweden Democrats have turned a lot to those Swedes who work within the construction sector. They have also had electoral successes with their talking, but when it comes to the doing, the fuel has run out.

I do not know if Oscar Sjöstedt receives information about things happening in the Swedish real economy, that is, such things as are invisible in the Sweden Democrats' own media channels. What is happening out there, however, is that construction in Sweden has practically collapsed and construction workers are going without jobs. This is happening at the same time as the need for more cheap housing has rarely been so great. Many Swedes live in municipalities where there is a housing shortage.

This is an immense problem for the Swedish economy, which we are now also seeing enter a recession - not least because of this, as construction plays a major role here. It is also catastrophic for the country's construction workers.

What are you doing in the Sweden Democrats then, Oscar Sjöstedt? Yes, you and the government are presenting a budget that is completely blind to the enormous housing crisis we are in. You are letting the state completely withdraw in a situation where large investments and initiatives on construction are absolutely necessary. We are, so to speak, past this with too little and too late; with this budget, you are even withdrawing investment support. You are backing down.

I therefore ask Oscar Sjöstedt: How do you personally think it is going? What is SD's message to families with children who need a home and construction workers who want nothing more than to have a job to go to?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is a very good question. It is not an easy question, and there are definitely no easy solutions.

Just like everyone else in society - and perhaps a bit more than others - the real estate sector and the construction sector do not suffer primarily from inflation, but from the interest rate level that the high inflation has produced. We will see consolidation. We will, for all intents and purposes, certainly see bankruptcies as well, because that is how it works in a market economy. We will see bankruptcies in the real estate sector as a result of the high interest rate level, but we will also see consolidations. At the same time, there are many companies in the industry that are doing well because they have not been overly indebted.

That the state intervenes with, for example, investment support - it has happened before, and we have seen the effect of it - is not effective. I will not pursue such a line, and I do not hope that my colleagues within the framework of the Tidö Agreement will pursue any line with large investment supports to a specific sector. So that is not the case.

This industry has problems, just like many other industries. But the big problem is actually partly that one might have been very highly leveraged. Then the higher interest rates affect it even more. The big answer to the question is therefore to get rid of inflation, because then the Riksbank can start lowering the interest rate. Then the industry will do quite well again.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! It is almost a bit amusing to see Oscar Sjöstedt completely take on the neoliberal Timbro-slip in just this issue.

"That is how it works in a market economy," says Oscar Sjöstedt. Yes, I don't know—in all other market economies, it is completely obvious that the state has a large role in construction. These are such large deals involved, and it is so deeply embedded in the construction of society. Where the state imagines that it should not have a role, the state will get a role because it has to handle what arises in the form of housing shortages and what happens when the construction sector collapses, which leads to unemployment and recession—that is what we see now.

It is not effective with construction subsidies, says Oscar Sjöstedt. But that depends on how one measures the effectiveness. If one measures effectiveness by seeing if more is being built, the answer is that it is effective. It is at least obviously not effective to have no support, no thoughts, some reflections or any action in this area. In that case, one creates a crisis in the construction sector in a very effective way, and that is what the Swedish people see now – not least those who work within the construction sector.

I see that Oscar Sjöstedt, in his work with financial issues, has been more interested in, for example, how the financial sector can get its teeth into more of the Swedish people's pension money than in people in our country having somewhere to live and that the skilled construction workers out there should have good jobs. I see it continuing today as well. The only answer was "That's just how it works in a market economy" when the answer is "That's how it works when the Tidö parties, led by the Sverigedemokraterna, lead the country." It is tragic.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not deny in any way the seriousness of the situation or that this is a problem. In that regard, we are in agreement. However, the crisis does not arise as a result of this budget bill.

What we saw when there were investment subsidies earlier is that the margins for some developers increased. It was, therefore, a number of already wealthy people who became even wealthier, and it is perhaps a bit unexpected that Ali Esbati specifically wants it that way.

Where we do not agree is that there is a crisis and how serious it is. This crisis does not arise as a result of the government's budget bill, which we stand behind, because there is no investment support there. The crisis arises because interest rates have gone up. The Riksbank has raised interest rates because inflation is high. That is the cause of the crisis. That is the cause that we need to tackle.

It is a matter of us succeeding with that, which there is much evidence that we are in the process of doing. New inflation figures have arrived which were good. They were not good in the sense that we are at the goal, but they were better than one had thought. We also see that the Riksbank, at least now, does not see the need for further interest rate hikes. What it does going forward, I have no idea about, and I shouldn't either.

That is how the Riksbank acts because in their forecasts they see that inflation is under control. If inflation ends up completely under control, when we have won that battle, we have also solved the crisis. We are certainly in agreement on the magnitude of the issue and the seriousness therein. But we are not in agreement on what has caused it.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Oscar Sjöstedt mentioned a little bit about election promises and what one can expect from parties moving forward as we approach the election. I would like to raise the question of what has been promised to the voters in the election that was last.

It sounded like this: Our absolute priority is that municipalities and regions should not have to lay people off. That is what Oscar Sjöstedt said not so long ago. Those were words that turned out to be just as empty as the Sweden Democrats' commitment to Sweden's workers.

The party that time and again promised that welfare would not have to pay the price for the economic crisis now holds the keys to Rosenbad. But instead of achieving a strengthened welfare, they sow discord and sabotage all efforts to work for a better world.

I am convinced that the Swedish people are significantly more interested in strengthening Swedish welfare than in the Sverigedemokraternas constant attacks to divide Sweden.

Therefore, I would like to ask Oscar Sjöstedt: Why are the Sweden Democrats betraying their election promises and subjecting welfare to a steel bath completely unnecessarily?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question!

I am in my spare time, or how one should put it, also a municipal council member in a small municipality. I am well acquainted with the difficulties that the country's municipalities and regions face. But to call it a betrayal, I think is a bit of a stretch.

Last year we allocated 12 billion kronor in new money to the municipal sector. This year it is even more, 16 billion kronor. Is it a betrayal? It is clear that one can argue and say that 16 is too little. It should be 17, 18, 19, 20 or something. One can think that. But these are still substantial additions to municipalities and regions. To call it a betrayal is perhaps a bit extreme.

It is different from the situation we had during the pandemic period when it was very strained, not least in the welfare sector. The government at that time, sometimes admittedly perhaps on the initiative of the Finance Committee, came up with a number of supplements. But they were primarily temporary supplements. It is quite difficult for the municipalities to maneuver with. They get a bag of money, but then that bag of money runs out.

The money that we have injected is for the most part permanent money. Even when inflation falls back, which is good for the municipalities and the regions, and the interest rate falls back, those funds will remain. They do not disappear just because inflation disappears. The majority of the money that we four parties have injected is permanent and remains.

I don't quite buy that. One can absolutely argue that 12 billion last year and 16 billion new money this year is too little and that one wants more. It is absolutely possible to argue in that way. But I do not think it is a betrayal.

What we have aimed for is exactly what Janine Alm Ericson herself is touching upon. Our ambition is that the municipalities should not have to lay people off.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! The government is making additions, and you are making additions in your budget. That is good, but it is far too little.

When you say: Our absolute priority is that municipalities and regions should not have to lay people off, voters still expect that to be the absolute biggest priority.

We do not see that in the budget that the government and the Sweden Democrats have presented and which we are debating today, and we really do not see that in the general debate. There, it is not the Sweden Democrats' highest priority to show that one stands up for Swedish welfare.

Instead, there are major cuts waiting because one chooses not to provide the money that is needed. We will see reduced staff in schools, fewer nurses and doctors, fewer healthcare workers and longer queues. It will be a scorched earth policy.

It is what the Sweden Democrats have contributed by supporting this budget instead of truly prioritizing exactly what they have promised the voters, namely that people should not have to face layoffs in the welfare sector.

I ask again: How is it that on one occasion it is said that one wants to prioritize this and that it is one's highest priority, but then we do not see that result in the budget that is presented?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is a steel bath. I just used that term in my speech. It was not with regard to the municipal sector specifically, but with regard to the wage earners.

It is a steel bath. We have had inflation that is double-digit. It is a situation that at least my generation has not experienced. One has to go back significantly further than that.

It is a steel bath. It is a steel bath for the pensioners. It is a steel bath for the wage earners. It is a steel bath for the entrepreneurs. It is a steel bath for the public sector, including for the state. The state also has cost increases in its operations, in its agencies, and so on.

The question is: Where do you want to draw the line? One can continue with the reasoning that everyone should be compensated for the higher inflation level. That can be done. But then the wage earners also need to be compensated.

I spoke in my speech about how the wage earners have received real wage cuts. It is a steel bath for them. It is a steel bath for the entire public sector. One can compensate everyone. But what happens then is that one must run the state with large deficits. Then one must borrow money.

What one does then is that one does not solve the underlying problem, which is inflation. If we run the state with large deficits and pursue a very expansive economic policy and an expansive fiscal policy, inflation will worsen. Then the Riksbank will not have the possibility at any point in the future, whenever that may be, to begin lowering the interest rate, which is the solution to all these problems.

One can do it that way. I do not think it is good. It is a steel bath, and we will all have to go through that steel bath. It concerns the public sector, it concerns us as individuals and households, and it concerns all companies. It is inevitable. The only thing one can do is possibly to postpone the problem. But one will not get away from the problem. Unfortunately, it is not possible.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! No, Oscar Sjöstedt does not need to worry. I will give up asking him when we will get a price on diesel in the countryside that is 10 kronor lower than now, as it stated in the Sweden Democrats' advertisement before the election. We will never get any answer to that. Nor will we ever get a price on diesel in the countryside that is 10 kronor lower with the Sweden Democrats. It is as with all other snowdrift that settles like a deep blanket of snow over the entire Tidö project. It will never happen.

I am going to ask a completely different question. You had guests from Svenskt Näringsliv at your national days. They did not hear Oscar Sjöstedt speak about how he—when they invest tens of billions in Norrland, in Boden and Skellefteå, and so on—will in fact let the state pull the rug, as it sounds, for its responsibility for infrastructure and support for the gigantic investments that, God knows, go to Sweden and to Norrland.

They heard, however, Jimmie Åkesson using the usual hate rhetoric that your party engages in on Twitter. I read in the companies' trade magazine that they were horrified. It costs the economy a terrible amount. It might be great for the Sverigedemokraterna's opinion polls. But they say themselves that it costs thousands of jobs, export opportunities, and possibilities. It destroys Sweden's reputation in the world.

Madam Speaker! I wonder: Do Oscar Sjöstedt and SD care about that cost? We are all for fighting extremism, fundamentalism, shutting it down and being rock-hard against it. There is no doubt about that. But this concerns the hate rhetoric. Do you understand what the corporate leaders whom you invited as guests to your national days say about how much work, jobs and opportunities it costs for Sweden?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now Martin Ådahl did not, in and of itself, ask any question about fuel prices, but since I raised this in my speech, I can say that the reduction obligation will be in place in a little over a month, together with some fine and lovely tax cuts on fuels that we have had passed. In a month's time, one will have to see if there can be some price adjustments in a downward direction.

Martin Ådahl spoke about hate speech. To begin with, I do not know if this belongs within the framework of a budget debate, Madam Speaker. There are mosques in Sweden where hate is preached against gays, against Jews, and against our entire liberal Swedish - or Western - way of life. There we can talk about hate speech. Jimmie points out that this is a major problem, and he wants to shut down these activities. That has been done in countries like France and, I believe, Germany. I believe it has also been done in other countries, but I am certain that it has been done in France.

Don't you want to see the problem that Jimmie Åkesson points out? That not shooting the messenger is a fairly good starting point. There is such a problem in Sweden today, and that one must, of course, be able to point out. There we have the hate rhetoric. It obviously doesn't only concern mosques - there is, of course, hate rhetoric in other places as well - but now it was this that he mentioned.

It can reasonably not be hate speech to point out that there is hate speech and that we need to combat it. It simply doesn't add up.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

This is, as has been said, a debate on the occasion of the state's budget framework decision.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I did not think that we would discuss fundamentalism and hate, which we all want to combat and stop, but I wanted to ask what Oscar Sjöstedt says to the entrepreneurs who were guests at his own national days when they say that the Sweden Democrats' way of expressing themselves and lowering Sweden's reputation in the world costs a terrifying number of jobs and a terrifying amount of money. It was these words it was about. Obviously, they made that assessment.

Now Oscar Sjöstedt says that they are wrong and that they don't know what they are talking about. It is exactly like saying that those who invest billions in Norrland and who create jobs and pressure there do not know what they are talking about. It is like saying: I know better! I have read an article about the investment in green steel and green transition in the industry.

I have met the people who carry out these initiatives. I have met small businesses that are worried about what is happening with Sweden in the world and who see that Sweden is losing jobs. Naturally, I have been up and seen these projects and all the investments and initiatives that are being made several times. They are terribly worried about what you are doing with your talk to gloss over your failures with 10 kronor on diesel, all the cheap falukorv, and all the promises you had. You use your rhetoric to create confrontation and culture wars. This costs us terribly much money.

Now, Oscar Sjöstedt is also going to expand this to the major industrial investments in Norrland, which so many people depend on. This is a terrible announcement that I believe many are worried about, as it constantly recurs in the debates.

Since I did not receive any answer as to whether Oscar Sjöstedt cares about what the companies said at the Sverigedemokraterna national conference, I will perhaps ask the question directly. Is the message to those who are investing in Norrland that Sverigedemokraterna will negotiate away the infrastructure and that which the state should support up in Norrland? Will Sverigedemokraterna sink these projects and let the investments go somewhere else? Is it this message that Oscar Sjöstedt wants to give to those who are investing up there now?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The number of representatives for Swedish business who have spoken with me regarding the matters that Martin Ådahl raised is equal to zero. If one wants to do so, you are welcome to get in touch; it is no problem at all. I am available to listen.

I thought I was quite clear - or even over-clear - in my message. In my speech earlier, Madam Speaker, I said something along the lines of that I am not against risky entrepreneurship, but that I am, on the other hand, against the state using taxpayers' money for risky entrepreneurship. That is the difference.

What I do with my money is my business. What Martin Ådahl does with his money is his business. What one billionaire or another somewhere does with their money is their business. But when it comes to the taxpayers' money, I want to be involved and have an opinion. In that case, I think one should be cautious.

This is an extremely risky project. That does not mean it is good or bad. I am only saying that it is risky, and then one must be careful with the taxpayers' money. What someone else does with their money, I do not interfere; I think I was very clear about that.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I would have liked to see Elisabeth Svantesson or Hans Eklind request the floor after Oscar Sjöstedt's presentation on the industry's investments, the future jobs, and our competitiveness moving forward. But it is silent from the other Tidö parties - they are not pretending that there is a big elephant in the room.

It is not how it sounds from the Minister for Enterprise when she travels around Sweden. It is not how it sounds from the Prime Minister when he goes and inaugurates large investments all over Sweden. I do, however, leave that debate to the Tidö parties. They have a message to give, because they are creating an incredible amount of uncertainty regarding the large investments that create tens of thousands of jobs all over Sweden.

My question is about something else. You in the Sweden Democrats have had a time when you have been in government cooperation for the first time, and now it is beginning to become clear how you prioritize. Last year, you chose to lower the tax for those with the highest incomes by 13 billion. You chose not to introduce any cap for the electricity support, so that someone received 780,000 kronor while others could hardly afford to stay.

In this budget, you have started to come up with something related to the construction sector, namely luxury-rot. What were you thinking when you came up with this proposal? I have tried to do some calculations on what the raised ceilings entail. If you, for example, were to need to renovate a kitchen and want to get the money out in the luxury-rot deduction, you must renovate the kitchen for perhaps 600,000 kronor. What kind of kitchen is that? Which people can afford this in the cost crisis? It must only be those who sit on an enormous amount of capital who get to take part in SD's luxury-rot. Why is this the most effective and the most prioritized in this economic situation? Why is it not ordinary people who are in the foreground?

You consistently choose the well-off over ordinary people. How did you come to the luxury-rotavdrag? What was the main point?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The deduction is made, in and of itself, on the labor costs. It is not more expensive to install an expensive material than a more cost-effective material. I am not quite following the logic regarding "luxury-root".

Mikael Damberg said that we are creating enormous uncertainty. There is also an enormous uncertainty among the taxpayers when one uses the taxpayers' money for this type of project. That side of the coin is also there.

I do not want this to go badly. My ambition is not for it to go badly just so that I can be right. In that case, I would rather be wrong. I much prefer to see it turn out great and that I was wrong.

My concern is primarily for the taxpayers. Taxpayers' money is being used in a way that I would not be prepared to use my own money. I believe that politicians – in particular those of us who sit in the Riksdag's Committee on Finance – should view taxpayers' money with at least the same consideration as if it were our own money. I would not have wanted to invest my money in this project. Then I cannot simultaneously think that we should take taxpayers' money and invest it in this project. It is a bit of hypocrisy somewhere.

I feel a sense of unease there, but of course, I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this turns out as well as can be and that I will have to stand and be ashamed in a few years for being so wrong. I really hope so, but unfortunately, I do not believe it. I am usually right.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is incredible how Oscar Sjöstedt wants to flee from all the questions I ask.

I said that you in the Tidö parties can have your own debate on whether the industrial investments in Sweden should happen or not. I asked why you consistently choose to prioritize the high-paid over ordinary people. How did you come up with luxury-rot? I actually don't understand how a kitchen renovation is supposed to work with that, because one almost has to build the kitchen on-site bit by bit just to reach these figures. I don't even think it is possible to do it anyway.

Instead, one could have done as we Social Democrats propose: turn the perspective around and give a 50 percent deduction from the first krona for those who want to energy-efficient their homes, those who last winter discovered what expensive electricity bills had arisen. They actually need support and help to reduce their electricity costs, and it is also good for society and the state that the energy system leads to people saving on energy use.

Why don't you do that instead? It would matter for the construction workers we spoke about in the previous turn. Byggnads is enormously worried that their members will now lose their jobs because you have no policy to keep construction going. Let us therefore use renovations and reward those who reduce their electricity bill and ensure that they receive a larger deduction from the first krona!

Instead, you find a luxury-root, and my question is: How did you think? Who is going to do these luxury-root jobs? Who will be able to afford to take part in this? Now it becomes a billion-kronor investment on them with the highest incomes, and so you ignore ordinary people who receive the expensive electricity bills. It is the consequence of the Sweden Democrats' priorities in economic policy.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Electricity bills are expensive because Mikael Damberg has shut down nuclear power.

Mikael Damberg says that we are not doing anything for ordinary people, but we have ensured that what was a temporary higher level in the a-kassa is retained. It is now permanent. The temporary housing allowance for families with children with very low incomes has been extended and extended. It has become cheaper to fuel the car. People with low incomes and middle incomes will have their taxes lowered at the turn of the year and so on.

Still, one focuses on a single thing. It might be possible to refine the root system, for all I care. I would very much like to sit and talk with Mikael Damberg about that. But to say that this is the only thing that matters and suddenly forget all the other major investments for completely ordinary people that we have made – I don't really buy that type of rhetoric.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the Left Party's reservations 2 and 6.

Just over two months have passed since the Sweden Democrats and their supporting parties in the government presented the proposal for the state budget. The Riksdag shall now establish the expenditure frameworks that were presented and which shall govern the Swedish economy next year.

Today could be a day when people in our country – people who go to work in the morning, who study or research, who pick up children, who leave an impression, who run companies or try to recover from illness, people who think about how they will make ends meet at the end of the month and how we as a society should contribute to salvaging decent human life on our planet – could find hope and direction in the economic policy that the country's governing authorities want to push through.

But today is not such a day. The priorities of the state budget rather deepen our greatest societal problems. This morning's announcement that Sweden is now entering a recession constitutes a partial receipt of the SD-led government's policy, and more is to be expected. It is unfortunately not superfluous to say that Sweden finds itself in a situation where an already pressured welfare state is heading into a full-scale crisis.

Our welfare is upheld by skilled people who, in an organized, professional community, ensure that all our lives can become safer, freer, and richer. These people are now sounding the alarm that they are going on their knees. Six out of ten teachers state that cuts are occurring at their own school. Stress and workload are the most common reasons why teachers leave the profession. 60 percent of doctors are considering reducing their working hours, changing workplaces, or completely leaving the profession due to high workload. Almost all regions already reported a shortage of nurses and midwives last year. Within elderly care, over half of the Kommunalarna say that they want to leave the profession. Just over half of the country's social managers state that they have difficulty providing the interventions that the individual needs and is entitled to. Eight out of ten say at the same time that they have difficulty recruiting social secretaries.

