The State Budget 2025 - The Framework Decision

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Inflation is the workers' worst enemy. One sees the value of one's wages and one's savings decrease while the price of food, housing, and everything else goes up. One simply gets less for one's money. It is truly difficult for the vast majority of us. I believe few have escaped this.

But even the entrepreneurs and our welfare sectors have been hit by inflation - not least municipalities and healthcare regions, with increased pension costs as a result.

The effects of inflation have hit many, and they have hit broadly. Many are also still finding it very tough. Prices have not gone down again. Prices have leveled off but at a higher level.

But the fight against inflation is now won. The Riksbank, the government, and also the parties in the labor market have worked together to reach this situation.

Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson has held back on new expenditures. The Tidö parties have together held back and ensured that inflation does not bite its way in Sweden. The Swedish trade union movement has taken a very large responsibility. For this, they deserve a big thank you from very many. This, together with everything that has been done, has laid the foundation for why Swedish inflation has come down quickly.

Interest rates have come down more in Sweden than in many other countries. This is a relief for companies but, above all, for very many households with high mortgage loans.

What has now happened with the fight against inflation also enables investments. The Tidö parties can now broadly together propose tax cuts for large groups of wage earners and pensioners. Together with the interest rate cuts that are now occurring, it will become much better for many.

The Tidö parties have presented a growth budget where we invest in building a richer and safer Sweden. Large investments will be made to strengthen household finances.

We are increasing the infrastructure budget from 799 billion to 1,200 billion during the next planning period. We propose a historic investment in research, actually the largest ever. All of this together builds Swedish competitiveness stronger in the future.

Earlier this autumn, the four Tidö parties presented the proposal for next year's state budget within the framework of our government cooperation. Today, that proposal is set against the four opposition parties' various counter-proposals. Today, we vote on which path Sweden shall take.

But these are four disparate proposals from the opposition. If one tries to find any pattern in the different budget proposals, one can state one thing: Should the opposition win the next election, large tax increases await the Swedish people. Should the Left Party and the Green Party also gain significant influence in such a government constellation, we will also indebt Sweden. A lot of money will be borrowed, and the interest rates on the national debt will skyrocket. We will have to spend money paying interest on loans for the national debt instead of making necessary investments, investing in welfare, and so on.

Madam Speaker! I want to put today's budget debate into context. The Moderates and the Tidö parties did not take over in a vacuum, but in a reality that was troublesome. Eight years of various Social Democratic governments left behind a great deal of unresolved problems – some of which they created entirely on their own and others which they failed to solve over eight years. The voters gave the four Tidö parties a mandate to tackle this.

Sometimes the tone in the debate is high. Therefore, I want to begin by making a description of where we come from and what problems we have to solve.

The Social Democrats left behind a Sweden with 10 percent inflation. That made food more expensive and interest rates higher. Welfare was eroded of resources.

The Social Democrats left behind a Sweden where households and companies paid among the world's highest fuel prices. It hit households hard - all those who are dependent on the car across our elongated country. But it also hit Swedish competitiveness when transport - necessary transport for Swedish industry and Swedish companies - became more expensive.

The Social Democrats left behind a Sweden with low economic growth. In the summer before the election, after eight years with a Social Democratic government, the newspapers wrote that the EU Commission predicted that Sweden would have the lowest growth within the EU in 2022 and 2023.

The Social Democrats left behind a Sweden where they have failed to stop shootings, bombings, and criminals who simply rob our welfare systems through various criminal schemes. These are funds that are supposed to be used for those who are sick or unemployed, money that should go to healthcare and so on. Our welfare systems are thus being robbed by criminals, and they also failed to stop that.

The Social Democrats left behind a Sweden with high and unpredictable electricity prices, which were largely a consequence of decommissioned nuclear power here in Sweden. By a margin of one vote in this chamber, Madam Speaker, the four parties that are in opposition today voted no to a rescue proposal from the Sverigedemokraterna when it came to saving Swedish nuclear power. It caused the high electricity prices that have now hit households and companies. It also hinders industrial establishments today where one simply cannot guarantee electricity for new industry. There will be fewer jobs in Sweden - jobs that we so desperately need.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are actually extremely responsible for having created several of these problems, which have caused great economic damage to households, companies, and the Swedish economy. High electricity prices and high fuel prices are a direct consequence of political decisions by the previous government. Problems with growth became a consequence of a lack of new reforms for jobs and entrepreneurship. That the previous government failed to reverse the crime trend is also a very great failure.