What are the Sweden Democrats and the government doing in that situation? Well, with bold courage, they are now delivering a cut shock in municipalities and regions. In these literally life-saving activities, the blue-brown coalition's chaos policy will be seen and felt most of all.

Madam Speaker! In the budget that the Riksdag is to establish today, the framework for a supplement of 10 billion kronor in general government grants to municipalities and regions. That proposal was submitted at a time when Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, projected that 28 billion were needed to avoid a deficit in the sector. The budget bill thus deliberately set up pressured welfare services across the board.

What we know now is that the forecast looks dramatically worse. It is now 31 billion that is missing according to SKR - after the added 10 billion in this budget bill. 25 billion of these 31 are missing in the regions. In other words, it is Swedish healthcare that will have to face the worst cut shock.

We can already today note that most regions are planning for savings within healthcare. In Östergötland, personnel costs are to be reduced by a corresponding 600 million kronor. In Skellefteå, they are halting the construction of new health centers. Increased patient fees await in most places. In Sörmland, the regional government has laid off 700 people. One of the proposals there concerns getting rid of ten of the fifteen clinical pharmacists who work close to multi-morbid patients with conducting medication reviews. Where does the cost end up then, do you think?

What we are now seeing emerge is a systemic change in Swedish healthcare, which is about the care that can be delivered to the citizens, the care that one must have the right to expect in a wealthy country like Sweden, not looking the way it did. And, Madam Speaker, the important thing is that it is happening because the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have chosen for it to be so. There are no economic laws that say the regions should not receive the financial resources needed to be able to handle the real problems. It is the state that has chronically underfunded the municipal sector, and it is the government that is now standing by with its hands behind its back when Swedish healthcare faces a formidable crisis.

From the Left Party's side, due to the changed and acute situation, we have proposed an extra supplementary budget, an opportunity for the governing coalition to act for healthcare. But nothing is being done. It is as if the healthcare crisis is almost seen as an opportunity to force a system shift, a rollback of just such things that have made Sweden a good country to live in, a country that many have envied internationally.

Madam Speaker! The healthcare crisis is, of course, something that should be the government's primary concern, and what tops the political agenda. Healthcare was the voters' most important issue before the 2022 election. It is also not so likely that so many of the voters who cast their vote for any of the governing right-wing parties did so because they wanted to see a pre-organized shutdown of hospital departments and mass layoffs of nurses and doctors.

But the tactic used from that side is now well-known. Instead of acting on, or even commenting on, the alarming new forecasts for healthcare and other welfare, they from that side have managed to come up with all sorts of other initiatives on how one can facilitate the deportation of seriously ill children, how, in conflict with fundamental international conventions, one can make more people stateless, and how one should more intensively and in violation of the constitution stigmatize vulnerable minorities.

It is as if Sweden is being governed by a group of irresponsible PR consultants who are uninterested in political accountability and have instead chosen to set up some kind of roleplay of the interwar period. It is possible that they are having fun in the meantime, but for the Swedish people, it is not particularly constructive to be spectators to this. This is, in fact, a policy that makes our society poorer and less secure.

Speaking of insecurity, Madam Speaker - it is something that representatives of the SD-led government talk about a lot. But when it comes to real political action to prevent, for example, gang crime, that talk is worth nothing. Instead, it is number-tinkering that prevails. Cuts await the school and social services, which are supposed to do the work. As a spicy detail, the 80 million kronor presented as a preventive initiative against crime is in fact a cut from previous appropriations of 250 million. The government works systematically with the issues, and they do it through talking points and spin instead of resources and knowledge.

Madam Speaker! This is a budget that also leaves households in the lurch, that is to say, those households that have not been very well off previously. Not once since the 90s crisis have households seen such a fall in average real income as this year. But while the wage earners are hit, record profits are being made in the business sector. This applies particularly in some industries where a few actors with great market power keep prices up, such as the food giants and the banks.

The government has stubbornly refused to take research and facts into account when it comes to fighting inflation at its root. No action against the crisis profiteers, despite the fact that there have been a number of concrete proposals to take a stand on. No measure to press food prices or the banks' interest margins. No action for a more reasonable price model for electricity. No reductions in fees for preschool, dental care, and public transport, which would be effective in that regard. Nor are any serious attempts being made to protect households with small margins against the effects of price increases.

Instead, it is the laid-off welfare workers, desperate mortgage customers and higher unemployment that are expected to fix inflation. It is difficult to see that any Swedish government, with all available information, has acted so irresponsibly in economic policy since the breakthrough of democracy 100 years ago. Such is the economic policy when it is steered by the combined political forces of those who prioritize bank directors' bonuses over the best interests of families with children and those who find their joy in life in repression and racism.

Madam Speaker! One of the reasons why this is perhaps the most irresponsible economic policy that has been conducted in the country in 100 years is how our time's great fateful issue, the climate transition, is handled in the budget. The investments required for a systematic and just transition to be possible are conspicuously absent. Instead, the government cuts environmental and climate work and increases emissions. The Minister for Climate is sent out as some kind of empty-handed but upbeat influencer, while the actual climate policy is managed from the Ministry of Finance straight into the darkness.

The government's political rhetoric in this area seems inspired by the bots that otherwise amplify the blue-brown presence on social media. It is as if an automated reaction has been programmed for the word climate, which triggers a vapid mass of words about nuclear power every time the word comes up. This is simply not serious. Even if it were possible to pump billions into new nuclear reactors that generate electricity in a few decades, and even if we ignore the problems and risks with that, everyone understands that they do not solve the problem of neglected railway maintenance. It does not make existing housing stock more energy-efficient. It does not increase the transmission capacity of electricity, does not climate-proof coastal buildings, and does not restore wetlands. Behind the culture war rhetoric lies only shamefully irresponsible helplessness.

Madam Speaker! I have already touched upon how the Left Party's economic policy in decisive areas shows that it is possible to choose a different path. This is presented collectively in our budget motion. We show there that it is possible to provide the necessary funds to save healthcare, elderly care, and the school from the most acute crisis. It is possible to remove the care allowance deduction, which is so exceptionally unfair and which does not exist in any other Nordic country. It is possible to improve the sickness insurance and the unemployment insurance so that they are worthy of a modern welfare state. It is possible to bring dental care under the same high-cost protection as other healthcare. It is also possible to introduce a Sweden ticket so that public transport can cost 450 kronor a month across the entire country.

All of this is possible, if one decides to have a tax system that redistributes to productive welfare initiatives. Sweden cannot simultaneously continue to be an advanced welfare state and a tax haven for capital owners - which is what we actually are today. Sweden is one of few countries in the Western world that has neither inheritance and gift tax, wealth tax, or property tax. This government is not even able to present proposals for taxing the excess profits in the banks, which many other European countries have succeeded in doing.

Sweden is a country where the gaps have increased faster than in almost any other industrial country in recent decades. The results of that experiment are increasingly obvious and tangible.

We also show in our shadow budget how it is possible to take steps away from the dogmatic surplus targets and instead move towards a responsible path, where it is a concrete analysis of the needs in reality that guides the economic policy. Today, it requires a paralyzing dose of market fundamentalism not to understand what is the problem with abstaining from investments. It is not possible to travel by train in Sweden without being met by constant problems. The indebtedness of Swedish households is among the highest in the EU - and is a direct effect of the state withdrawing from construction. We see how systems for water and sewage decay due to a lack of investments. The delayed climate transition, I have already spoken about. These are areas where the state's active backward choices drive up costs and risks.

Normalizing and institutionalizing this policy is not only bad for the Swedish economy today, but I believe it also does something really bad to the public debate and with people's trust and relationship to the political system when the economic policy does not relate to the real problems in the economy of society. It is that misery that the Left shows a way away from.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, in this which also for my part will be the last debate in the Riksdag, I want to turn for a moment to those outside the chamber who may be listening now or afterwards.

I naturally think that you should look at the budget proposals that are being set against each other – at the reforms and the figures. But based on how the political debate has looked, I think you can ask yourself a simpler question. What will make my life better?

Does it give you joy and well-being to know that the authorities shall be instructed to harass your neighbor, who perhaps will also have their place of worship demolished and their relatives rejected when they try to find a safer, more loving existence together in a country that they have helped build and can contribute to? Or would your life become better, freer and brighter if food prices became more reasonable, if there were more nurses when you arrive at the emergency room, if the rail traffic was upgraded, if you knew that old mom who needs home care received the help she can take joy in, if the children had somewhere to live when it is time to move out of the home and if you could avoid worrying about finances if you happened to fall ill?

Thus do the choices look in Swedish politics today. Such are the differences between, on one hand, a reactionary right-wing policy, which is based on speculating in hatred and discord to defend today's economic hierarchies, and on the other hand, a left-wing policy, which is based on the simple but great insight that we humans are strong but fragile. We therefore need each other, and we can, guided by the longing of our best moments, build a society where we thrive by cultivating the best in one another.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! This is not a stone-cold retort against Ali Esbati, but rather a big thank you.

It feels a bit sad that you are going to move on and do something else in life. I will never forget my first debates with Ali Esbati. They were in auditorium presentations, and I can say that it was not always easy to debate. Ali did not only have the right in front of him when he threw his left hook; sometimes one was hit by it too. And it was felt.

One must appreciate Ali Esbati. He is a politician who is well-read, and he is intellectual. He is quite tough, but he is tough in a warm way. And I miss that a little bit in politics. I would even describe him as a bit of a wordsmith.

I will miss Ali Esbatis's speeches in the chamber. With all respect to all of you others, but he is the most prepared in turns of phrase, in descriptions, in vivid imagery of how he describes his policy, your policy, and our policy. I will miss that. I even believe that the stenographers will miss having to write out his speeches verbatim.

You leave a void behind you, Ali Esbati, but we know that you make wise choices for yourself and you do what is necessary. So I thought I would give you a little gift as well. I know that you read a lot of literature. I don't know at all what you like, but I chose a book that I haven't read but that I would like to read. And I hope that you appreciate it and that you have a good time with your family. I am quite sure that we will read more about Ali Esbati in the future. You will not let go of politics!

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! I will not say much other than a huge thank you. It was moving to hear. I believe and hope that we will meet in other contexts.

I will also say that it was never the intention to meet any Social Democrats with hooks; it just depends on where you happen to be standing then.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! You will have to excuse me; this is a debate on economic policy, but on a day like this, one cannot help but speak specifically about Ali Esbati.

I am sorry, all listeners, but this will not be the classic hard fight between Ali Esbati and Martin Ådahl regarding economic policy that you were surely looking forward to. No, the risk is that this will be my last debate with Ali of the very many debates we have had over the years. I do not know how many - 20, 30? It is hardly possible to count. I guess that unfortunately it will not help if I strongly request that you take back your resignation, Ali. But just like the previous speaker, I want to take the opportunity to say thank you.

It is the case that we in politics can think incredibly differently, and that is something we two have done, among others. But it is also the case that one sometimes cannot help but like one's opponent for how they present this crazy, incorrect, completely insane, one thinks, so resiliently and smartly. One cannot help but smile on the other side when one is preparing one's own reply.

You, Ali, are such a person for whom one can undoubtedly feel this deep and warm respect, even if one does not think alike. Sometimes we have also, strangely enough, united beyond everything we disagree on in the fight against prejudice and for fundamental humanity.

As said before, you will leave a great void behind you. I wonder what will happen now that you will have more time for family and for other things – whether the small economic pragmatist, the wise one that I have only sensed at times in the rhetoric, will come out now, or if you will, on the contrary, blossom out with full force with the left-wing ideas. In any case, we will, of course, see more of you. I and, I believe, many others will miss you very much.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, it warms me greatly to hear these words! Martin Ådahl is a person who for a long time to come will be associated with me - if not otherwise when I Google myself on the internet, as one sometimes does. Then it says "others also searched for", and then Martin Ådahl comes up. That is nice. But I really think it was heartwarming to hear those words.

I also truly believe that there are things that unite us beyond this, such as taking a stand against prejudice and racism. We met once before the election campaign at a meeting organized by Centerpartiet and Vänsterpartiet in that locality. No one agreed with each other, but that is the very basis of the popular movement for meeting and discussing politics and being able to delve deeper beyond the slogan-like and fully reasonable opposition one can have toward each other's opinions, in order to ensure that they become anchored in broader segments of the population and that people can discuss economic policy also outside of this chamber, not least in our popular movement organizations and parties. There, I believe we have a common background.

I thank you for those words and also hope that, in this case, we can see each other in other contexts. One never knows where life will take one.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, the economic situation is, to say the least, challenging with high inflation and high interest rates that affect all parts of society - households and companies but also welfare.

That is why the government, in its budget proposal, focuses primarily on combating inflation while simultaneously taking measures to support, first and foremost, vulnerable households but also welfare during this difficult time.

It is a restrained budget, and I think that is reasonable. We must be careful with state expenditures so that we do not fuel the inflation that exists. But in parallel with this, reforms were needed, not least so that more people can get into work but also to strengthen households and welfare in a difficult time.

We also need, as can be read from the budget bill, to bolster our defense and our justice system. In the budget for 2024, a substantial expansion is made of both the defense and the justice system. Despite a pressured economic situation, we prioritize, for example, that the resources for the justice system go from 69 to 90 billion between 2023 and 2026.

Madam Speaker! I still think that it is not possible to talk about law and order without placing a special focus on crime prevention work. It should be at least as interesting to discuss how we best prevent crime as to discuss punishment. A crime prevention effort, I mean, must have the family as a cornerstone.

Right near where I live in Örebro, we have the well-known Kumlaanstalten. Since 2020, the head there has been Jacques Mwepu. He has expressed himself in the following way: Many children grow up in broken families, in the absence of guidance and in environments where the parents have difficulties influencing their children in the right direction. I believe that society must support the families even more, and at an earlier stage.

Jacques Mwepu explains, I think, why we Christian Democrats so often talk about just the family. Good values are built in the family. Parents are irreplaceable, and they are the primary defense against the values of the street and a criminal lifestyle. Alf Svensson, our former party leader, once said: There is not a single child who is born a murderer.

Therefore, the family needs to be at the center of the preventive work, and with us Christian Democrats in the government, we also let that guide the design of the policy.

Madam Speaker! The Government has presented and is presenting a number of measures for preventive initiatives. Examples are the leisure card, Sis-subsidy, home visit programs, parenting support, reinforced security at Sis and the working environment for teachers in vulnerable areas. Soon we will also have a new Social Services Act and a staffing initiative.

We Christian Democrats have pushed for us to have a focus on crime prevention work. It is simply a matter of giving as many children as possible the chance to get on the right track in life.

Madam Speaker! We in the Riksdag have to deal with a recession with high inflation here and now. That we pursue a fiscal and monetary policy that brings down inflation is good for everyone. It is good for private individuals, for companies, for municipalities and regions, and for the state.

That we, in parallel with this, deliver political decisions that ensure people of working age who are capable of working are employed, the so-called work line, is important for so many reasons. Beside the obvious reason that it is important for the individual to be self-sufficient, the so-called dependency ratio is another. The number of those of working age in relation to those who cannot or should not work is increasing in a dramatic way. According to Statistics Sweden, the number of those in the labor force will decrease until 2035, while the number of people over 80 years old will increase sharply by more than a quarter of a million people. We also know that it is a group that, generally speaking, needs large-scale care and nursing interventions.

Those who want to secure tomorrow's welfare cannot bypass this. It is completely central. It is a decisive factor for us to be able to build Sweden strong again and have a welfare that we can rely on to grow—that cake that we politicians so gladly want to distribute.

This is a cake that we can let grow through growth. Despite this, it is painted as, as so many times before, that the choice stands between tax cuts and a functioning welfare state. It is a very bold claim, I would like to assert. The previous government raised a number of taxes, but I do not know if so many think that the welfare became better because of it.

A functioning welfare state is not built with words, rhetoric, or symbolic politics. The Christian Democrats' position in government is to prioritize welfare, and we believe that this is best achieved by paving the way for increased self-sufficiency and letting individuals' diligence and work pay off.

It is and remains tax revenues, not tax rates, that finance the welfare. And tax revenues do not arise out of thin air. They arise when people have a job to go to and pay tax. More tax revenues simply come when people work more. This is facilitated if we have a tax and benefit system that encourages work. That is how we will meet the future welfare commitments.

Within the Christian Democrats, extensive policy development work is currently underway - one of the largest we have had. When we have come through this recession, when we have brought down inflation to the level it should be at and interest rates are down again, we believe in a new era, an era of nation-building where we strengthen Sweden again. Things need to be done here and now so that we can be world-leading tomorrow.

The alternative for Sweden is not to compete with low wages or support with state subsidies to those parts of the country that fall behind. We must instead find ways to be able to accelerate ourselves out of the recession and into a future that both manages green transition and secures growth, energy supply, functioning infrastructure, security, and a world-class welfare.

My feeling, after my years in politics, is that we devote far too much time to debating detailed regulations and how households and companies should be kept under strict supervision within ever narrower frameworks. We devote far too little time to discussing how the power that exists in our society can be unleashed. We need to review laws, regulations and processes, as well as political and bureaucratic caution that sets up obstacles instead of enabling. It is not sufficient, and it risks forcing Sweden into a vise that we may never be able to escape.

Madam Speaker! I also believe that we must have a serious discussion about the fact that we perhaps simply need to reintroduce the investment budget that was abolished in 1980. Since then, investments have been handled like all other items in the state's annual budget. The consequence for, for example, infrastructure is that investments in infrastructure have been halved while the number of vehicles and transports on the railway has increased by several hundred percent since the 1980s.

With the enormous investment needs we are now seeing, a long-term investment budget could be a solution. I mention infrastructure for that reason, as it is the society's lifeblood and absolutely crucial for Sweden to function.

Many Swedish roads and railways are in critical condition today. It is estimated that almost every fourth road in our country is in poor condition. This affects residents, and it affects the economy of society negatively. Delayed train departures are estimated to cost society 7-8 billion kronor. Of the roads in our road network, 60 percent were built before 1970. They are estimated to have a lifespan of 50 years. This decay of railways and also roads has persisted for far too many years. It is estimated that Sweden's maintenance debt today is over 70 billion kronor. This is because the maintenance of roads and railways has not been completed.

The work to develop solutions for infrastructure but also for housing, welfare, skills supply, and energy will continue within our party during 2024. We will meet in various forms. I am currently traveling across the country to gather ideas from all our municipal and regional politicians.

At the beginning of 2025, we will hopefully be able to present a number of different proposals on how we can more quickly solve the social problems that I believe we all here in the chamber agree exist – remove bottlenecks and obstacles to speed up social construction and find creative and concrete solutions to unlock politics and bureaucracy. We want companies, organizations, and the public sector to dare to participate and take initiative so that we accelerate the construction of the Sweden of the future.

With this, Madam Speaker, I thank you. I want to conclude by wishing my colleague in the Finance Committee, Ali Esbati, good luck in our western neighboring country, which I know he is going to. I think that family is very important, and I know that it is precisely this that is the reason for Ali Esbati finishing early. Good luck over there!

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to first say that it warms me to hear Hans Eklind speak. It is like an echo from a warmer and better time, with other political alliances and other political priorities that have unfortunately faded too much in today's debate.

At the same time, it is a bit sad to hear Hans Eklind talk about the trains not running on time and the road network not being maintained when we know that the government in its current form is actually not investing in this at all. They are not putting in those funds at all. It might come later, like everything else that the government has promised.

But I have a very specific question for Hans Eklind. It has been promised, not least by the Kristdemokraterna but also by other government parties, that they will go all out on the Swedish Armed Forces. When we looked through the budget from Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson when it arrived, many of us nevertheless noted that the government in fact, to quote from the budget, "has tasked the Armed Forces and relevant authorities to plan for continued growth which means that defense spending shall reach 2 percent of GDP 2028". You are thus pushing the goal of strengthening the Armed Forces, which was talked about so enormously by the then opposition, the current Tidö parties, two years into the future – precisely what they accused the then government of doing.

When one speaks with those who are responsible for the build-up of the Swedish Armed Forces and the Swedish civil defense, one hears that many are very worried right now. Officers are resigning. We are lagging behind; we are not at the level of what is required.

My question is: Have you completely given up on the goal of reaching 2 percent of GDP by 2026, which was so important and has not become less important since then?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Normally we tend to answer like this: We are adding 27 billion kronor to the defense budget; that is what is being added to the defense. I usually say: Is that true? I actually think one could say 44 billion, for the simple reason that in addition to the own defense budget, we have, through five support packages to Ukraine, added a value of 17 billion kronor to Ukraine.

It is a historical investment being made in defense. I am therefore somewhat surprised by Martin Ådahl's descriptions. It is a budget that is extensive, and that is for the simple reason that we want to enable a functioning personnel supply and the procurement of new material systems. With the budget that the government is now presenting, we will be able to enter Nato as a credible ally, instead of backing in with an underfunded proposal.

I am therefore turning slightly against the description that Martin Ådahl gives of what the investment in the Swedish defense looks like. It is a historical expansion of the defense that is being made. Or does Martin Ådahl have a different opinion regarding this?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Absolutely, we must carry out this major expansion, and everyone has agreed on that. The question is only whether one keeps the promises regarding the pace of expansion that was considered absolutely necessary after the election, or if one has in practice already abandoned this, according to the budget that has just been presented. Much of the money that Hans Eklind mentions is resources that not only the government but also the opposition have agreed upon. We have jointly put forward these demands for quite a long time and also received these increases.

But the question was that we now have to increase the pace even further, and this was something that was required from both sides before the election, both from us and from the then opposition. Now we are not keeping those schedules.

If we are to talk numbers, in the budget that has been presented and which I just quoted from, more billions are allocated to lowering the petrol tax for people living in large cities than to further expanding the defense, beyond the curve that already exists.

Then one knows that one will not reach 2028. It is far too late in relation to the challenges we have now and the fact that within the Armed Forces there is concern that one does not have the resources to respond to the threats that exist and that one will not receive compensation for the materiel that one, rightly, should send to Ukraine - and one should rightly send much more materiel to Ukraine than today, because that is what the Ukrainians ask us for.

I am sorry, Hans Eklind, but the concern is very real. It is your own budget I am quoting from.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! The foundation for the Armed Forces and the military growth is the personnel. Increased conscription quotas are now broadening the recruitment base for both soldiers and officers. In the budget bill for 2024, we are increasing the number of places in the officer training, and the Armed Forces are currently reviewing their conditions. It is a historic expansion.

I just want to say, in all kindness, that I reacted in September, but I did not manage to request a reply to Martin Ådahl before it was too late. But in September, Martin Ådahl claimed, for example, that electric car sales had come to a complete standstill. I went in and checked on my computer, and then I could see that the three best-selling cars in the month of August, i.e., the month that was most recently registered, were precisely electric cars.

That one makes such a deal out of the petrol tax well testifies to the fact that Martin Ådahl has not met the voters that I have met. They are people who need the car. They need to have a car to make the puzzle of life fit together. They do not wave away the reduction of the tax. They do not wave away the reduction of the reduction obligation that becomes a reality on January 1. On the contrary, it is absolutely crucial for them to be able to make their lives fit together.

I do not think that one should set a reduction in the petrol tax against the defense investments, which are also historic. One needs both.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! During the years of the corona pandemic, the words "we must thank the heroes in healthcare with more than applause" were on all politicians' lips. The staff's working conditions were to be improved. They were to receive higher wages, availability was to increase, and healthcare was to be equal across the entire country. Then the Kristdemokraterna made this sound like a self-evident truth.

But now the years have passed. The Christian Democrats have taken responsibility for the department, and Swedish health and medical care is not facing investments but instead enormous savings.

I heard Hans Eklind talk about this in his speech. He spoke about how cuts did not have to be exactly cuts, but that it was about other types of tax money. I had a bit of difficulty following. Regardless of the rhetoric up here, we see how large cuts become mandatory in Sweden's regions.

I would therefore like to ask Hans Eklind how the demands that Sweden's regions are now faced with relate to the Christian Democrats' promises of a well-functioning and accessible healthcare in all of Sweden.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are therefore allocating 40 percent of the reform space just to strengthening municipalities and regions. Let me quote what the chief economist at SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, said when she was asked what happens. She answered: The inflation thief! That was her answer.

That is where we have the problem. It is not that the regions are being careless with their finances or that the staff's wage agreements mean that one can no longer manage the finances, but it is the inflation shock that has caused this. It is, therefore, a temporary thing that we are now going to get through.

What is the inflation smock then? It concerns the pension agreements that are now being adjusted with CPI. This year it is 8 percent, and next year I believe it is 9.14 percent. That is where we have the problem that the regions are now struggling with.

I have a counter-question for Janine Alm Ericson. You are presenting an economy where you are debt-financing with over 200 billion kronor. You are presenting a policy that is inflation-driving. If it is as SKR's chief economist says, that inflation is the problem, in what way does Janine Alm Ericson believe the Environment Party's way of handling the budget policy would facilitate? The most important thing right now is to bring down inflation as quickly as possible.

You are presenting a budget that is, at best, inflation-driving. In what way does this constitute help here and now and in the long term for the regions that are struggling with this?

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Inflation is, of course, incredibly serious. It must go down. But now all forecasts show that it is on its way down and that the development is heading in the right direction.

On the other hand, we see now how we are instead entering a recession. The government actually needs completely different tools than hiding behind an economic policy that is weak because it blames inflation. I have not heard a single economist in the last few months say that Sweden's biggest problem for the future is inflation - inflation has been a problem in the past, and we are handling that now.

Now is the time to invest. Now we must invest in the transition. We must invest in investments so that Swedish jobs are retained and Swedish business can develop. This budget is already dated and is more about the past than the future.

Yes, you invested a lot in healthcare and in regions and municipalities, but it was not enough. That is what this is about. There is an opportunity for a different economic policy. There is an opportunity to invest in what is needed. But instead, there will be healthcare queues. There will be people who do not get to healthcare. There will be layoffs, and there will be a austerity measure that is not needed.

I still want to assert that what the Christian Democrats have promised regarding good and equal care throughout Sweden is simply not being lived up to.

I read with great interest the interview with Ebba Busch the other day regarding investments for Sweden. We welcome that. It is precisely the kind of policy that Miljöpartiet also advocates for. It is about large investments in infrastructure, among other things. I would like to hear how Kristdemokraterna intend to proceed to get this policy through, especially since Sverigedemokraterna have so very clearly rejected it today.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I turn very strongly against the description that one blames inflation. I thought that we in this chamber had a common perception of reality and that we see that inflation is an enormous problem. It must be brought down as quickly as possible.

I do not share Janine Alm Ericson's firm optimism at all. I hope that inflation is on its way down, but it is far too early to shout that it is finished now, that it is on its way down and that we can start accelerating again. The economists guess very differently regarding how the future will look. We do not know at all how things are going in China or in our immediate neighborhood.

I hope that inflation is now on its way down. I believe that most observers agree on this. But at what pace it is happening, one does not really know. One reason why many still believe that inflation is on its way down is that we are still holding firm on fiscal policy and conducting a restrained policy that does not fuel inflation. It is this that distinguishes Miljöpartiet from Kristdemokraterna.

We stand behind a restrained budget for the simple reason that we want to push down inflation as quickly as possible. It is inflation that is the big problem for the regions right now. It is about the pension costs.

Here, the Green Party chooses a completely different path. In its budget alternative, it even surpasses the Left Party when it comes to debt financing.

When it comes to investments for the future, I do not feel that the Sweden Democrats would have said no to us starting to invest again. On the other hand, the Sweden Democrats and the Christian Democrats are in complete agreement that it must be economically sustainable. But I still believe that we must have a steel production that is environmentally friendly. It is about 10 percent. Can anyone else point out how we can reach the environmental goals by 2045 without making these investments—I will absolutely listen.

We agree on the environmental goals. Then something must be done.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of the Center Party's reservation regarding our green, liberal budget alternative, reservation 3. It is unfortunately the only classically conservative rural-liberal alternative on the table in this debate.

We are in an exceptional economic situation. I have actually had, I must say, the privilege as an economist to have experienced very many crises at relatively close range. During the 90s crisis, I was an economic journalist. I have experienced the Asian crisis at the Riksbank, the euro crisis, the financial crisis, and the pandemic crisis. And I have surely missed one. But it is rare that there are so many crises simultaneously as there are right now.

I will speak about the other things that lie behind this, but it is sharp now. Now Sweden is in recession. We have a growth crisis in Sweden. We must talk about it. We cannot pretend as if the most important thing now is that we should start tearing down places of worship. We are in a growth crisis in Sweden.

Our inflation rate is on its way down - thank you, Riksbanken, for that! But it is still far too high. This applies in particular to the underlying inflation. We have a unique combination of high unemployment and the EU's lowest growth, perhaps together with Poland. Poland has also had a populist economic policy, in its own way worse than Sweden.

We have today a weakening of confidence. We see that in the economic barometer that arrived today. It reflects what all of us who meet small businesses and large companies know. They say: Now we are in a confidence crisis. There are record-high bankruptcy figures, and unemployment is ticking up all the time.

Since then, as has been mentioned in the debate, we have an inflation bomb. It is truly from the government, but one has not acted on it. The inflation bomb has hit municipalities and regions. Now it is happening for real, whatever is said in this debate. Go out and meet the parents who are worried that the extra resources are being removed in the school, who are worried for their own children but also for other children who are vulnerable now when there is so much crime and recruitment attempts! Right now, the school must stand strong. Now the resources are being removed.

Parents are worried that the rural school is being closed. That is the reality, and it is extra serious because we also have the security crisis. We are almost relieved that it is not a shooting just this week. We are going to invest in the police - thank you, the government, for that! We are in a situation where the society around the police must be strong.

Then we naturally have the international security crisis following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. We must always in these contexts thank Ukraine for defending the entire Western society through their struggle against Putin's regime. They are still doing it, against all odds.

We also have a climate crisis in the midst of all this. A climate meeting is taking place right now in Dubai. In an almost zombie-like way, we are heading towards increased emissions.

It looks very gloomy. In such a situation, I believe that many across the country would have wanted a clear direction, a kind of idea for the politics, something that hangs together.

Fighting inflation is absolutely necessary and maintaining balance in the state finances. There is agreement, from my side at least, regarding what the government and the Social Democrats say. It is necessary. But, friends, it is not enough. We would need a direction where diligence, the work ethic, and entrepreneurship ensure that the cake grows, where we are able to prioritize what is truly important, where the school stands strong, and where it is possible for everyone to be part of the climate transition.

But from the government's side, it is now deep disorder. It is not just that promises are not being kept - 10 kronor lower price on diesel, cheaper falukorv, lower electricity tax and all that it was. It is roughly like what we now see outside the windows in large parts of Sweden: an ever thicker layer of slush until the government cannot dig itself out of all these promises that one never really manages to fulfill, neither now nor in the future.

Furthermore, there is no direction in the policy. The tax on labor is raised more than it is lowered. In the government's own budget, it states that we risk losing the annual positions of 11,000 people in professions where we have an enormous skills shortage - this is because the tax on labor is raised by an allegedly bourgeois government. It is more expensive for companies to hire. You are raising the employer contributions even though the National Institute of Economic Research says that it is precisely this measure that can lower inflation and lower costs. That is also what the employers say when you speak with them.

It is not enough with this. Right now, the employer contributions for 15-18-year-olds are being raised. It is therefore going to become more expensive to hire, just when we want to get the youth off the streets and into summer jobs and extra jobs so that they can earn money in an honest way. Just then, the employer contributions for them are raised instead of being lowered.

When there is a climate crisis, you remove the electric car bonus and act surprised. I did not get the opportunity to address this in the replies, Hans Eklind. Yes, according to what was previously Bil Sweden and is now called Mobility Sweden, private individuals' purchases have stalled. The curve that was on its way up has completely flattened out. You replace this with nothing. The electrification simply isn't happening. You remove the biofuel, Mr. Speaker, and replace it with nothing. Recently, biogas has received an enormous tax shock. That is bad for the countryside, bad for the climate transition, and bad for many farmers all over Sweden. You have replaced this with nothing.

Sweden was once a role model in these contexts. We were to build the green industrialization on the fact that we had a rising economy and falling emissions. Yes, now we are in a recession - falling economy - and have 20 percent higher emissions. The Swedish green brand is being dragged through the mud instead of being the example that China, USA and Europe speak about. It is about getting the climate transition done.

Again: This can be solved. It can be done. We can prioritize. We can invest in what is truly important. Then we must start by lowering taxes for ordinary people. It increases growth. It strengthens the work line. It actually also lowers costs. Therefore, we want to truly lower the tax for an ordinary family. We want to lower it for a dentist and a police officer who works extra with 6,500 kronor more than the government. We want to lower the tax for the teaching assistant and the healthcare assistant – those we need right now – with 2,000 kronor more than the government.

We want to make it easier for companies to hire, not least young people. It is about 3,500 kronor less per month so that you who have a small business can hire eight instead of seven now that unemployment is rising. Young people can then get their first job, and they can see their parents go to work. And the pie grows.

But we also want to prioritize. It is more important to have 1,000 new teachers than cheaper plastic bags and cheaper snus. Yes, it is very nice to have cheaper plastic bags and cheaper snus, but if one is to be serious in an economic budget in a difficult crisis situation in a recession, it is more important that we have 1,000 more teachers so that we can meet the students' needs. We want to invest 5 billion more than the government, specifically to avoid the wave of layoffs and the wave of closures in the Swedish school system.

We need to invest in the other things that can prevent the crime wave. It is about a new national defector program and about a reinforcement of the courts so that we can hunt every single krona that moves in the criminal circles. And it is about preventive measures here and now.

We also need to invest in those who are vulnerable in other ways, in the countryside. It is about directly giving them an investment in individual roads, in railways and in everyday life, so that it does not just become promises that maybe something will happen at some point in the future. It is about getting a simple petrol voucher in your hand that you can redeem when you cannot afford to pay for the car.

And now I come to the climate transition. One should be able to receive a support of 50,000 kronor to change cars, and it should also apply to used cars, for example a gas car or a plug-in hybrid. It should apply to the cheap cars so that everyone gets the opportunity to be part of the transition. It should not be any Tesla, with all respect for the fact that this brand is in focus right now. All of Sweden should be able to become a part of this transition, not just the fine and fantastic green industrialization in the north that is currently being smeared. Even ordinary people should get the opportunity to change cars and to invest in new district heating if they are dependent on electricity. We want people to be able to borrow at a low interest rate so that they can be part of the transition. Everyone should be part of this people's movement for the climate where we do not use finger-wagging.

Mr. Speaker! Let these simple principles prevail again. They may not be so original. One might call it sound common sense in economic policy instead of this popcorn machine of populist promises.

We stand behind diligence, the work line, lower taxes on work instead of increased benefits and lower taxes so that small companies can hire so that the cake grows. We want to prioritize what is truly important when we have a welfare crisis. In particular, the school must stand strong now when there are so many problems for our youth. There are so many who leave school without grades and so many who are exposed to the wrong things. We want to make it possible for everyone to be a part of the green transition so that Sweden can shine again in the world and be both good for the climate and earn money so that it does not go downhill for Sweden as it does now. If we then get a direction and a meaning for the whole country, perhaps we can together pull ourselves out of this crisis of confidence, this recession and growth crisis, that we are in now and get back the Sweden we deserve. We need a real crisis management, Mr. Speaker!

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! I did not actually request the floor to correct some factual errors, such as that with next year's budget and the government's policy we actually reach NATO's definition of 2 percent and so on. We could have had a long discussion about all of this.

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would do something completely different. I thought I would pose a question to Martin Ådahl and the Center Party. I have read the five budget proposals that are now on the Riksdag's table. There is one that has been negotiated with the four Tidö parties, which we have accounted for and which others will continue to account for. Then there are four opposition parties' budget proposals. The Center Party's budget proposal takes into account the basic laws of nature in economic policy, so to speak, namely that one does not loan-finance as other parts of the opposition want to do and fuel inflation, state debt, and the payment of state debt interest.

Mr. Speaker! My question to Martin Ådahl is: If he did not have his own budget proposal, which of the other four budget proposals would he choose if he were forced to choose one? Would he choose the four Tidö parties' budget proposal, the Social Democrats' budget proposal, the Left Party's budget proposal, or the Green Party's budget proposal? Which would Martin Ådahl choose if he were forced to choose?

I listened to what Martin Ådahl said in the rostrum. But I find practically nothing that resembles any of the other three budget proposals from the opposition. With great interest, I would like to hear what Martin Ådahl would choose if there were no budget proposal from Centerpartiet. I do not want to hear that there is now a budget proposal from Centerpartiet, but I want to hear which budget proposal is his second-choice proposal.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! If we are to bounce these definitions around, the government has, in a somewhat clever way, if I may put it that way, switched from the usual definition, which applied previously to the defense requirements and which these forecasts were built on, to NATO's definition. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a requirement. But it gives the government the opportunity to postpone the large defense investments until the next mandate period, and we do not know if the government will remain in power then. It means that the units and the Armed Forces do not receive these resources, and that is the debate that is now being held. I say this only so that everyone understands what we were talking about. But I will not deepen that debate.

I will instead answer Edward Riedl's question. We will not choose SD's budget proposal, as you did when you came into government. And I must say that my biggest problem right now, with all due respect, is that the Social Democrats are copying one thing after another of our proposals. It is not always as convenient as it sounds in politics, whether it concerns the environmental area or the part of the tax cut that they had.

But it will not be the Social Democrats' budget proposal. I have negotiated before with the Social Democrats, and it is perhaps not the most fun thing they have done. It will not be their budget proposal. But if I were to choose, it would probably be that. But it would not be that, because we would negotiate with them. And we might negotiate with you if you come to your senses and drop this populist politics.

We may all end up negotiating, who knows. But when we negotiate, the Center Party will be the massive force for a growth-oriented whole-country policy with a strong green transition, which we have been with 20 billion kronor in tax cuts that we forced from the Social Democrats. We will be that force when we negotiate with you and when we negotiate with them, if we negotiate with them.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was a bit difficult to understand exactly what Martin Ådahl said. But I will make an interpretation, and he can correct me if I am wrong. There are four other budget proposals. And if he were forced to choose one of them, he would, if I understand the whole thing correctly, vote for the Socialdemokraternas budget proposal, even though he agrees with the government in principle, because the government has copied Centerpartiets policy. That was how I interpreted it. But Member Martin Ådahl may correct me.

What is interesting, and that was what my question was about, is that there are three additional opposition parties besides the Center Party. And in practice, nothing of what Martin Ådahl considers important and what he spoke about from the rostrum can he do together with these parties, at least based on the budgets they have submitted. That was why I asked the question.

It is a very divided opposition. It would still have been interesting to hear Member Ådahl tell what type of economic direction he would have preferred from the others if the Center Party's proposal had not existed.

I can say that I would rather have voted for the Center Party's budget proposal than the Left Party's. If I had been Martin Ådahl, I would have asked those types of questions. But he did not.

But it would have been interesting to hear which of the different budget proposals Martin Ådahl had voted for this afternoon if there had not been a budget proposal from Centerpartiet.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know how unclear it actually was. It was perhaps only unclear in this Tidö logic.

You are the only ones who have voted with Vänsterpartiet on economic issues. Yes, that is actually the case. You defeated the government on the issue of rent regulation together with Vänsterpartiet. You also tried to defeat the government on the issue of the reform of Arbetsförmedlingen together with Vänsterpartiet. That turned out very well.

What you choose in reality is whichever proposal that makes your party leader become Prime Minister, because it creates chaos in politics.

Seriously speaking: What I said was that when you were given a choice, you apparently chose SD's proposal in the budget – increased tax on labor, increased benefits, prioritization of lowered tax on snus and cheaper plastic bags over teachers and resources in schools. You chose that.

I said that if I were forced to choose, I might choose the Social Democrats, but it will never come to that, for the reason the member himself mentioned about it being important with a balanced budget and so on. They have also started copying a good deal of our proposals before we have even begun to negotiate. And God knows that when we do start negotiating, the Center Party will make a powerful impact in Swedish politics. We have done that before, and I am not in the least afraid of doing it again.

Of all the tough, hard, and difficult questions that Edward Riedl could ask, this was not the hardest I have encountered so far. On the contrary, this becomes a way to be able to point the way forward. We may be able to shake hands on things in the Riksdag again when the Tidö adventure is over.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! In the midst of all this darkness occurring in Sweden and the rest of the world, it is important that there is a light – a faith in the future, a plan forward, something that one as a resident of Sweden can feel hope and anticipation for.

During the weekend when I was at home, we did some Christmas decorating with the children. My youngest child, Nils, had been talking for several weeks about us decorating for Christmas. Mom, he said, if we decorate in November, we can chill in December. So that's what happened. There was Christmas decorating this weekend, and I am happy about that. The lights that entered the home felt beautiful and important. When the season is dark and cold, it is this that is needed as a contrast.