Madam Speaker! Now the Tidö parties are presenting the third budget of this parliamentary term. I can state that we have achieved a lot, but much remains to be done. Regardless of who caused the problems - even if it is quite clear who bears a large part of the responsibility - it is now our responsibility to solve them. The four parties that received the confidence of your voters to solve the problems now have the responsibility to do this.

The fight against inflation is, as said, won. There are many who deserve a big thank you for that.

Diesel has become 10 kronor cheaper per liter, and even gasoline has become significantly cheaper. Sweden has gone from having some of the world's highest fuel prices to the lowest in Western Europe, while we succeed in reaching the climate goals. We have lowered fuel taxes and changed the reduction obligation, and it has made a difference.

In more and more forecasts, Swedish growth is expected to kick-start next year, albeit from a low level. Through more reforms for jobs and entrepreneurship and historical investments in infrastructure and research, we are now laying the foundation for increased economic growth in Sweden. It is only through increased growth that welfare can be financed in the long term. It is only through increased growth that wages and pensions can continue to increase.

Step by step, we are now increasing resources for the entire justice system and for preventive measures. We are tightening the penalties, we are giving the police more tools to combat crime, and we are building more prisons. We have established a new authority with the responsibility to stop criminals' activities in the welfare systems.

It will take a long time to solve all of this, but we are working at a frantic pace. Many times the opposition in this chamber votes no to everything from stricter penalties to increased resources for the justice system. But this is necessary if one is to seriously be able to combat the crime we have today.

We introduced a historically large electricity price subsidy as the first thing we did when we took over government power. It was provocative to hear Social Democrats in this chamber and in conversations with journalists express horror that it took a long time to get it in place. We can absolutely agree with that; we would have wanted to get the subsidy in place faster. But remember who shut down nuclear power and caused all of this that Swedish households and Swedish companies had to bear!

Madam Speaker! A little later today, we will vote in this chamber on next year's state budget. I am pleased that we four Tidö parties have negotiated a state budget that will gather a majority. The budget contains proposals that will make it so that very many people all around our country will get much better off. We take further steps to make Sweden both richer and safer.

We are lowering the tax for everyone who works. It must always pay to work. That means that hard-working people will get to keep a little more of their salary after the tax is paid.

We are lowering the tax for all the country's pensioners. It must always pay off to have worked. This means long-awaited supplements for very many people.

We are lowering the tax on savings by making ISK tax-free for the first 150,000 kronor in a first step. In the next step, next year, we increase it to 300,000 kronor. We can already see in measurements being made that many young people will be inspired to start saving. It is good both for them and for our country as a whole. We have a very good and well-functioning capital market. It is good for those who save in these forms of savings, as they get to share in the companies' successes. But it is also good for companies to be able to grow in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties are now presenting a budget that, quite simply, makes the streets a little safer and the wallet a little larger. Sweden will become richer and safer, step by step. With this budget, we continue on a set path toward building a stronger and better Sweden into the future, where more and more people will get it better.

I move for approval of the Finance Committee's proposal for a decision in FiU1.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The SD government has now governed Sweden for more than half of the mandate period. It has not succeeded in solving Sweden's problems.

Gang violence is creeping down in age. The government has created a national healthcare crisis. Unemployment is at a record high. Sweden's growth is among the worst in all of Europe.

The government wants to paint a completely different picture, but I am afraid they are claiming victory in advance when they try to convince the Swedish people that things have improved. Reality says something else. The grocery bill is still very expensive. Rents have skyrocketed. The wallet empties quickly.

Now we see that the Finance Minister's previous hopes are being toned down. The recession is more prolonged. The recovery that has been expected in housing construction looks weaker. Unemployment continues to rise.

At the same time, the Swedish economy faces major risks. Global demand is faltering. The German economy is doing really poorly. The political uncertainty is great. The risk of new trade barriers is significant.