Beyond the season, it is easy to see the darkness in society. We are in a recession with high inflation since 2021 after a terrible pandemic. For many years, we have seen the value of our currency weaken. This has worsened the inflation, and now we see that more people are being warned about layoffs. We have a high terror threat level against Sweden, and in the midst of great joy when Sweden was to play a match, people were killed because they were just Swedes. The summer showed extreme weather in many parts of the world, and we were globally affected by forest fires, torrential rain, and extreme heat. The climate crisis is here and must be taken seriously. For nearly two years, Russia has waged a terrible war against Ukraine, and people have been killed or driven into flight. Since October 7, when Hamas committed its bestial act of terror in Israel, civilians are now paying the price for Hamas's terror in Israel and in Gaza.

Mr. Speaker! Seeing light in this darkness can be difficult. My view is that politics should be an enabler - for the individual, for companies, and for growth and faith in the future. We shall create the conditions for Sweden to be able to become its best self. We shall create faith in the future and hope, as well as concrete measures to make it a reality.

Therefore, this budget is good and balanced as a whole. It is neutral, which means that it does not affect inflation negatively. To introduce an expansive budget in these times, as the Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet propose, would fuel the inflation fire and affect everyone. Worst of all, it would affect the most vulnerable households. But also the public sector, companies, and private individuals would be affected by the effects of a persistently high inflation. We present a budget that stays within the reform space and which at the same time supports the most vulnerable households by having many grants indexed and by continuing with an increased housing allowance.

At the same time, a very large part of the reform space goes to defense and the justice system. These are funds that are needed in the world we live in, as a consequence of what is happening outside Sweden's borders and our future NATO membership, and as a consequence of the serious situation we have in Sweden today with widespread gang crime.

But at the same time as we spend money on defense and the justice system, we need to think about what is needed moving forward: how we stop the new recruitment to the gangs, how we give people hope for the future, and how we eliminate emissions. We do that through investments in school, preventive work, and climate, and through reforms for innovation, growth, and competitiveness. The Liberals are Sweden's growth party.

Mr. Speaker! This government uses both the iron fist and the velvet glove. While historical investments in the justice system are being implemented, the government is also increasing efforts regarding preventive measures. In total, we are allocating 2.8 billion to preventive measures. We are making a new investment in the municipalities' preventive work and continuing with school social teams that can catch up with youths on a slippery slope early. At the same time, it will finally be time for a new Social Services Act, and with it will come a staffing strategy and a billion-kronor investment for social services.

Mr. Speaker! We shall build a stronger Sweden together. What is the foundation of this construction is, of course, the school. If one, as a child, meets the knowledge requirements and leaves school with the feeling that one can achieve exactly what one wants, the world lies before one's feet when one stands with the graduation cap in hand. Therefore, my goal is always that every child shall pass school, regardless of what start in life they have had, and this is prioritized by the Liberals.

The budget does exactly that: prioritizes the school. The government is investing billions with 1.2 billion more for the school. Of the 16 billion in welfare investments that we are making, a large part will also go to the school. Now we meet the need for real textbooks, fiction books, and school libraries, together with a plan to staff and fill the libraries. Reading, writing, and calculating is the foundation for creating one's own future. We are moving from screen to binder. We strengthen the school's knowledge contribution and ensure that there are better conditions for teachers in vulnerable areas.

Mr. Speaker! Learning is lifelong. Now we are also investing in vocational training, folk high schools, and transition support to meet the needs of companies and give the individual the opportunity to find work or further develop themselves. In this way, lifelong learning is strengthened, while more people receive the competence needed for, for example, the green transition.

More children should get to see their parents go to work. Marginalization has spread. Since 2018, women born outside of Europe have been the largest group of long-term unemployed. Stefan Löfven promised the EU's lowest unemployment. On the contrary, the previous government left behind one of the EU's highest. The situation on the Swedish labor market is paradoxical. There are over 335,000 people without work. At the same time, 110,000 positions stand vacant. The problem stems from an education debt that the previous government chose to ignore. With the Liberals in government, there will be a change in this.

Mr. Speaker! In this year's budget, the Liberals prioritize education. We are investing in 20,000 more education places in shortage occupations, because we know that the work line is at its best when it is combined with a liberal education line. The investment is made both in the university college and in vocational adult education, and in a completely new fast track to meet the employers' needs. This will lead to more people being able to care for the elderly, cook food for our school children, and lead the green transition. More children will see their parents go to work, and fewer will live on benefits. It is precisely with more community builders that we manage the green transition, fight exclusion, and manage integration. The way there is that more people come into work. With vocational training, we prepare Sweden for the future. A sound job policy needs a strong education policy.

For the green transition to be able to be carried out, companies need personnel with the right competence. Therefore, we are currently implementing an engineering initiative together with an extension of the experts tax and an improved R&D deduction. These are important tools to strengthen the Swedish human capital. By doing so, we strengthen not only the individual but also Sweden as a whole. This budget invests in building Sweden stronger for the future.

Mr. Speaker! It is by creating prosperity that we can create welfare. Sweden shall have a welfare that one can rely on. If one falls, there must be a safety net without holes to land in. I am very proud of our liberal heritage. From this starting point, we have implemented many important reforms for humanity and the freedom to live one's own life, for example through the LSS legislation. The Liberals have been driving the closing of the gaps in the legislation and in raising the compensation. In the budget that has now been presented, the compensation is finally being raised after many years of stinginess. It is a step in the right direction, but we are not satisfied.

Mr. Speaker! I agree with Martin Ådahl that we have too low growth in Sweden. An important measure against this is to bring Sweden into the euro. I hope that Martin Ådahl agrees with me on that.

Sweden's economy is today integrated with the rest of the world and faces global challenges. Our volatile currency therefore holds back the Swedish economy with lower growth and imported inflation.

It is time to take the step fully in our European cooperation and join Sweden to the euro. It would be good for growth, for welfare, and for every individual. Last autumn, a dull record was broken when 1 euro for the first time cost 12 kronor. The Liberals were on the yes-side for the euro 20 years ago, and we have maintained this position throughout all the years. Now we see that the popular support and the support from entrepreneurs for the euro is increasing. It is time to start an investigation to put ourselves at the table instead of staying on the substitutes' bench and letting others influence our economy.

Mr. Speaker! I want to reassure Ali Esbati that we have a plan for the climate to take us all the way to zero emissions. I do not know where he has gotten his so-called facts from in the speech - perhaps from TikTok.

Just as the economy is global, so too are our emissions global. Therefore, the successes achieved within the framework of our EU presidency are crucial for the world to manage the climate transition. Sweden is a pioneer country, and we shall continue to be one.

The government, with the Liberals' Romina Pourmokhtari at the helm, has secured that all parties in the Riksdag stand behind the long-term climate goals. This is good and important in order to be able to continue working constructively with the climate action plan. Our climate goals shall be reached.

Now we finally have a government and a majority in the Swedish Riksdag that knows that the climate transition and Swedish competitiveness and growth require a doubled, stable electricity production that is there when it is needed, all days of the year and all hours of the day. Sweden's electricity system has served us well and built up large parts of the competitive advantage Sweden has had.

Now it is important that we take the next step. Through fossil-free innovation, Swedish companies will be able to take the driver's seat for the climate transition. It is only through technology optimism and growth that Sweden will be able to become a fossil-free green knowledge nation.

We are strengthening Klimatklivet and Industriklivet, which are intended to transition and reduce emissions. Now we take the next step in the transition with a focus on the electrification of trucks, buses, and work machines. At the same time, the crucial work of expanding the charging infrastructure continues, together with a scrapping premium. In that way, we make it easy to transition from fossil.

We are also investing heavily in the restoration of wetlands, which play a major role for the climate and the environment by, for example, reducing emissions, increasing biodiversity, reducing the risk of flooding, and strengthening protection against drought and fire. It is a total of 4.1 billion in investments for 2024 within the climate area.

With the Liberals at the helm, Sweden shall become a green knowledge nation. It is clear that the common thread between school, education, lifelong learning, entrepreneurship, innovation, and climate transition will drive Sweden's growth and competitiveness forward - of course with a European currency. It is therefore no coincidence that the Liberals have invested in these positions within the framework of our budget cooperation. The Liberals are Sweden's growth party. We shall build a green, competitive knowledge nation.

For me, there will be no chilling in December, even though we have already decorated for Christmas. We have a lot to do, and I am eager to contribute in any way I can.

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

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can here, in Ali Esbatis's final debate, help him a little bit when Cecilia Rönn claims that he received the claims from Twitter or something of the sort. He received, just as I did, the claims from your own budget. It states there that the climate goals are not being met and that as a result of decisions made between July 1, 2022, and July 1, 2023 - guess which decisions they are - emissions are estimated to increase by 5.9-9.8 million tons of CO2 equivalents. This is, therefore, an increase in Swedish emissions of 20 percent. These are quite well-known facts, which are among other things stated in the budget. So that was the matter with the fact question.

Mr. Speaker! Let us then move on to the questions I intended to ask Cecilia Rönn. Despite all the fine talk about screen to folder and other things, parents are now left with terminated resources. They see for themselves that teachers are disappearing from the school and that it is being shut down. They see that you have not prioritized the school, but that it was more important to lower taxes. It is certainly very nice to have cheaper snuff and cheaper plastic bags, but that was apparently more important than those extra thousand teachers and those extra schools that did not need to be closed. You did not allocate those billions when you held responsibility for the policy.

Now we see that you, on the contrary, sabotaged popular education. You are making an enormous saving that causes the popular education throughout the whole of Sweden's land and realm, which we together – the Center Party and the People's Party in Studieförbundet Vuxenskolan – have been involved in building up, to be destroyed.

This is my one question: What does Cecilia Rönn say to these parents, who are worried about what has happened with the government's policy?

My second question is very simple and takes a few seconds to ask: You promised before the election, and Cecilia Rönn promised in the previous debate, that you would lower the employer contributions. Once again, you are raising them for small businesses so that they get significantly increased costs - 1 billion - and for 15-18-year-olds! How does that add up?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker and Member Martin Ådahl! I do not, of course, contest what is stated in the budget. However, I contest other things, but I can take those up with the Left Party later if Ali Esbati wants to ask me something about the climate.

I am very happy that the Centre Party has finally woken up and realized that school is important. School makes it possible for us to have children who receive an education, who feel a sense of faith in the future, who dare to start companies and who can educate themselves to gain the right competence and enter the labor market.

I believe that the member and I agree that it is by people being able to work and working that we create growth and competitiveness. And it is that which provides tax revenues that can go towards our welfare so that we can put even more money into the school. I am very happy about that.

We are allocating money to schools in this budget, and we did so in the previous budget. We are also still doing a lot of other good and important things. A number of investigations are underway to increase knowledge requirements, to ensure that teachers can be teachers, and to abolish the destructive digital goals that have existed, and instead move from screen to binder.

Now that the Centre Party knows that we need money for the school, the next step is that the Centre Party needs to realize that one must trust research and facts in the pedagogy and education that is held in the school. I would welcome you to wake up on that issue as well.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can only regret that while the Centre Party apparently has woken up on the issue, the Liberals seem to have fallen asleep at the wheel in school policy and education policy and then driven straight into the ditch.

It is what all parents can now see with their own eyes in the schools that are exposed to this. Just when the school should stand as strongest - and I believe we are in agreement that it should - you have deprioritized it in the negotiations. It was other things that were important.

But it is worse than that; you have even been overridden. It seems that both you and the Finance Minister have been overridden by the Sweden Democrats' priorities when it comes to the school, the teachers, and what is truly important, especially in the difficult situation we have right now.

Something that is quite forgotten is many rural schools. We think a lot about the disadvantaged areas and the wave of gang crime we have. But it is also very many smaller schools that are affected by this.

Now I made it a bit difficult for Member Cecilia Rönn, because I asked two questions at the same time. It is not that easy every time, so I repeat the question.

The chairman himself has indeed said that employer contributions should be lowered. Your representative said before the election that it was the highest priority. It is considered important to lower employer contributions in order to lower inflation. It is considered important that companies are given the opportunity to hire in order to combat unemployment and increase growth.

Why are you then raising the employer contributions? And most remarkably - why are you raising the employer contributions to employ 15-18-year-olds? It is precisely that group that we want off the streets - in cases where that is so - and above all, to get into summer jobs and new opportunities which we know reduce the risk of unemployment.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Martin Ådahl for the opportunity to also answer the second question.

Before I do that, I just want to say something about rural schools and exclusion. I would say that the big problem for rural schools is the municipalization of the school. Now we are looking at an investigation on a national school funding norm to address this. I hope that the Center Party welcomes the major changes we are making in the school area and which will save many rural schools while we ensure that they maintain quality.

When it comes to the employer contributions, I agree with the member that some employer contributions are too high, including the general wage contribution, which was introduced at our EU membership and which has been increased.

I place great value on being close to the companies, and when I am out and talking with them around Sweden, it is not the employer's contribution that is the major obstacle to being able to hire without the skills shortage. I mentioned earlier the paradoxical situation that Sweden has many unemployed and many vacant jobs but no skills matching.

I will be honest with Martin Ådahl that in this budget we prioritized investments in school, education, adult education, and folk high school in order to be able to meet the skills shortage. I think that is important and good.

I agree with Martin Ådahl that 15-18-year-olds should not be out on the street. They should be sitting in the school bench, graduating, and then educating themselves so that they can enter jobs. They should receive the education that is needed for the green transition, for the needs of companies, and for continued growth.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Since last year, the party that calls itself the Liberals seems to be working full-time to dismantle Sweden's climate and environmental work and also the principles of the rule of law. The government's reporting law is part of the exemplary policy that is now becoming a reality due to politicians completely without principles. Trade unions and employees in the welfare sector have repeatedly expressed that they refuse to be part of the reporting society that the Liberals are now participating in building up.

Cecilia Rönn speaks about the competence shortage, and it is serious. There is a crying need for competent labor within all welfare professions. But do the Liberals truly believe that the reporting law will make more people seek careers within healthcare, school, and elderly care?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Janine Alm Ericson for the question.

I think it is important that we stick to the truth and use the correct words and expressions, because if the public is watching the debate, it is important that they understand how it works and what the difference is. Let me therefore begin by saying that there is no disclosure law, and there is nothing called that. There is an investigation concerning the duty of information in order to get to the bottom of the shadow society.

When the investigation was commissioned, the Liberals were clear that this should not conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child or European rules and rights. Our parties had their national convention days that same weekend, so I understand if Janine Alm Ericson is not updated on everything the Liberals discussed then. But even there, we had an important discussion on this issue, and we were very clear that our starting point is that we will, of course, adhere to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other laws and regulations. We do not envision that any school staff should be covered by the duty of information.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Cecilia Rönn for a very good answer. But I do not know if it is the right time to speak out, because regardless of what the law is called, it will be about reporting people in one's vicinity when things are discovered. Regardless of what one chooses to call the law, it is an informant law.

I am very happy that the Liberals have taken this position, but I naturally think it should go further than the school. I do not, in fact, want such a law at all. It is not worthy of a country like Sweden or any other country, because this is about human rights and the foundation of democracy. It is about incredibly much more than what this legislation intends to do.

Is this one of the Liberals' red lines? People will need to know what applies when they consider employment in our welfare professions. If one is to work within healthcare or school, one wants to be able to feel secure that one is not forced to report someone one is there to help. How firmly do the Liberals hold on to this? Is it a red line? Will there be no reporting law? Or will they give in here as well, as they have done in area after area where they previously promised that they would not give in?

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I think it is important to stick to the right words.

I am impressed that the member already knows what the investigation will contain, because I do not know. It is ongoing and will be presented in about a year.

Let me remind you that one of the foundations of democracy is the rule of law. This is about tackling an exclusion that has persisted for a very long time. But it is also about what I said earlier: that we shall follow, among other things, the Convention on the Rights of the Child in all its parts. The member may feel secure that we, just like the investigation, will ensure that this is followed.

The member has no opportunity to answer me, but I think it is indecent in the political debate to call things something they are not and to say that we have given in on area after area. Next time, I hope we can be a bit more precise, and then I will gladly answer the member's questions and respond to the criticism.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! First: Martin Ådahl gave us the source for this regarding the emissions. It is therefore not on TikTok, but in the budget bill that it appears that the government's policy increases the emissions.

I was a bit surprised by the discussion about using the right words and not talking about an "angiverilag" (informant law) because it is not called that. Let me then remind you that we have a party in the Swedish Riksdag called Liberalerna, and the member refers to that name even though it causes problems in relation to the content.

I am going to speak a little about inflation and the fight against inflation. I am trying to understand the idea that inflation should be fought through fiscal policy.

If I understand the Liberals correctly, it concerns the simple, crude lever where only the sum of the costs from the public sector is counted, and they do not want to consider the points raised by the well-known socialist organization IMF that it is profit-driven rather than wage-driven and that one should therefore analyze this. There is nothing of that in Cecilia Rönn's speech; there are no insights from there.

But if it were the case that only the final sum counts, how is it then that expenditures on luxury-roots, for example veranda and kitchen constructions, do not fuel inflation, while expenditures so that nurses in healthcare can keep their jobs fuel inflation? What kind of liberal understanding of reality lies behind that?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ali Esbati, there was probably some question there at the end!

Regarding the climate, I turn to the fact that the member in a speech said that we are not making any investment in wetlands. If he refers to the budget, he should see that there are large investments in just that – plus the other things I mentioned in my speech.

I think it is very exciting that Vänsterpartiet is asking me about inflation, and I thank you very much for that. The interesting thing is that Vänsterpartiet's own budget proposal will reduce employment by very many thousands of jobs.

We can perhaps still agree that the very best thing is that the people who can work do so and get an economy as good as they can even in tough times. I do not quite understand the purpose of pulling the rug out from under these people.

Vänsterpartiet also debt-finances its budget with hundreds of millions, which will fuel inflation. If Ali Esbati has a different view on this, he is very welcome to share it. Who benefits from us fueling inflation so that the Riksbank might be forced to raise interest rates even further?

You also shock-increase a lot of different taxes, Ali Esbati. You say no to the job tax credit, you want to raise the tax for the important pillars of society that the member speaks about who earn 45,000 kronor or more, and you want to abolish the growth support and the R&D deduction. You want, therefore, to push back growth and that which creates tax revenues.

Perhaps we can still agree that it is not the tax level that is what is important, but that it is the total tax revenues that are most important for us to be able to have a good welfare and provide even better conditions for it.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! There were many things at once. If we had had the same tax revenue in relation to GDP today as at the beginning of the 2000s, we would have had 400 billion more to work with in the public economy. It is clear that taxes play a role in that way.

We can also look at employment. It would be strange to imagine that employment would decrease with the Left Party's economic policy when a large part of it consists of having people employed where they are today, namely within the welfare sector where they do an important job. It is indeed the policy that the member stands behind that leads to pressure to cut costs within welfare services.

It is also the case that if one avoids making necessary investments, as we have done in Sweden for a period of time and which this budget also contributes to, it will become more difficult to have an economy that generates good and high-quality jobs within the private sector. This is one of many problems with the budget that the Liberalerna stand behind.

Cecilia Rönn spoke about where the data on increased emissions comes from. There seems to be a lag in the realization that the Liberals are part of a government constellation where the Sweden Democrats set the tone for both the economic policy and the climate policy. Perhaps this is the problem.

What Cecilia Rönn very often does is describe not what the economic policy actually entails, but how it could theoretically look. Unfortunately, that is not sufficient.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Member Ali Esbati speaks about "in relation to GDP". The problem is only that with the Left Party's policy, GDP probably would not have been as it was. With the type of tax level that you are talking about, Ali Esbati, and that type of hostile measures against companies, our growth would not have been as it was, even if it is currently far too low.

I hope that the member and I can still agree that we need to do things to increase our growth. We have a situation here and now, and we need to do what we can to mitigate the effects of inflation and the crisis, both for private individuals and for the public sector.

At the same time, we need to look at what we should do in the longer term to increase growth and increase self-sufficiency and make it possible for people to enter employment or start companies. This is the difference. We have two thoughts in our heads at the same time, here and now and forward.

Our policy is based on the premise that we want to make it possible for the individual to gain greater autonomy – to choose a profession, to start a company and have good conditions for that, or to save. This is, moreover, something that Vänsterpartiet wants to make more expensive in the budget, among other things through a cap for ISK.

There are, therefore, important and large differences between our and the Left Party's policies, and it is good that it clearly emerges what these differences are.

I want to conclude by thanking Ali Esbati, even though we have not worked together for very long in the Finance Committee, and wish him good luck in the future.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now we must get Sweden in order. That is what the current government parties promised the Swedish people last year. It has, to put it mildly, gone so-so.

School, healthcare, and elderly care face drastic cuts, many households cannot make their money last the whole month, and housing construction has stalled. Criminal gangs are spreading fear in communities, and the government is failing to stop the violence, invest in preventive work, and stop the new recruitment to the gangs.

The budget that was presented just over two months ago illustrates with all desirable clarity that the Tidö parties are betraying both welfare and households while simultaneously fueling the climate crisis. It is a budget hostile to both the present and the future.

The focus of the fiscal policy is strikingly short-sighted, and this impression has only been reinforced since the budget was submitted in September. What is needed now is investments – investments in the transition that provide jobs and faith in the future.

Inflation is, as expected, on its way down, and the judges are in agreement that it will continue downwards. The fig leaf that the Finance Minister has tried to hide behind is becoming smaller and smaller, and it is no longer possible to hide the fact that the Swedish economy is in a recession and that unemployment is on the rise.

One month before the government's budget has even come into force, it appears outdated and adapted to a completely different economic situation. This is remarkable, and it shows that the Tidö parties are unable to see the long-term perspective in politics.

It is not often they agree, but both LO and Svenskt Näringsliv argue that the budget is far too defensive. It did not have to be, as inflation is on its way down, many companies are struggling to keep their operations running, and unemployment is unfortunately on the way up. This budget is a missed opportunity when it comes to tackling Sweden's challenges.

Just short-sightedness is a common thread for the Tidö parties. This is seen not least in the climate issue. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are now talking about it being effective climate policy that matters. But the absolute minimum one can expect from an effective climate policy is surely that it reduces emissions?

The government itself says in its budget that the pursued policy will significantly increase emissions. Instead of coming up with reforms that lower emissions, the government chooses to focus its energy on scrapping the climate goals and weakening the scrutiny, completely without any investments. It is actually embarrassing.

It is, of course, possible to meet the climate challenge with something other than excuses, pipe dreams about nuclear power and an illusion that it is probably not as serious as it seems, but that, if it should indeed be as serious as it seems, it is a problem to be solved by someone else, somewhere else, some other time.

But Sweden can still choose another path. Sweden can lead the green transition and create conditions for others to follow.

Now that other countries have entered the fray, Sweden risks being left behind if climate policy continues to deteriorate. This has already been realized by the business sector. Volvo's CEO pointed out in an interview in Dagens industri the other day that we are missing the world's chance and that it is urgent to speed up the green transition. I can only agree. We must invest here and now to secure future jobs and competitiveness. We can if we want to, but the government does not want to.

Norwegian also do not want to protect and preserve Swedish nature and environment. The consequences of the environmental slaughter that has become a hallmark of the government parties' budgets are already visible now. There will be fewer hiking trails, reduced protection for nature, and poorer access to nature for ordinary people. It is already noticeable today, and it will get worse. This is simply tragic.

Mr. Speaker! Also within the welfare sector, we see the result of the government's policy. Already now, the country's municipalities and regions are in an incredibly tough economic situation, because in the budget that applies for a month, the government and the Sverigedemokrater chose to compensate high-income earners for inflation with reduced taxes instead of compensating welfare for the cost increases. This has led to a very tough situation in schools, healthcare, and elderly care. It affects patients, who have to wait longer for surgery. It affects children in school, who do not receive the right help in time. It affects staff in elderly care, who lack colleagues.

In the budget we are debating now, the government has partially chosen a different path, but the supplements that the Tidö parties are making are not enough in the long run. On the contrary, the policy will force even more cuts and tax increases in several regions. It will be ordinary taxpayers, patients, and healthcare staff who take the hit when the Finance Minister presents a weak budget that does not meet the challenges of the present and the future.

Sweden can choose a different path. We can build a country that is good for everyone and not just for a few – a country that reduces emissions and the gaps between people, stands up for aid and is part of building a better world. It is a Sweden that holds together and where we meet the challenges we face together.

In the budget that Miljöpartiet has presented, we strengthen welfare, increase equality, and invest in the transition both here and now and for a long time to come. We want to and can invest in a just Sweden, because in one of the world's richest countries, no children should be forced to grow up in poverty and no adults should need to live in economic insecurity.

The economic downturn we are currently in hits hardest those who already previously had small, or no, economic margins. It hits hardest the families who have nothing that can be saved on, and it causes more and more households to be forced to turn to aid organizations to be able to put food on the table month to month. We in Miljöpartiet choose to meet this, among other things, by raising the child allowance, the maintenance support, and the housing allowance. We want those supports to be inflation-proofed, because it is also not reasonable that they are eroded when they are needed most.

Furthermore, the funding of the welfare system must be secured and the cuts must be stopped. We give Sweden's municipalities and regions the resources required to maintain the current situation in schools, healthcare, and elderly care across the entire country. The government should also do that.

Mr. Speaker! We want to invest in the green transition, and we want to do it now. The Green Party is therefore investing 100 billion per year for ten years in a just transition. It is about new jobs, renewable energy, energy efficiencies, solar, wind, and infrastructure. It is about creating conditions for investments in everything from infrastructure to industry and doing so at the rapid pace required for Sweden to be able to transition in time.

There will be no justice without transition and no transition without justice. We want to invest in that which builds a secure and equal country for those of us who live here now, but also for all those who will come after us. It is a country that manages to meet the crises that come with openness and justice and which invests instead of yielding to forces that want to frighten, restrict and limit.

We want to invest in that which gives people hope and faith in the future and in that which gives every young person a fair chance to succeed in school and a good start in life. It is a society where culture is available to everyone and not just for a few. It is a country where feminism moves from words to action. It is a Sweden that becomes the world's first fossil-free welfare country.

I move for approval of MP's reservations number 4 and 8.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank Ali Esbati for the time we have had together in Swedish politics and in the Committee on Finance. You have always shown with warmth and rigor that it is possible to pursue a policy for both a strong Sweden and solidarity with the most vulnerable. A huge thank you and good luck! I hope that we see each other on the barricades again soon.

(Applause)

In this speech, Emma Nohrén, Jan Riise and Elin Söderberg (all MP) concurred.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear when I listen to colleagues from different parties that we are indeed in a very difficult and exceptional time. I turned 56 a few weeks ago, and during my entire lifetime, Sweden has never faced just these difficult challenges simultaneously.

There is a war ongoing in our immediate vicinity that we are involved in. I do not think it has happened since the Finnish Winter War. Sweden is sending weapons and providing political and economic support. We support Ukraine in various ways so that they can win the war against Putin. I am very happy that we stand united in this.

When I visited Kyiv and the surrounding areas just a few weeks ago, I traveled around with the finance minister and, among other things, saw his hometown, which was occupied by the Russians last spring. I saw the school he attended when he was small. It was destroyed. I went to Bucha with him and saw photographs and plaques with the names of all those who were massacred by the Russians. Then I felt that we must never stop supporting Ukraine. They are fighting for their freedom, but they are also fighting for all of our freedom.

It is also a difficult time here at home in many ways. Just a few months ago, two Swedes were killed in a terror attack in Brussels - simply because they were Swedes.

Mr. Speaker! I cannot get rid of the image I have in my head of the 13 or 14-year-old boy who was found dead in a grove of trees. He had been killed simply because he refused to join a gang.

I would like to say that it is a state of emergency. Children are running around with automatic weapons and shooting other children. We have an elevated terror threat in Sweden and war in our vicinity. That is a state of emergency, and we must do everything we can to fight and take Sweden through it.

Mr. Speaker! It is also the case that the budget that we are now debating and that the Riksdag will soon make a decision on meets this situation. It meets a difficult economic situation. We are also being pressured economically.

When the government presented this budget, and already when we presented last year's budget - that is, for this year - we saw that Sweden would be in a recession. We saw that inflation was high but would come down.

The budget that is now on the Riksdag's table for you to make decisions on is balanced for exactly this situation and this economic situation. It is balanced to do what we have said we will do, namely provide resources to the police, the judiciary, criminal justice, and defense so that security can be built both in our country and in relation to foreign powers that wish Sweden ill.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has experienced the highest inflation in 30 years, and it is on its way down. That is good. But inflation is still too high, and even if it were zero tomorrow, the price levels are high. They will not go down just because inflation is dampened. That is why so many people are struggling now and want nothing more than for us to get out of this in the best way possible as quickly as possible.

I see three fights ahead of us in the months to come. The first fight we go against inflation, Mr. Speaker. As I said, it is not time to relax, because the final round against inflation is unfortunately not over.

Inflation is the workers' worst enemy, and many are hit hard. Just a few weeks before Christmas, I see the disappointment of the children who perhaps will not get any of the items at the top of the wish list. Believe me - I know how it feels, both as a child and as a parent. Inflation hits people hard, and therefore we shall not give up until it is down.

With that said: The fiscal policy we have presented is, as mentioned, restrained. What does that mean? Well, it means that it is not expansive – but we are making large investments in households. This year, households have received approximately 40 billion. Next year, we are lowering the tax for everyone who works. We ensure that those who have it the toughest get to keep the increased housing allowance. We are lowering the tax on fuels. We ensure that the reduction obligation is changed. We compensate the 57:s, and we lower the tax on pensions.

Not least, we prioritize welfare in our initiatives - 40 percent of the reform space, which is the largest initiative, goes to supporting municipalities and regions. But as I have said before, it is tough, and it will be tough. We have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and we take responsibility. When I read the opposition parties' budget proposals, I do not experience that everyone is taking responsibility.

We have heard here earlier that both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet go against actually the entire collective economic expertise, as well as the political representatives in the 80s and 90s. It is known that an expansive fiscal policy in a high-inflation environment hits the nursing assistant and the single father. It hits them very hard because interest rates and inflation will continue to be high.

The Social Democrats want to give the appearance of taking responsibility, but they are proposing a bank tax that is actually not even feasible next year. That is, it is to be used to finance the welfare increases. I think that is playing a high-stakes game with the Swedish economy, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker! The second fight that Sweden must win is the one regarding security and safety. If we are to win that fight – if we are to break the gangs – we must choke off the criminal economy. Everything is about money, in fact. At their core, these gangs are fertilized by exactly that: money. They live on the opportunity to cheat our welfare systems, to defraud individuals, on drug sales and much more. We must choke off the access to these funds.

I have decided, and the government has decided, that the 100 or 150 billion that are circulated in the criminal environment every year must decrease. Therefore, we are now ensuring, for example, to increase the pressure, authorities and government together, to get at the shell companies that exist. We are conducting a census to find out if people live where they are supposed to live and receive the correct benefits. We ensure that the Payments Agency shows up, precisely so that people cannot cheat different systems and, so to speak, milk the welfare systems for money. Everyone who goes to work during the day or at night should know that the money is used in the right way and not by criminals.

This is also a question of life and death. It is of course a question of tax money, but as long as the money is available in these environments, children, young people, and adults will continue to die. We must do something about this. If we can cut off the access to the money, we can also break the gangs.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to security, I mentioned the war in our neighboring area. I also said that we are increasing resources for defense, both here at home and in Ukraine. We are also increasing resources for Säpo due to the elevated terror level. We continue to strengthen the police, the judiciary, and all those parts that need to be strengthened so that we can do what we are doing now, namely tightening the penalties and ensuring that we build the prisons that will be needed.

The first fight is therefore the one against inflation, and the second fight is the one against uncertainty and insecurity. The third fight is the one against the recession and unemployment - but also against the long-term weakened growth, which needs to become strong.

When I got this job just over a year ago, I could state that unemployment was very high. The unemployment that was to become the lowest was one of the highest in the EU, and many people were left behind. These people need to come back, but now we also see that more are at risk of becoming unemployed due to the recession. We also see that growth has decreased during the year, due to interest-sensitive households that are highly leveraged, short interest periods, and that we have a negative GDP. That experience and reality we will probably share with Germany.

It is, however, possible to do a lot to increase long-term growth, i.e., that which has now decreased for a long time. It is about making it possible for companies to grow. It is about the climate transition. It is also about simply ensuring that Sweden becomes the place that is most productive and where companies want and choose to be.

What is it that I hear people wish for first and foremost when I speak with companies all over Sweden, large as well as small? It has been said before by colleagues: It is about competence supply, and therefore we are meeting with many educational initiatives both in specialized areas and in breadth. It is about electricity supply, and therefore we are now finally taking a real grip on the entire chain to enable nuclear power in Sweden.

It is also about safety. I mentioned it earlier, but also the companies often mention that question. You must make Sweden safe, they say – the criminals must disappear. It is a task that the government takes fully seriously, and I know that the companies do as well. Many other actors also need to do their part to, as I said earlier, choke the economy for the criminals.

We will ensure that the expert tax is extended next year. This year, we have increased the R&D deduction. We will change the 3:12 rules for the better. We are taking step by step to make Sweden even more business-friendly, to promote entrepreneurship and to make it easier for companies to operate in an environment where it is possible to grow.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that it is a difficult time but that I am determined. We will turn the development around together.

Determination, I believe, is the most important quality for all of us in here - determination to break up the gangs, determination regarding the economy, that is to say that inflation should go down and growth up, and determination that Sweden can do so much better and can become so much wealthier in the future than Sweden has been in recent years. It is fully possible to make things easier for households and make Sweden safer. It is fully possible to continue supporting Ukraine in their struggle, which concerns not only them but also us.

With this - many might say long - speech, I shall conclude. I also want to take the opportunity to thank you for good cooperation with many parties during the autumn. I know that we all want the best for Sweden.

The government has presented a budget that will step by step put Sweden in order. Reform after reform will set Sweden on the right course again and make Sweden a wealthier, better and safer country to live in.

(Applause)

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! There is an important starting point that perhaps could not be discerned in what the Minister for Finance said, and that is that the Minister for Finance is conducting an economic policy that has brought Sweden into a recession.

No one claims that the inflationary trends that arose in the world economy were within the government's control, but the fact is that Elisabeth Svantesson and the Sverigedemokraterna have handled the situation in an almost uniquely bad and nonchalant way - and the Swedish people are paying the price. That is the reality. We have a situation where households are hit hard, for example by high prices on food. We saw large price increases at the beginning of the year, and they continue.

We have discussed possibilities to ensure that the government does something to improve competition regarding the overprices charged by the food giants—with high profit margins, which they retain. Nothing of the sort has occurred.

The Minister for Finance called people together for a coffee, even though she initially said that doing so would be some variant of Soviet communism. But then not so much has happened. It became a kind of "luck" that we were told.

At the same time, the government has now, with its eyes wide open, seen to bring Sweden into a healthcare crisis. The cuts will be shocking with the budget that is now in place. The state's finances are strong, but one chooses to leave patients and staff in the lurch. It will be a kind of double blow for those who live in Sweden.

The question is: Does the Minister for Finance think it is reasonable to make that type of prioritization, tax subsidies for luxury-rot instead of investing in welfare? Why is there no action even to achieve reasonable competitive conditions, market solutions that one theoretically says one protects? Is it a reasonable prioritization for 2023?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ali Esbati, for the question!

Ordinary wage earners should be very happy that the Left Party's budget motion does not pass here in the Riksdag today. It would lead to higher inflation. They want to borrow enormous amounts which we know will drive up inflation and raise interest rates. It would affect all those whom Ali Esbati claims to defend.

It would also lead to the investment climate in Sweden being very problematic for many years to come, and even fewer jobs would be created. Therefore, the wage earners should be happy.

The wage earners, whether they voted for Ali Esbati or me, will also get a tax cut next year. Those who have it the toughest, such as many families with children receiving housing allowance, will have them increased during the year.

People will also meet lower fuel prices and a reduction obligation that makes it reasonable for people who are struggling to live. It will not be easy. But step by step, we are doing things and making it easier for people. It is irresponsible to present a budget that not only drives inflation but also increases borrowing costs.

Let me conclude by saying that a one percentage point increase in the interest on the public debt we have is approximately 20 billion in expenditures. This applies to every interest rate hike. Now play with the thought that the Left's budget would win and the loans would increase significantly. Then not only would inflation rise, but also the interest costs that someone else has to pay and which push out important investments.

We have presented a well-balanced budget. We support households. Welfare has the largest investment in the budget. We ensure that we get Sweden in order. I do not hear Ali Esbati speak about the boy who lay dead and was shot because he did not want to be part of the gangs. We take responsibility for the whole. I am glad that it is that budget that wins today and not Ali Esbati's.

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

Ali Esbati (V)

Mr. Speaker! What Elisabeth Svantesson is doing is to cover up a fully visible reality with poorly substantiated theories. That is what is happening. It is recurring in the government's way of describing the economy.

Elisabeth Svantesson previously said: Now we are going to go one last tough round in the fight against inflation. The problem is that what she is doing is pushing forward those who are going to take the hits. It is families with children. It is mortgage customers. It is the nurses within the welfare sector. They are to bear the pressure from inflation. It does not apply to those who run the companies that can overprice because they have an oligopoly situation on the market. That says so much about the government's own priorities.

It is not the case that proper investments, removing bottlenecks, and making Sweden better equipped to meet the future are inflation-driving. We have a large country to the west - I am speaking now about the USA and not about Norway - where the president is driving enormous investments in the private sector and supporting that type of investment. It is called the Inflation Reduction Act.

I am not saying that one can do exactly the same thing in Sweden. But I am saying that one can and should invest in the climate transition. It is expensive and irresponsible not to do so. I want to emphasize that all the investments we make in welfare improvements are financed through a different tax policy than the one the government stands for. It is a redistribution from those who have it the best and are doing very well to carry out proper welfare investments that save Swedish healthcare.

Furthermore, the question was what one thinks about gang crime. How does Elisabeth Svantesson mean that those who work within the school system and within social services, and who now have to accept budget cuts, are to do a better job of protecting us all in the future against just that type of development? In that regard, Elisabeth Svantesson is left without an answer.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is probably our last debate and exchange of remarks. I will briefly say something political and then something else.

I completely share the image that it is incredibly glaring that banks, food giants, and other companies have high profits. During periods, banks have excess profits, absolutely. Many food giants have, during the time we have seen, had very high prices. There, however, we have seen a difference.

Everyone must take responsibility. Then we must also know that there are very many companies struggling. They cannot charge the prices they would need to. They are also facing increased costs. Inflation is broadly spread across many industries. Many companies are struggling very hard. Others have probably taken the opportunity to charge higher costs and prices, absolutely.

There were many other things that Ali Esbati said. I met Ali Esbati for the first time in Oslo. It was Ali Esbati's first involvement in the Committee on the Labour Market a few years ago where we made visits. Since then, we have shared the work in several different committees and the debate platform here.

I really appreciate, just as many others have said before, your sharpness, your ability, your verbal ability and your intellectual ability. It will be missed here in the Riksdag. I wish you all the best. I know that you do not always like the Finance Minister in Sweden. You can look forward to a Center Party Finance Minister in Norway instead. I wish you all the best and good luck!

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I was still a bit surprised that the Minister for Finance says so unreservedly that the SD government's economic policy seems to be working so well. We now have a situation where Sweden has, in principle, the worst economic development in Europe.

We have had a worse situation with inflation than our neighboring countries. We have had a higher cost increase in Sweden than in our neighboring countries. Swedish households are now paying for this in their everyday economy. With the government's budget, a welfare crisis has also been created. It raises the question of what reality the Finance Minister actually sees and lives in.

I would like to ask a question on that theme. I noted that you had a press conference. You claimed that on an aggregated level, I believe the government said, the government's budget is sufficient to maintain employment in schools, healthcare, and elderly care.

But the truth is that it is some kind of make-believe world that the Ministry of Finance has built up. I believe the Minister for Finance must open his eyes, Mr. Speaker, and see the reality in Sweden's healthcare.

In Östergötland, healthcare will need to reduce its staff by 600 positions. In Sörmland, 400 employees in healthcare have been laid off. In addition, we have received reports of hiring freezes in Örebro and in parts of Stockholm's healthcare. All of this means fewer employees and not more.

Then my question is: What is reality, really? Does that reality exist beyond the Excel spreadsheets? Does the Finance Minister stand by his statement that the government's budget is sufficient to avoid reduced staff in healthcare all over Sweden? Is it reality or the Excel spreadsheets that govern the government's policy right now?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Mikael Damberg! It is interesting that the former head of the Ministry of Finance thinks that the officials there are engaged in fantasies.

Let me just be very clear. The budget that we submitted and the forecast that it is based on shows a recession. It shows that inflation will go down ahead, and it shows higher unemployment. The forecast also shows, just as I said, that the investment being made on an aggregate level still does not need to lower employment. But as I said already, it will look different in different municipalities and different regions. Furthermore, I have said many times that the development can be both better and worse than what the forecast shows. I follow it very closely, because I am concerned that the welfare should not be left behind.

With that said, I now see around Sweden, particularly Social Democratic regions and municipalities, that are acting quite aggressively. They are raising taxes, and perhaps they are holding back on new hires and ensuring that people leave their jobs.

In Region Örebro, where I live, the Social Democrats have ruled for perhaps 100 years, but they have not succeeded in working with efficiencies. When I speak of efficiencies, it does not mean that one should run faster, but it means that there are middle managers and things that you do that are not productive. There is much to do.

When one does not tackle the problems and, on top of that, a recession and inflation occur which create a cost crisis for many, it hits hard. The biggest priority in our budget was precisely welfare. This money does good and will do good, but many are having a tough time.

If it now turns out as everyone hopes and believes - that the forecasts work this time - inflation will be dampened, and that will mean that, for example, 2025 will look completely different for many regions and municipalities if the recession does not worsen. Germany is now performing significantly worse, and the Chinese economy has major problems. There are many risks, but we presented a balanced budget.

I say it again: We continue to follow the developments and are prepared to do more if the economy dips deeper and the problems become greater.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! That was not quite what the Minister for Finance said just a moment ago in the rostrum. Then she said that it was exactly this situation that the budget had been calibrated for; it was exactly the situation that we have in Sweden right now that the budget responded to.

Then one must open one's eyes and see what reality looks like in the healthcare regions across Sweden. There is not a single healthcare region, regardless of whether it is governed by a Moderate or a Social Democrat, that does not count on a deficit. In that case, one cannot say that it is only a matter of how efficient someone has been.

It is chaos everywhere. There are enormous savings waiting if one just pretends for a year, rolls the deficit forward, and gets the savings next year instead.

Reports are coming in that there are fewer staff members in region after region. If there is talk of hiring freezes, which we know means fewer staff, it doesn't seem to match what they were thinking at the Ministry of Finance. In that case, savings are made. Then there will be fewer staff in healthcare.

We took this into account in our budget. We saw that too little was being done to secure the funding of the welfare system. I even accused you in the government of being on the way to creating a home-made healthcare crisis. It is your decision not to give the healthcare regions these resources that now leads to savings and even tax increases in some places. I have warned against this, because I do not think it is good to raise taxes on low incomes in this tough situation. It is because the healthcare regions have not received support from the state in this tough situation.

My question to the Minister for Finance is whether, given the information she has today, it will result in reduced staff and fewer hours worked in healthcare across Sweden. Does the Minister for Finance really think that is good policy in this situation?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mikael Damberg for the questions.

Every day I follow the developments closely. Every day I ensure that we together – four responsible parties – have a direction for Sweden regarding crime, welfare and security. All these parts are important to us.

The forecasts show that the budget we have presented is well-balanced. Do not forget, Mikael Damberg, that municipalities and regions have approximately 1,300 billion in own revenues. When this budget was drafted, we ensured that we matched more than half of the deficit that was then estimated.

I am a bit surprised by the tone. Many of us were in opposition during the last parliamentary term. At that time, we presented budgets with proposals that were feasible. They won several times, and they were feasible.

The budget that the Social Democrats have now placed on the table of the Riksdag simply cannot be implemented. When one, on the one hand, promises money for welfare and on the other hand proposes a bank tax that could not be put in place by January 1, one is deceiving the nursing assistants, the nurses, the doctors, and the local cleaners all over Sweden, for this is not feasible.

I expect more from the Social Democrats. I expect more from a party that constantly talks about responsibility. You did not want to take responsibility during your eight years - you blamed our eight years. I take responsibility, and we have responsibility. Even Mikael Damberg should take responsibility. Or is it the case that it is Nooshi Dadgostar who is intended to be finance minister in a future government?

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to say briefly that I truly agree regarding the efforts that need to be made for Ukraine. The only thing I wish is that they would be even larger and that we could send what Ukraine wants most of all, namely the Jas 39 Gripen.

I also truly agree with the assessment of the growth crisis and the need for determination. I only wish that this determination had been a bit more powerful when it comes to lowering the tax on labor instead of raising it. It is, after all, many households that will, on the contrary, receive substantial tax increases with Elisabeth Svantesson's policy.

I also wish that there had been more strength from the Ministry of Finance when it comes to prioritizing the school in the negotiations with SD.

I had intended to ask about that for which we in Sweden are being penalized because we are missing the climate targets and have a galloping increase in emissions of almost 20 percent. I am speaking about the EU's recovery fund.

A high-ranking official at the Commission has said that we, due to your climate policy, will not receive the 38 billion that we, like all other EU countries, would have received for following our commitments and goals in the EU. Sweden will therefore have to pay billions because you have lost the climate ball, removed a lot of things and not replaced them with anything.

How much of these 38 billion will disappear? I have understood that it is not the entire amount. Is it half? Is it a few billion? How much will we be fined for this? I want a straight answer on that.

I must also ask another question. Consciously and explicitly, the person sitting behind the Minister for Finance, Oscar Sjöstedt from Sverigedemokraterna, has once again launched a massive attack against the investments in H2 Green Steel and Hybrit, i.e., the large industrial investments up in northern Sweden that so many investors have invested in and that so many people depend on. Is it Oscar Sjöstedt who decides, or is it the Minister for Finance who decides? I actually want a straight answer to that question.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I received the last question earlier from Martin Ådahl - a year ago, I believe. It is quite obvious that we work together in the government. We follow the plan. When it comes to these various large investments, a lot will be needed. There is a lot of private capital. Infrastructure, housing, and other things will be needed. More electricity will also be needed.

It is no secret that the state will not withdraw from what it has now entered into.

I move on to the question of the reduction obligation. To those listening and wondering what this is about, I can say that the previous government submitted a plan with different parts so that we can receive the money that Sweden is entitled to. From what I understand, there is now a fairly large majority here in the Riksdag that is in favor of the reduction obligation being changed; I even believe that the Social Democrats think so.

That means we need to replace this measure with something else. This discussion is currently ongoing with the Commission. We will return when we have information to provide regarding which other measures we will come up with in our communication and relationship with the Commission.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! The attentive listener noted that no answer was given to either of the two questions.

Is it as Member Oscar Sjöstedt from Sverigedemokraterna said about that we should not make any state investments and that there is no electricity for these projects - i.e., that the wind power needed for these projects should not be built - just nonsense that the Finance Minister here can flatly deny? Can the Finance Minister say that that was just SD-nonsense? Or is it actually SD who decides, as usual?

Now this hits Norrland. The large investments, all the hope and all the money have to go somewhere else. The investors are listening, Elisabeth Svantesson. Norrland is listening to what you say next. They hear if it is a bit vague - if you are not so clear with what you say and announce that you will talk about it. Other countries are clear and distinct and believe in their industries and in the billion-dollar investments that people are prepared to make in their countries.

Answer as accurately as you can, Finance Minister: Was all that which was said nonsense, or was it true? Who is it that decides? I hope to God that the Finance Minister has the ability to say that it was nonsense.

I also did not receive any answer at all as to how much money we will have to pay.

We want to replace the reduction obligation with Tanka svenskt and have a Swedish biofuel procured as cheaply as possible according to the investigation that exists. We are going to bring down the costs and lower the tax on the biofuel so that we get properly lower prices for people in the countryside, so there is no discussion there.

But since you are now letting the emissions run wild, the question is: How much of the 38 billion, twice as much as our climate budget, will Sweden have to pay into the EU?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Good God, Martin Ådahl! Martin Ådahl probably doesn't really want to listen. That Oscar Sjöstedt highlights criticism and reflections regarding the investments and various investments is fully legitimate, just so we have that clear. It was not about a political decision. It was not a government decision that he presented before Martin Ådahl, so Martin Ådahl can be calm.

But it is good that we have discussions, because we haven't really had them. Above all, we haven't had any discussion about how these investments are to get more electricity, something I have requested for several years. Wind power will be needed, but nuclear power will be required.

We take this issue very seriously. Companies in the north, south, east, and west must be able to grow, and we shall transition and reduce emissions. It is true that we have higher emissions this year and next so that we can then come down. We are far ahead. We have high ambitions for the business sector, households, and politics, and we shall continue to have that. But it requires clean, stable electricity. Martin Ådahl can never get away from that.

I answered the question regarding the reduction obligation. That Martin Ådahl is then not satisfied with the answer is actually not my problem, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance said in his speech that the government is determined. It is clear that determination is good and important, but effective politics is even more important.

The government has received criticism for its passivity both here in the chamber and outside of it. LO thinks that the government should have a more active fiscal policy. Svenskt Näringsliv thinks that the government should have a more active fiscal policy. Volvo's CEO calls for a more active role for the state to accelerate the green transition. The business community demands an active climate policy so that one can actually make the investments that have been made and that one wants to make in the green transition count.

The government seems to suffer from an acute nearsightedness, and many have asked various questions regarding this today. We know that the government is not delivering in this budget, and I would therefore like to ask the Minister for Finance: When will the government begin to deliver what is required to secure the transition and Swedish competitiveness?

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 question!

Just to say it very clearly: I know that many want us to do more, which usually means an expansive budget. We have talked about that before; it would precisely lead to increased inflation.

What one must remember is that there will be lower inflation and a turnaround at the end of next year and the beginning of 2025 - if we do what we have now decided. The forecasts are therefore based on the Riksbank's monetary policy and on what we have said we are going to do. Inflation will not just go down by itself, but it requires active action, something that we are also doing.

I have previously told both Janine Alm Ericson and Ali Esbati that it is precisely Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet that speak very much about investments. But investments must be financed. There is no free money, and right now it is expensive to borrow money. Remember that!

However, investments are required, and that is why we are now ensuring that nuclear power is made possible. That is why we are now ensuring that we get momentum for the transition. I meet with business leaders from both large and small companies to hear what more we can do together, and then they highlight the issue of skills supply. They highlight infrastructure and energy systems. They are transitioning in their companies, many of them are climate-smart and they have climate-smart products that they sell which we can be proud of here in Sweden.

This journey has begun, it is ongoing, and it will continue. But just because Miljöpartiet does not think the government is doing the right things does not mean that we are doing nothing – on the contrary. We are doing a lot for households. We are currently doing very much to ensure that Sweden gets on the right track, so that Swedish companies can grow and so that we can achieve a good and efficient transition.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elisabeth Svantesson, for the answer!

It is not only Miljöpartiet that is coming forward with this criticism and these requests; that is somewhat my point here. A very large collection of the rest of Swedish public life wants to see more investments.

What is being asked for is precisely a political leadership. I know that we have fantastic companies and organizations in this country that strive forward and that help to make the transition and build Sweden strong. But one wants a political leadership.

Even this government must realize the seriousness of the situation and that it is urgent now. It is as if there is no climate crisis that must be handled. It is as if it is enough to postpone these decisions to the future. But that is not the case. Every ton of carbon dioxide that we emit now counts. The investments need to be made now.

The government is still hiding behind inflation. I have said it before, I say it again, and I am not alone in saying it. We see how investments are being made in other countries. Ali Esbati mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden has presented in the USA. It is explicitly stated that it is intended to curb inflation, and we are now also seeing it fall. It involves investments in transition, large ones.

If the question "when" cannot be answered, even though I, somewhat hopefully, could discern that it will come, then I want to ask why. Why does the government want to give a walkover in a matter that concerns Sweden's competitiveness in the long run but also about the transition to a climate-smart world?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! It has been just over a year. In the first eight months, this government managed to make decisions on more offshore wind power than the previous government did in eight years.

It has been a year, and now we have, for example, gained momentum in enabling the ability to build nuclear power everywhere. Now we are putting pressure on the permit processes so that they go faster.

We are putting pressure upon pressure so that Sweden can transition. It will take time. I am not naive, which I think the Miljöpartiet has been at times. Large efforts and a faster pace are required for us to reach what we collectively want to achieve.

Sweden is at the forefront. It is not that the big investment in IRA - as one should not say when meeting the Irish - has anything to do with inflation, and even Joe Biden probably knows that. But absolutely, there are many subsidies. Subsidies also exist in some European countries, but we know that it is not subsidies that the Swedish business community demands first and foremost. They do not want to compete for subsidies, because they know that it is not the best that wins. They want to compete with skills supply, with infrastructure and with an electricity system that works so that one can actually be here in Sweden.

Fundamentally, we share the goal but with slightly different tools. I take the climate challenge very seriously and see that electrification is an important path in that. The government is steering in that direction and along that path.

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in a difficult economic situation. Inflation has not been at such a high level for 30 years, and Sweden is judged to be in a recession.

The high inflation harms Sweden's economy and is the workers' worst enemy, because it leads to a fall in real wages and a decrease in the value of savings. Given the current economic situation and the need to combat inflation, it is important to achieve a restrained and funded budget. High indebtedness and a high proportion of variable-rate housing loans mean that Swedish households and companies are sensitive to the higher interest rates that follow from inflation. At the same time, cost increases also affect welfare.

Growth continues to develop at a slow pace, and Sweden is entering a recession with a high unemployment rate in comparison to other European countries. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and other global factors also create continued uncertainty about how the economy will develop moving forward.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats jointly present a budget aimed at curbing inflation and managing its effects, while also strengthening, among other things, the justice system and the defense. In the economically difficult situation we find ourselves in, the budget focuses on managing the most acute problems we face.

To counteract prices rising more than necessary, the government proposes several measures. One measure is to lower the reduction obligation for diesel and gasoline at the turn of the year. During the years 2024-2026, it will be successively lowered to 6 percent for both diesel and gasoline. In addition, the tax on diesel and gasoline is also lowered generally. The tax on gasoline is lowered by a further 75 öre including value-added tax. To limit the indexing for diesel, the tax is lowered to the EU's minimum level 2024.

The proposal contributes to mitigating high costs for many who are dependent on cars in their daily lives, not least in rural areas. High costs for gasoline and diesel also spread further throughout the entire economy and affect, for example, transport prices and production costs for food. These prices naturally affect the price for the end customer, and that is why this measure is so incredibly important. The reduction of the tax on so-called agricultural diesel will be extended to the starting point of 2024, with the goal that the reduction shall also apply during 2025. This will improve competitiveness within Swedish food production and also affect the price for the end customer.

Madam Speaker! The workers with the lowest monthly wages have suffered the greatest real reduction in their disposable income due to inflation. It is therefore urgent to lower the tax on labor. The Government will therefore propose that the tax on labor be lowered from the turn of the year, primarily for low- and middle-income earners. The Government will also propose a tax reduction for pensioners. Furthermore, the Government will propose that the job tax deduction for the elderly be indexed.

To finance this, among other things, the indexation for state tax will be paused. The indexation that was made for the threshold for the tax year 2023 was historically high. Pausing the indexation for the tax year 2024 still means that fewer people will pay state income tax than when the government took office.

When the threshold for state income tax was introduced in 1991, it was decided that the threshold should be adjusted annually with an automatically functioning inflation protection. The design itself was based on ensuring that the taxpayers would be granted a real wage protection so that the proportion of taxpayers who pay state income tax remained at a uniform level.

Over the years, the threshold has both been raised and limited in relation to the ordinary adjustment for the tax year that otherwise applied. The adjustment made for the tax year 2023 followed the ordinary procedure and was historically high. As a result of the continued high inflation, the adjustment for the tax year 2024 will also be historically high if no measures are taken. Therefore, there are reasons to pause the adjustment of the threshold for 2024 in order to be able to finance other initiatives, for example, broad tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners. Pausing the adjustment also means that the proportion of taxpayers who pay state income tax returns to a level that is more in line with how it has looked historically.

Madam Speaker! A measure that will surely please many who were born in 1957 is that we correct the error with the too high tax on pensions for just them. It was a strange arrangement that meant those born in 1957 were forced to pay higher tax in their first year of pension than those born earlier or later. It feels good that we can now correct it for those who were caught in the crossfire, even if it happens late. It was wrong, and wrongs must be corrected.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Many of us know that the Sverigedemokraternas party representatives have completely different interests than the Socialdemokraterna. The better off are prioritized over ordinary wage earners. We see it time and again, and we also see it in this year's bill for next year's budget.

At the same time, the Sweden Democrats are trying to give the impression of something else, that they stand on the side of the ordinary wage earners - which simply is not true. One such example that we debated already a year ago was the unfair "funkisskatt", that is, the tax gap that arises between those who work and those who receive sickness and activity compensation.

The Sweden Democrats have been involved in reintroducing the tax gap. In last year's debate, the Sweden Democrats and Per Söderlund claimed that one must return to these issues further ahead. Once again, they gave the impression that they stood on the side of ordinary wage earners, that they did not represent better-off individuals over ordinary wage earners.

Now it has been a year, and we stand here again. The funkis tax remains despite Per Söderlund's and the Sverigedemokraternas promises that they would return to the issue.

What is it that matters? Do you stand on the side of ordinary wage earners? Or is it as I claim, that it is rather those who are better off who are prioritized? Do you not want to abolish the unfair funkisskatt?

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! The absolutely most important measure for all wage earners in Sweden is that we keep inflation down. It hits household finances and savings hard, and those who have high loans are, of course, hit hard when interest rates go up.

I am glad that we have succeeded in slowing down the development. Let us look at August 2022, the month before the election. At that time, inflation was around 9 percent. It then went up to over 10 percent, as long as we remained on the previous government's budget. When we finally moved to the current government's budget, inflation has fallen to 4.2 percent today. It is a substantial reduction. We have done a lot on that point for everyone in our society.

There is actually nothing called a disability tax. There is no decision that a tax should even be introduced on those who have functional variations. Those who work and have functional variations pay the same tax as those who work and do not have functional variations.

I also said last year that there is no "funkisskatt" (fun tax). It is a term that people throw around, and I think it is utterly incorrect. This government, and we, have as a goal that it should pay to work, and therefore there are certain deductions for taxes on earned income.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Now we heard what Sverigedemokraterna Per Söderlund said at the end, namely that it should pay to work. The tax gap between those who work and those who have sickness and activity compensation will not disappear under a bourgeois government. Above all, Sverigedemokraterna will not pursue that line. These are clear messages today, despite the attempts to give the impression of something else.

When it comes to inflation in Sweden, no one has any other opinion than that it needs to be fought. Swedish inflation measured on an annual basis, from January 1, has come down to 2.2 percent. Over the last six months, it has been 1.2 percent. If one then subtracts the interest rate, not KPI but KPIF, it is moving in exactly the right direction. That is also due to the monetary policy.

Inflation is supply-driven, not demand-driven. This also means that when we plan for the future with the budget bill we have to vote on in the Riksdag, we can make investments so that ordinary wage earners, ordinary people, do not have to bear the burdens and take the hit from the high inflation. Then one could have abolished the unfair tax gap between those who work and those who have sickness and activity compensation.

I call it the "funkis tax." Per Söderlund and the Sverigedemokraterna think that is wrong. But call it whatever you want! The tax gap is there, and it must be removed. Now we hear that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government will not do anything to abolish the gap. Thanks for the notice!

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know whether one should see the number of motions on the tax area in this year's budget proposals from the different parties as a sign of how they view this.

The Social Democrats have four demands in this area that I can identify. I do not know if it is because the Social Democrats are simply approaching the policy that the government holds or what it is about. I am, in any case, very happy that you as a party are now reviewing your previous policy, and I hope that you will eventually realize that several of the things that the Sweden Democrats have said over many years were actually quite good. I look forward to the investigation you are conducting.

As said: There is actually no disability tax. There is not even any decision that the tax shall be raised. There are decisions to lower other taxes. It is not a tax for those who are functionally diverse, because if they work, they get the same tax as everyone else.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's modern history is a history of success. For more than 100 years, Sweden developed from a poor agrarian country into a leading industrial and welfare nation.

People's trade union organization and political consciousness during the turn of the last century would come to fundamentally change our country. Universal and equal suffrage became the beginning of the social construction, where politics and democracy became the means for people's liberation and for a social change where equality and freedom, embodied by an extensive welfare state, gave people the tools to liberate themselves from the shackles of economic subordination.

But social development is also a constantly ongoing transition. When the world changes, when we do not know with certainty what tomorrow looks like, the strong society has become the security that has made people curious about the future and dare to face a new day without knowing what it looks like. They welcome it nonetheless in the certainty that things can actually become better. People must, after all, have something to look forward to.

A comprehensive, fair and general welfare is the glue and the foundation that we best meet a better future with together.

But, Madam Speaker, when people do not recognize themselves, when society changes all too fast, when the gaps increase, when the inequality in power resources grows, yes, then there is a risk that unrest and insecurity will spread.

Then it is important to know that there are political alternatives that want to create a society where everyone feels welcome, where everyone is needed, where everyone is in demand in all stages of life, where no one feels involuntarily excluded, and where this sense of belonging places demands and requires responsibility from each individual to contribute to the best of their ability.

It is important to possess the ability and the will to meet these changes and, in the midst of change, to defend the individual human being, to be an active part and work for a society where we, with security, dare to take on the challenges of the future. For in times without hope, there is no worse prison than the future.

Madam Speaker! Now we Social Democrats propose, among other things, that the profits the banks make on their large interest margins, that is to say the difference between the lending rate and the savings rate, be taxed and redistributed to the Swedish people in order to strengthen the welfare.

We propose that the earned income tax credit for high-income earners be phased down and completely abolished for those with very high incomes.

We propose a readiness tax to finance the upgrading of the defense.

Against this stands a conservative bourgeois government, side by side with the Sweden Democrats, who represent completely different interests: the well-off before ordinary wage earners.

It does not surprise anyone that the demand for justice has difficulty finding resonance with the bourgeois right. It is true to itself. And in the middle of the gang stands a new friend: Sverigedemokraterna.

Madam Speaker! Tax, our common tax system, that which we choose to forgo - its primary task is to ensure sufficient revenue to finance and develop the general welfare and the strong society. Herein lies also the tax system's inherent beauty. We forgo income and a portion of wealth for common affairs because it is wise and modern and because it creates growth and justice.

At the same time, the need for a new comprehensive review of the tax system is great. Today's tax system is characterized by large and serious problems. The fiscal imbalance between work and capital, with ever lower taxes on capital, is a concern.

The many tax breaks and the large tax cuts have worsened our ability to finance the welfare. Therefore, justice must be restored. The ability to finance our common welfare must be improved, and the socio-economic costs must be reduced by avoiding distributionally inefficient income conversions from labor to capital.

Madam Speaker! Erik Johan Stagnelius, the Swedish poet, lived a short life and died impoverished and alone on Södermalm, but his imprint on Swedish literature is great and still living. His perhaps most famous poem, Suckarnas mystär, strikes directly into the human condition.

Two laws govern human life. Two forces shape all, that is born under the moon's difficult disc. Hear, o human! The power to demand is the first. The compulsion to renounce is the second. - - - Noble thou to freedom this compulsion, and hallowed and reconciled, over the dust's circling planets, shall you enter through honor's gates.

Socialdemokraternas pursuit of equality is fundamentally a pursuit of freedom. Therefore, a general, comprehensive welfare with high accessibility is important—because it liberates people. We do not become dependent on our own economic assets to receive a share of school, healthcare, and care, and we avoid having to give up large parts of our lives to take care of loved ones who need such services and cannot buy them on any market.

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

Madam Speaker! I assert that high-quality healthcare, school, and care distributed according to need is important for people's opportunities in life. Life chances become much smaller when it is not there. Therefore, we must also be prepared to jointly finance what we together define as common concerns: a good, just, and efficient tax system for a general, comprehensive, and equal welfare for a modern Sweden and a society where everyone has a place.

With that, I move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservations, reservation 1 and 5.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I greatly appreciated Niklas Karlsson quoting Stagnelius here in the chamber. It always makes the debates more enjoyable when one mixes in poetry into the whole.

I will, however, speak about a considerably more prosaic document, namely the Social Democrats' budget motion.

In this budget motion, it is repeated that one wants to reclaim democratic control in welfare, school, elderly care and so on.

That the Social Democrats have never liked freedom of choice and private alternatives in welfare is no news. But what is the status of democratic control in the public sector? In Malmö, which is governed by and has been governed by the Social Democrats for decades, a loathsome antisemitism is expressed completely openly in some schools. Students have shouted: All Jews should die, all of Israel should burn and they all deserve to die. Students have also performed Hitler salutes.

Despite the fact that the events can be regarded as incitement against a group, no police reports have been made, because the management of Malmö City's secondary school administration has thought that it would not benefit the situation.

I would therefore like to ask Niklas Karlsson: When do the Social Democrats intend to regain democratic control where the Social Democrats are in power?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that Boriana Åberg appreciates my literary references. Boriana Åberg herself often engages in that, including quoting Social Democratic party chairs, for example Olof Palme. That is what I am particularly glad about. Next time Boriana Åberg does that, she should perhaps not only quote and read but also look, understand, and draw the correct conclusions.

Democratic control is very important for us Social Democrats. Democracy is a fundamental pillar for us. We fight for it. It is a force that sometimes cannot be reconciled with the market. In those cases, the market or at least the logic of the market must be changed or pushed back.

We are not against freedom of choice, but on the contrary. It is important for people to be involved in social life and to be able to make their own choices. Freedom of choice is important. But we want to deal with that which is profit interest, market logic, which steers away the fair distribution of welfare and which makes the right of the strongest prevail. We can return to that, Boriana Åberg.

The actual question, however, is about something else. I must admit that I do not quite understand what Boriana Åberg is insinuating.

Antisemitism is a poison. It must be combated. We within the Social Democrats have never stood for anything else. Boriana Åberg does not need to wonder even once about where the Social Democrats stand. We never defend antisemitism. We fight it every day, at every opportunity. If Boriana Åberg has views on the leadership in Malmö, it is better that she turns to them. But we as a movement are crystal clear. Antisemitism is a poison. Antisemitism must be combated.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Over the years, a great deal of tax money has been invested in combating antisemitism. The Social Democrats have said every time: "We are in the forefront. We are fighting antisemitism." But every time, you have been caught not being particularly successful in that fight.

Madam Speaker! Malmö receives a tax equalization grant of 6.3 billion kronor annually. Both the municipality's own residents and the taxpayers in the municipalities that contribute to Malmö's budget have the right to demand that antisemitism is not spread in Malmö's schools. These are not major demands. It is completely normal.

What is not normal is that Malmö's Social Democratic government seems to have completely lost democratic control. Therefore, I want to ask Niklas Karlsson again: What is the movement doing? What is Niklas Karlsson himself doing, as chairman for the Socialdemokraterna in Skåne, to ensure that no antisemitism occurs in Malmö's schools, in any other schools, or in any other places in Sweden?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! What Boriana Åberg and the Moderaterna are doing now is not about care for the Jews. They are insinuating and continue to spread poison. The goal seems to sanctify all means for the Moderaterna when they now resort to whatever it takes.

It was the Prime Minister and party chairman Göran Persson who carried out the project and the book Om detta må ni berätta.

I have friends who are Jews and with whom I, if not daily but often, have conversations about the situation they find themselves in. I have never hesitated. I will never hesitate. I have never been unclear, but on the contrary, very clear. And I will continue to be so.

Regardless of what Boriana Åberg and the Moderaterna are now trying to insinuate, there is no doubt whatsoever, and there should be no doubt whatsoever, that antisemitism must be combated. It is a poison, and it must be combated every day regardless of where it arises.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! We live in trying times. Crime has eaten its way into the body of society. Gang settlements, drug trafficking and shootings occur all too often, almost daily. Criminals carry out advanced frauds and extract enormous sums from our common welfare. Corruption and infiltration threaten our rule of law.

Inflation is eroding real wages and forcing people to tighten their belts. Interest rates are higher than they have been in a long time, and more and more people are worried about having to leave their homes. Unemployment risks rising. Sweden also has troublesome low growth, in fact, the second lowest in the entire EU.

In addition to this, we are plagued by an elevated terror threat, growing antisemitism, and ongoing wars in our vicinity and in our wider world. Sweden has experienced difficult times before, but the time we are in now is more challenging than it has been in a very long time. Therefore, a policy was needed that allows Sweden to endure through the crisis. And that is the policy that our current government pursues by prioritizing the handling of Sweden's most acute problems.

It is worth reminding why the Tidö parties gained the trust of the Swedish people: to deal with the shadow society and stop the gross crime and the uncontrolled migration completely without integration. To pretend that Sweden's problems have arisen during the Kristersson government's 14 months in power is utterly unserious and dishonest.

Since the government took office, it has worked to combat inflation, restore the work line, and implement structural reforms for increased growth. Growth is an absolutely crucial prerequisite for people to have it better, both in terms of welfare and real wage increases. Contrary to what some parties seem to believe, it is the foundation for the development of our entire society.

In the situation we are currently in, it is not extensive tax cuts that are at the top of the agenda, which we Moderates naturally regret. But some well-targeted tax cuts contribute to the fact that Sweden will, despite this, have the lowest tax burden next year since 1975 - something that would not have happened without a Moderate-led government.

Maintaining the work line is of utmost importance for Sweden's prosperity. That it should pay to work has always been a fundamental part of the Moderates' policy. It is only by more people working that we create the society we want - a society where the social contract is upheld and where everyone who can work contributes to the common good and no one rides for free at the expense of others.

When it pays off to work, it becomes clear that it is right to strive to create a better existence for oneself and others. The value of having a job, and thus also the societal cost of unemployment, is difficult to overstate.

In order for more people to leave benefit dependency and support themselves, clear incentives are needed. The introduction of a benefit ceiling is a measure intended to increase the incentives to work. It is extremely problematic that many who receive benefits and transfers have received compensation for the high inflation, while those who work and do the right thing have received a significant real wage reduction. Therefore, the government proposes that the tax on labor be lowered from the turn of the year, primarily for low- and middle-income earners.

The tax on pensions is also lowered. In the same way that it should always pay to work, it should pay to have worked. Furthermore, the job tax deduction for the elderly will be indexed to increase the incentives for them to stay longer in the labor market and contribute with necessary and sought-after expertise.

Real jobs are always created by companies and entrepreneurs, not by politicians – however good our intentions may be. It is, however, the politicians' role to set the rules of the game and create the conditions for companies to be started, developed, grown, and hire more people.

Earlier in the debate, the preparedness tax was mentioned, which the Social Democrats plan to introduce in some way and then also involve the 3:12 rules. It seems particularly important for the Social Democrats that these rules are changed. That they are to be changed, we agree on. But when it comes to how this is to take place, we have completely different views. The Tidö parties want the 3:12 rules to be simplified in order to further promote entrepreneurship, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. We definitely do not want it to become more complicated or less profitable to be an entrepreneur.

Since the government took office, the Committee on Simplified Taxation of Owners of Closely Held Companies has received an expanded mandate, including to analyze how the rules can be simplified to facilitate ownership changes both between relatives and to employees. The government also removed the original sub-mandate regarding an adjusted tax rate.

In order for Sweden to continue to be an attractive country for knowledge-intensive companies and successful research, it is important that the conditions offered are internationally competitive. The rules on the experts' tax were introduced 22 years ago with the aim of creating incentives for companies to locate and maintain group-leading functions that may require foreign personnel in Sweden. Now the legislation is being updated, and the time limit for the experts' tax is extended to apply to the first seven years of the limited stay in Sweden for highly qualified researchers, specialists in technically advanced and knowledge-intensive activities, and other key personnel.

The investigation that is to review the research and development deduction and the expert tax rules is ongoing.

To temporarily promote employment in the construction sector during the recession in the Swedish economy, the ceiling for the rot deduction is temporarily raised, and rot and rut are separated. From the opposition's side, it has been argued that the rot deduction goes to the wealthy who are going to replace marble slabs in their kitchens. Even though I have no opinions on which renovations people choose to do, I want to clarify that the purpose of the temporarily increased rot deduction is to save jobs and the small actors in a struggling industry.

To facilitate for the smallest companies, start-ups and other actors with small operations, the government proposes that the turnover limit for value added tax be raised from 80,000 to 120,000 kronor.

I would also have liked to bring up the reduction of the tax on fuels, but since the subject will be debated in the next debate, I want to spare both Madam Speaker and my honorable colleagues a repetition.

Finally, I want to mention that I am glad that the plastic bag tax is being abolished - a harmful symbolic tax that crippled producers of domestically manufactured, environmentally friendly plastic bags and caused the sales of China-imported, environmentally harmful trash bags to increase. It is a tax that hardly anyone will miss.

I move for approval 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! In tax policy alone, the difference between right and left, between the Moderates and Sweden Democrats on one side and the Social Democrats on the other, becomes particularly clear. We believe that a comprehensive, broad welfare based on egalitarian principles, where things are distributed according to need, makes the chances of living a good and meaningful life much greater. Opposed to this is a bourgeoisie that has completely different views; we see that in the budget proposal that the government is now presenting.

In last year's debate on the same matter, we Social Democrats proposed that high-income earners' incomes should not be inflation-protected. We felt that one should not increase the indexation of the breakpoint for the state income tax. At that time, Boriana Åberg chose to request a reply to me. She went on the offensive against us Social Democrats and claimed that we wanted to tax 1.3 million employees - nurses, police officers, industrial workers, teachers. Boriana asked me if this is morally right.

Now we stand here. When we look at the government's budget proposal, we see that they choose not to raise the threshold for state income tax. I just wonder: What about the morality, Boriana Åberg?

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Karlsson, for giving me the opportunity to respond to your last remark to me, when you said that you do everything to combat antisemitism - this in a city where motorcades with 300 cars are driven to celebrate that women and children have been murdered and raped, and the Social Democratic municipal council refuses to distance itself. That is not combating antisemitism!

Now to Niklas Karlsson's question. Yes, in harsh circumstances, when the state's - the taxpayers' - money is not sufficient, one is forced to make tough prioritizations. The government made the prioritization to introduce a job tax credit that is distributed across all wage earners. Wage earners have had it very difficult in these times of inflation because wages are not being adjusted at the same rate as, for example, the benefits, which are inflation-protected. It was therefore a decision that the government made, and it is the right decision.

I asked last year why Niklas Karlsson wanted to tax nurses and others. Now I ask the same question. Your job tax deduction only covers people who earn up to 38,000 a month. Teachers, nurses, police officers and others will therefore be without a job tax deduction in your budget. Why?

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Given the scattered applause and the happy faces seen among the bourgeois representatives in the chamber, I realize that it is not only Boriana Åberg who has not read our budget proposal in its entirety. Apparently, none of you others have either.

The figure 38,000 is wrong. The phase-out disappears at 100,000. It is those who earn over 100,000 who do not receive any earned income tax reduction. Don't mix up the cards!

That is where we are. The bourgeois representatives, with Boriana Åberg at the forefront, do not want to talk about tax and welfare policy, because they stand there like the emperor completely naked. It becomes so clear whose interests one represents. It is not ordinary wage earners, but it is those who are better off.

When one attacks the Socialdemokraterna, one attacks the phase-out of the job tax credit for those who have an annual income of more than 1.2 million kronor a year. It is those interests and those people that Boriana Åberg today launches an attack against from the rostrum of the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! I realize that one must be careful with one's choice of words, and I will not overstate things. But nevertheless, there is a touch of hypocrisy in the Moderates' argumentation. Last year it was immoral not to raise the threshold for state income tax, but this year it is no problem. It is probably still a certain degree of hypocrisy.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I can assure Niklas Karlsson that I have read the entire Social Democratic budget of 64 pages. There is a specific heading: We are lowering taxes for ordinary people. 7.9 billion has been allocated for this, actually 3 billion less than the government allocates. There, the limit is 38,600.

I want to ask Niklas Karlsson to read his own budget once more and see which occupational categories the Social Democrats count as ordinary people. Nurses are not ordinary people, teachers are not ordinary people, and neither are police officers.

Speaking of hypocrisy, let me return to this with the readiness tax that Niklas Karlsson and his party want to introduce. Is it not a pity and a shame that in a country that has one of the highest tax burdens in the world, even if we have lowered it somewhat, one should need an extra tax to finance the state's most fundamental tasks, namely defense and security, both internal and external? And why should the extra tax be placed on those who actually contribute the most, i.e., entrepreneurs who create jobs? The welfare that Niklas Karlsson speaks so beautifully about is only maintained if more people work. It is a pyramid where the broad base secures the income, not that one taxes the top with 100 percent tax, or 102 percent, as it was in Gunnar Sträng's days if we are to believe Astrid Lindgren.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! We have a government that would rather lower taxes than invest in welfare. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner estimates that the deficit for municipalities and regions will land at 31 billion kronor. 31 billion kronor - those are unimaginable sums, and the government thinks that municipalities and regions can streamline and cut back to save these billions. In practice, it means cancelled operations, longer queues for healthcare, and decommissioned bus lines. Most often, it is also the preventive work that gets cut. At the same time as young people are drawn into gang crime, the municipalities are forced to save on schools and activities for young people.

This year, for example, Malmö has reduced the school budget by 200 million. Teaching assistants and other support staff have had to leave, and some classes have more than 32 students. The liberal school councilor has several times during the autumn said that she hopes for increased state grants. But there will be no significant increased state grants with this budget. Malmö, just like everyone else, must continue to save and cut back.

The government chooses instead to invest in tax cuts and subsidies for those who want to renovate their kitchens, while school kitchens are on their knees.

After a year in power, the government's and the Sweden Democrats' priorities are clear. Instead of making things easier for households, healthcare, schools, and elderly care, they are investing in tax cuts for the rich, and instead of doing anything about shock-increased food prices and skyrocketing interest rates, they are taking a coffee break.

The welfare state shall be dismantled and the gaps shall increase in the right-conservative Sweden. In the bourgeois logic, high-income earners work more if they get more money, while low-income earners, the sick and the unemployed work more if they get less money.

Sweden has for some years been at the top of the world when it comes to the number of billionaires in relation to the population. 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 very most. Furthermore, capital incomes are not equally distributed. Men have approximately three-quarters of the total dividends and interest incomes.

Sweden's 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 welfare, the climate crisis, and the high unemployment are linked to tax cuts and completely abolished taxes on capital for the wealthy. Rut- and rot-deductions involve further redistribution from low-income earners to high-income earners. The tax ratio has been lowered and corresponds to approximately 440 billion kronor in less tax revenue every year.

A policy for sustainable growth, increased equality, and full employment requires high quality in welfare services and efficient insurance systems, and in that, taxes fulfill several important functions. Taxes pay for investments and should level out income, consumption, and savings between different income groups. An English study found, unsurprisingly, that tax cuts for the rich increase economic inequality without significantly affecting unemployment or economic growth. Tax cuts lead to reduced tax revenues, and in Sweden, they have additionally benefited those with high incomes and resulted in sharply increased income inequalities.

Vänsterpartiet considers that work is needed on a comprehensive tax reform that shall create a uniform, fair, and legitimate tax system. The most prioritized area to address is the eroded capital taxation and the extremely uneven distribution of wealth. We present proposals on how taxes can become more fair. This concerns both that all types of income shall be taxed equally without different special solutions and that there shall be a uniform capital and wealth tax. We believe that the tax gap needs to be closed for all incomes, for example, sickness benefit, rehabilitation benefit, unemployment insurance, and parental insurance. This means lowered tax for groups with small economic margins and that we remove the so-called funkisskatt.

Madam Speaker! The EU has introduced the possibility for member states to impose a tax on the large profits of electricity companies and to return the money to electricity consumers. The right-wing government delayed introducing the tax and settled for a minimum level. Large revenues that could have been returned to households were foregone. According to figures that DN has requested from the Government Offices, it could amount to anything from 7.8 to 34 billion kronor that were lost. As long as electricity consumers are forced into a broken electricity market where electricity companies profit from high electricity prices, we want to see a new temporary tax to counteract the electricity companies' excess profits.

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 the climate and environmental goals. In the tax area, as in politics in general, the government unfortunately presents proposals that counteract the green transition. Instead of facilitating household finances, the tax on fossil fuels is lowered while the regions, due to the missing state grants, are forced to raise the fares in public transport. Taxation of fuels is an important tool to reduce the transport sector's climate impact. But steering instruments are also needed to reduce the gaps between city and country.

All climate-damaging subsidies should be phased out and decommissioned promptly. It is urgent to take further measures so that Sweden does not lose momentum in reaching net-zero emissions.

Finally, I want to say a few words about people born in 1957. They were caught in the crossfire when the Riksdag decided to raise the retirement age without introducing transitional rules. Since the government presented its budget for 2023, Vänsterpartiet has acted with motions and committee initiatives to rectify this tax injustice. Now the government announces that pensioners born in 1957 shall be compensated for the higher tax paid in connection with the tax refunds. Vänsterpartiet would have preferred to see the majority in the Riksdag and the government act earlier and lower the tax during 2023. But we appreciate that the government, albeit somewhat late, is now announcing a compensation. We assume that the 57s are compensated with interest and that the government will as soon as possible return with the forms for how this refund shall take place. It is indeed urgent with an announcement to all those who have paid and who are still paying too much in tax.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservations 2 and 6.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces several challenges. High inflation and high interest rates are putting pressure on households and companies. Swedish welfare needs resources. This government has begun the work of reversing the development for our country, so that we are heading in the right direction.

The economic policy focuses on reforms that provide good opportunities for entrepreneurship, research, and investments. It will be particularly important to create a more favorable tax climate going forward.

None of the government's initiatives would have been possible if it were not for all the taxpayers around Sweden. The money we are debating today does not belong to any of us. It is the taxpayers' money - those who get out of bed every morning to then go to work. Our responsibility is therefore to try to prioritize in the best way when it comes to their money.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish people have, during recent years, been subjected to great economic pressures with high inflation and high interest rates. The international economic unrest has, in Sweden, furthermore been compounded by the previous government's irresponsible decommissioning of fully functioning nuclear power plants and a reduction obligation that is more adapted for Södermalm than for the countryside. All of this has created a strong inflation, and Sweden has entered a recession.

Madam Speaker! Since taking office, the Government has had to prioritize acute crisis management to bring down inflation and support households. The Government is working on a long-term plan to take Sweden through the difficult economic situation. We are fighting inflation, supporting households and welfare, restoring the work principle, and implementing structural reforms for higher growth.

We do not promise everything to everyone, but we promise that in economically difficult situations, such as now, to prioritize so that society's efforts mostly go to those who need it most. Therefore, the Christian Democrats have also had the increased housing supplement passed, which primarily targets single parents. These are almost always women. This is a concrete example of a functioning distribution policy from the current government.

Madam Speaker! A large part of the reform space, 40 percent, goes to strengthening the welfare. For us Christian Democrats, the family is central in this initiative. We have just adopted an ambitious family policy program with many proposals that benefit Sweden's families regardless of what they look like. The family is the best preventive measure to combat crime. We also invest in this budget in reinforced social services and school, and in additional resources for the police to stop recruitment to criminal gangs.

Furthermore, we support the regions, and healthcare receives a specific sector grant. We also make targeted investments in cancer care and in women's healthcare. And the education initiative, the so-called Äldreomsorgslyftet, must remain.

Madam Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, it is important to prioritize continued income tax cuts in the form of additional job tax credits. When it comes to further increasing the incentives to work, it is important that the focus regarding continued tax cuts lies on low- and middle-income earners. It is about a consistent work line where work always pays more than receiving benefits. It contributes to society but also to people's sense of doing right and contributing to society. We therefore prioritize continued income tax cuts for wage earners and pensioners. We Christian Democrats are particularly happy that we succeeded in removing the unfair tax that affected those born in 1957. On the other hand, the increased threshold for state income tax will be paused, as this time we must prioritize something else.

Madam Speaker! Sweden does not consist solely of large cities. Large parts of Sweden's population live in what we call the heartland. These are people who live outside the large cities and in the countryside. In this budget, we continue to lower fuel taxes. We extend the tax reduction for agricultural diesel and implement a powerful reduction of the reduction obligation for primarily diesel but also gasoline.

All of Sweden shall live, and with the government's collective policy over the last two years, we have tried to reduce the costs for families in the countryside. In this way, we safeguard the competitiveness of Swedish agriculture. Sweden's families with children will also be able to put Swedish meat on the plate in the future. And it is very positive when it also means better animal welfare and that one reduces antibiotic resistance. At the same time, we safeguard our open landscape, a living countryside, and also our own security by also having a higher self-sufficiency rate with domestic food production.

Madam Speaker! There is hope for Sweden. Together we can make our country better. For all our taxpayers in this country, we make our priorities in this budget.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Even this winter, there is a risk that the price of electricity will skyrocket. You will remember the bills last winter - in November, December, and January. They were not something to play with for many people. The risk is that this will partially continue, this of course as a consequence of the ongoing energy crisis in Europe following Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, hundreds of thousands of households are dependent on direct-acting electricity for their heating, as they may not have been able to afford to install a heat pump, geothermal heating, or other electricity-saving systems. To give everyone the opportunity to lower electricity costs, contribute to reducing Sweden's electricity demand, and contribute to climate work, the Center Party has in its shadow budget proposed that the green tax deduction should be broadened by 50,000 kronor to also include those who switch from heating through direct-acting electricity to energy-saving investments such as heat pumps and geothermal heating.

In order for everyone to have the means to make these types of investments, we also have a proposal for a special climate credit of up to 100,000 kronor with low interest, an interest rate that corresponds to the government borrowing rate. We believe that instead of spending more than 45 billion kronor on electricity support in retrospect, one can quite quickly reduce the vulnerability of the most exposed households and companies in this way.

Madam Speaker! I intended to say a few words about the paused increase of the threshold for state income tax, even though we will have a specific debate on it later.

The government's decision not to index this threshold for when one should pay state income tax starting in 2024 surprised very many. Besides the fact that it breaks with practice, it is in my eyes still strange that a bourgeois government allows the tax to be raised for such a large group of people, who in most cases work very hard to make ends meet. What I want to say is that it was very unexpected.

At the income levels to which this applies, it is very easy to point to examples of occupations within welfare and the justice system that are currently crucial for solving the crises that Sweden faces. According to SCB, there are at least 8,000 primary school teachers and as many nurses who are now paying state income tax as a result of the government's decision. Furthermore, high marginal taxes are hindering both productivity and growth by reducing the motivation of people to choose education within shortage occupations or to develop their careers.

Madam Speaker! Normally, the threshold is indexed with an annual change of the price base amount plus 2 percentage points. The Government argues that this would result in an all-too-large indexing in the current situation, due to inflation. The Centre Party can partly agree with this. In order to be able to mitigate this marginal tax increase, especially for the many people in shortage occupations who are just below the threshold today, and at the same time protect the tax scales against continued arbitrariness, we in the Centre Party, with reference to our budget motion for 2024, believe that the calculation method should follow the average wage development as calculated by the Medlings Institute. This would therefore mean 2.7 percent in the current situation. There are, of course, other models that could be possible to use, and we would like to see that conceivable alternative models are promptly investigated ahead of upcoming budget bills.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to mention something that the government's budget does not contain and which I hope can be addressed in future budgets. I know you have heard this from me before, namely regarding a regionalized property tax on wind power and preferably also on hydropower. But I am focusing on wind power.

In the spring, an investigation was presented regarding incentives to the municipalities concerning the construction of wind turbines. Unfortunately, the government gave additional directives to the investigation at the last second. This meant that the municipalities should not receive any special incentives in the form of taxes. I think that is very unfortunate. It also excludes the possibility that many have supported and that is utilized in, for example, Finland, that the property tax goes back to the local community.

Why should the countryside and northern Sweden once again provide land so that masses of wind turbines can be built, without receiving a single krona back? Do you know that we in northern Sweden were deceived once when it came to hydropower? We do not intend to be deceived once again. I can say for my own part that I will not recommend my own municipality, which is now facing a decision on offshore wind power - 70-140 wind turbines - to say yes until the government thinks it seems interesting to give money back to the local community.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it should be a very simple matter for the government to significantly improve the situation in this regard if they want to and do not consider it a law of nature that rural municipalities with a weak voice should be production colonies for the state. It may sound harsh, but I mean every word.

I refuse, as I have said, to give up when it comes to this issue. And I must quote my aunt Svea, who always said: A no is just a slower yes.

Now I actually thought I would take the opportunity to read an economic poem for you here. Since Niklas Karlsson was very literary in his speech, I did not intend to be any less so.

I do not know who wrote this poem. I found it on the internet, and I thought it was very good. Some might get a little sad. But you have to take it for what it is, because I think this is something we should think about when it comes to hard-working people and the taxation that we subject these people to. Okay, hold on to your hats, everyone!

Tax his land, tax his house, tax both timber and gravel. Tax his tractor, tax his horse, teach him that tax is best. Tax his job, tax his wage, he works anyway with groans and moans! Tax his cow, tax his crop, tax his water, tax his food.

Tax his ties, tax his hat, tax something more just because. Tax his tobacco, tax his liquor, tax his pleasures, tax his shit. Tax his car, tax his wine, tax his bicycle, tax his gasoline. Tax everything he owns and answer his anger that everything becomes better without his trills.

When he screams and complains - tax him more, tax him until he whimpers and pleads. Do not mind his pleading cry, it actually costs to be free! Tax his chest, tax his gravestone, tax the earth that holds his bones. Put these words on his grave: Crushed by taxes, died like a slave. When he is gone - thank him for the solidarity and tip your hat. Mourn that he escaped the inheritance tax.

I move for the approval of reservations 3 and 7.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to request the floor and ask a question to Helena Lindahl, but I feel compelled to do so because Helena Lindahl rubbed salt into the wound regarding the missing increase of the threshold.

It is not the government that Helena Lindahl should be disappointed and angry at. Helena Lindahl should be disappointed and angry at her own party and at her friends in the other block, in the opposition. Already during the previous parliamentary term, the Center Party chose to support a tax-increasing government, a government which, in many ways alongside Putin's invasion of Ukraine, is the cause of the miserable situation we have now, with high electricity prices and other things that Helena Lindahl so profitably mentioned in her submission. It is just as good to look at oneself before one starts criticizing the opponent.

We are well aware of how taxes affect and that people can choose to work extra shifts, educate themselves or start companies when the benefit becomes greater. But tough times require tough priorities. What we have done is that we have shared that cake, so that it benefits everyone and not just some. That is how the government has thought. That is the explanation.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that one can look back at the decisions that have been taken previously, but now is now. One can always say to other parties: You then - what did you do when you sat in power? Even I belong to those who use that type of argumentation from time to time.

The paused calculation of the breakpoint and the threshold for state tax affects incredibly many people and sends a signal. As Boriana Åberg knows, we have a crisis in Sweden when it comes to, for example, the police but also nurses and doctors. In my own home country, there are not enough doctors, so we pay enormous amounts of money for locum doctors. If one does not think that one earns from going out and working extra, why should one then do it? Why should one educate oneself and devote all time and energy if it is the case that the state does not see or appreciate it?

Centerpartiet naturally agrees that it would cost the state a lot of money if one did not do this pausing. But there is a middle ground to be taken. One could do a wage adjustment so that it does not hit so hard.

When one breaks practice in this way, I am afraid it means that it becomes a slightly more open door for other parties to use the same arguments next time. This will, of course, have a significantly greater impact in the long run, if we cannot agree on some other form for this tax.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Other parties have already departed from that principle. In 2016, the Social Democrats did so. I also want to say that the Center Party's proposal is in no way complete.

I have another question, which I did not have time to ask in my first speech. Last year, Helena Lindahl spoke very warmly about the company Gaia Biomaterials and its invention Biodolomer. It is a new form of material that is biodegradable, which does not pollute nature in any way, which is cheap and efficient, and which the company Gaia previously used very successfully to manufacture carrier bags. The introduction of the plastic bag tax, however, essentially changed the rules of the game for both Gaia and other Swedish companies that manufactured environmentally friendly plastic bags.

I perceived that Helena Lindahl was a warm supporter of the abolition of the plastic bag tax. But today, when one listened to her colleague Martin Ådahl, he did not rejoice at all at this abolition. On the contrary, he thought that the abolition of the plastic bag tax hits teachers, nurses, and other welfare workers. I wonder: What is Helena Lindahl's position on this question?

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to comment on the Center Party's proposal regarding the threshold for state tax. No, it is not perfect, but it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. As I mentioned, we are completely open to discussing other models as well, but the problem with a pure pause is that it hits large professional groups and occupational categories very hard. People might need to go out and work extra, not least over Christmas or during cold and flu season and so on. Why should one do that if it simply does not pay off?

When it comes to the plastic bag tax, I am still of the same opinion. I think the proposal was poorly designed from the very beginning. If something is to be favored, one should rather favor the type of plastic products that are biodegradable, such as Gaia's plastic bags. Instead, they were drawn over the same comb as the bags manufactured from the fossil. I have therefore not changed my mind. I still think that one should distinguish between these different types of plastic bags.

Then I believe that Boriana Åberg knows very well that there are different opinions within the parties. Sometimes you win, sometimes you do not win. You have to choose your battles. There are other battles that I think are more important to take. It is not the case that we are a sect and that everyone thinks exactly the same.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I am new to the Committee on Taxation, but I can state with pleasure that there is a great deal of knowledge in the committee in all factions and in every corner, which we have heard, not least from the rostrum today.

I am going to talk a bit about taxes. The tax that the average person talks about most is the tax on income, on wages. There are quite a few theories and research on what the ultimate tax rate is.

Somewhere I believe everyone agrees that high tax makes the will to work less than if it is low tax. If the tax is 100 percent, probably no one will work. If the tax, on the other hand, is 0 percent, we get a rather strange society without a functioning welfare state. Therefore, we must find a level of tax that makes as many as possible want to work and where we simultaneously have a functioning welfare state. This I believe we all agree on, but we want to reach there in different ways.

It is ordinary people who go to work who create the prosperity. My party leader usually calls them the society builders. I thought about saying the society bearers, but that is what we police usually call ourselves. They are the ones who educate themselves. They are the ones who are diligent at work and take that extra shift or show a little extra consideration for that person they have in front of them.

But if people are to want to do that little extra, the tax system also needs to be more adapted for that. The system should favor people going to work, not staying at home. When everything is becoming more expensive now, it is therefore reasonable that the state also dares to prioritize and that the state ensures that those who are having a hard time get it better. For example, it is now being arranged so that a police officer next year receives almost 600 kronor in reduced tax on average every month.

With that said - when I meet ordinary people, they often say that they have no problem paying tax but that they want to know what the tax is used for. They want to get something for the tax. They want a functioning healthcare system, a functioning school, and a functioning police force. They often have no problem helping people who are sick or who have lost their jobs. Many also think that it is okay that we in Sweden help poor countries on our planet so that people do not starve or get shot dead. Many are also satisfied that we have a defense and think that the defense should be financed with tax.

That is why I think the focus for us politicians should be more on what one gets for the money. What do the taxpayers get for their tax?

Madam Speaker! If there is one thing I have learned during the year I have been in the Riksdag, it is that everyone wants more. Regardless of what the budget looks like, there are always those who want more. The environmental movement is dissatisfied, the transport industry wants more, the unions are dissatisfied, the police are grumbling, representatives for motorists are dissatisfied, the banks complain, and the small business owners are furious. Everyone wants more.

But if someone wants more, someone else must get less. And that is where the different industries or organizations make it easy for themselves. They can say that they want more, but they do not need to say who should get less instead – unlike the government. The government must always account for how the money is used. A budget must always balance. One plus one can never become three.

Some politicians think that the easy way to ensure that everyone gets what they want, so that everyone is satisfied, is to raise taxes. They want to ensure that there is more money in the state's wallet to take from by raising taxes or borrowing.

I have never understood the obviousness of the idea that the more you earn, the higher the tax you should pay. If you earn more, you will already be paying more in tax. Let me take an example. A person who earns 10,000 kronor and pays 30 percent in tax will ensure that 3,000 kronor ends up in the public tax chest. A person who earns 20,000 and pays 30 percent in tax will ensure that 6,000 ends up in the tax chest. So why should he who earns 20,000 pay even more in tax? He is already paying more tax; he is already contributing more to society.

I am not a trained economist, but I rely a lot on common sense and on how I perceive real life. And I think it is strange that one should punish the one who earns more and who already pays more tax.

If we think about that curve again, where the will to work decreases the higher the tax is, we see that higher tax is not a solution. Those who earn more will simply work less, and then there will be less money in paid tax.

Why should a person who has studied for many years, invested a lot of time and perhaps even sweat and tears, taken out student loans, and who then becomes attractive on the labor market and gets a well-paid job, pay more in tax? How is that supposed to motivate anyone to strive for a better-paid job if studies do not pay off financially?

Is it so that the striving to get something better is something bad, something ugly? Is it so that we want a society where people are not to strive to get it better - a more interesting job, a greater challenge, a new position and a higher salary?

Why should it cost more to have these thoughts and that striving? In my world, that is not liberalism. The striving to achieve something, to want something, is in my world not something ugly, but on the contrary. And it should always pay off to study.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are facing a steel bath in the welfare system. The Tidö parties' budget, which we are debating here in the chamber today, implies a continuation of the cut-back policy.

The municipalities and regions were facing a very tough situation even before this budget was presented. In this year's budget, the Tidö parties chose instead to compensate high-income earners for inflation by lowering the tax, but they did not compensate welfare for the cost increases. It is a decision that now affects patients, students, healthcare workers and teachers.

What the Tidö parties propose for 2024 is far from enough to compensate for the rapidly increasing costs. We are now facing layoffs and tax increases in regions and municipalities that affect ordinary wage earners and cuts in important operations. In my home county of Sörmland, 400 people have been laid off, just to give one example.

The government instead prioritizes large tax cuts. In terms of kronor and öre, they lower the tax more for people with higher incomes than for people with lower incomes. When they do that, they also increase the unjust difference in taxation between people who receive sickness and activity compensation and cannot work and people who can work – the so-called disability tax.

It is not right that people who cannot work due to a functional variation should pay more in tax. On the contrary, it is deeply unfair. We want to abolish this unfair difference in taxation by lowering the tax on sickness and activity compensation.

Madam Speaker! We propose a fair financing of the welfare state that reduces inequalities and increases equality. Inequality is pulling Sweden apart. We want to see a Sweden that holds together. Then we need a tax system that levels inequalities and secures the financing of the welfare state. An equal society is a society that is good for everyone.

We know that capital income is very unevenly distributed in Sweden and that a large proportion falls to a very small proportion of the population. This is an important explanation for why inequality in Sweden has increased rapidly. We therefore propose a more just and progressive capital taxation. Small savers should be able to use investment savings accounts tax-free, but for capital amounts over 1 million kronor, we think it is reasonable to raise the tax.

The cost crisis we have experienced has been tough for many, but not for everyone. This applies primarily to the banks. Therefore, we propose a tax on the banks' excess profits - and this is, of course, to be able to finance investments in welfare and the climate transition.

Madam Speaker! There are some things in the government's budget that I welcome. It is very welcome that the government is now addressing the tax injustice that has affected persons born in 1957. We submitted a committee initiative on the issue already in December last year and have raised the issue with the Minister for Finance several times, so it is pleasing that this is now being handled. It is also welcome that the government has reconsidered when it comes to targeted tax cuts for high-income earners and this year chooses not to raise the threshold for state income tax. It should not have been done last year, but it is, as said, good that the government has reconsidered.

Madam Speaker! The budget we are debating today is also part of the Tidö parties' failed climate policy. They are conducting a policy that significantly increases emissions and causes us to miss the climate target for transport in 2030. How does the government solve that? By presenting proposals for a more transport-efficient society? By making it easier for ordinary people to buy an electric car at an affordable price? No, they solve it by trying to scrap the target. They solve it by making scrutiny more difficult and undermining the climate policy council that is supposed to review the government's climate policy. There is no plan to transition Sweden, and they are putting all their energy into trying to shuffle the cards.

The State Budget 2024 - The Framework Decision

Madam Speaker! Sweden's dependence on fossil fuels has hit the Swedish countryside and rural areas hard in recent years. But the solution to that cannot be to increase emissions and deepen our dependence on fossil fuels in the midst of a burning climate crisis, which in the first place put us in this situation. The solution must be to support those who are affected, and that is done most effectively through a tax cut that targets rural and country residents directly. The solution must be to give people support to transition from fossil fuels to electric power. Furthermore, a reduced tax on gasoline and diesel mostly benefits high-income earners in large cities.

The State Budget 2024 - The Framework Decision

Therefore, we propose a targeted tax cut for rural residents instead of a reduced tax on gasoline and diesel. We also propose an agricultural deduction to support Swedish agriculture instead of deepening the fossil dependency. In this way, we take responsibility for supporting those affected by high fuel prices without fueling the climate crisis.

The tax system must also steer towards a circular economy to a greater extent. Everyone should be able to agree that a throwaway society is not economically or environmentally sustainable. Therefore, it is completely incomprehensible to me that the government and SD in the previous budget chose to double the tax on repairs. It sends a completely wrong signal and goes in the completely wrong direction. We therefore want to roll back the government's increase of the VAT on repairs.

Madam Speaker! As has been reported earlier in the chamber, the Green Party's budget is an investment in what is needed for the climate and for welfare. I move for approval of reservations 4 and 8.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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