In this situation, it is extra important to strengthen Sweden and the Swedish economy - to strengthen the economy for all ordinary families who might have spent the money on a winter jacket for the children, a restaurant visit or a concert, to invest in getting housing construction started again, because when there are more construction cranes, there are also more jobs and more homes, to expand adult education so that those who risk losing their jobs get a chance to start a new chapter in life and to prioritize resources for welfare for a world-class healthcare.

But this government does not do that. Instead of tackling social problems, giving ordinary people more in their pockets, prioritizing growth and accelerating the Swedish economy, the government is putting all its effort into implementing an exclusive tax cut that only hits the richest percent. I mean that it is not only immoral but also bad growth policy. If you want to get Sweden moving, investments in the public sector and in giving ordinary people more in their pockets are more effective.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to see the finances of ordinary Swedes strengthened here and now. We want the child allowance increased by 200 SEK per month. We propose a fair tax cut that affects all earned incomes and which targets low- and middle-income earners. We want the unfair "funkisskatten" abolished. We propose a "tankrabatt" (fuel discount) which means that a family in rural areas would receive 1,000 SEK per car, which is significantly more than what the government's "bruna skattesänkning" (brown tax cut) provides at the pump. We want to strengthen the finances of pensioners with an increased housing supplement of 200 SEK. We also propose that the housing supplement in the child allowance be increased and made permanent.

We Social Democrats stand on the side of ordinary people. We will not let the children pay for this crisis.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the government. When a record number of children are evicted in Sweden, when every third Swedish family with small children has borrowed money to manage a normal Christmas celebration with Christmas cookies, food, and some Christmas presents, and when Sweden has the highest child poverty in the Nordic region, then the government cuts support to the most vulnerable families with children, even though these families' economic situation has not improved in the slightest. But they lower their own tax by several thousand kronor a month, Elisabeth Svantesson and Jimmie Åkesson.

The Finance Minister herself has witnessed how poor this growth policy is. When she was asked what she would do with her own tax cut, she did not know. At the same time, Handelsanställdas förbund has had Novus ask people who work in shops what they would do with an extra 2,000 kronor a month. Their answers are somewhat heartbreaking. It is not about luxury consumption or long trips, but about basic needs – being able to sleep better at night to avoid financial stress, being able to eat until full, and being able to buy more food and clothes for their children. That is what 2,000 kronor means for these families all around Sweden.

But it doesn't stop there. New statistics from SCB show that material and social poverty is growing. One in five people over the age of 16 cannot manage an unforeseen expense today. It is worst for single mothers. Half of them cannot manage unforeseen expenses, and a third cannot afford to let their children participate in leisure activities.

This is Sweden today. While the Finance Minister scratches her head over what to do with her tax cut, single mothers are forced to choose between food and leisure activities for their children. This clearly shows that the government is burning money on the wrong things. We know that investments in welfare and in supporting the families who have it toughest is more effective policy, also for getting growth started.

Madam Speaker! I know that Sweden can do better. We are a country with great potential, with innovative companies, a skilled workforce and strong drivers. I am, however, worried that this potential is being wasted by a Prime Minister who lacks the ability to unite Sweden and reach long-term agreements. It is being wasted by a government that, instead of building Sweden stronger and wealthier, leaves large parts of the country behind, which cuts back on labor market policy when unemployment increases and which watches as the construction industry collapses.

In our budget, we do the opposite. We believe that in this situation, one should give the construction industry a vitamin injection. With state credits and a construction bonus, we can stimulate the construction of housing that so many are demanding. One should invest in energy efficiency of multi-family houses and small houses so that we can manage necessary renovations and get them done, while simultaneously turning the economy around and preventing people from becoming unemployed.

We show that it is possible to establish cheaper and fossil-free electricity. It is time to get rid of the bottlenecks that stop Sweden from growing and becoming wealthier.

We demand an active labor market policy. Significantly larger investments in measures that work are needed, so that more of those who are far from the labor market and are unemployed get jobs. Among other things, we want to see a billion-kronor investment in labor market training.

We also show that we believe in Sweden's rural areas as an engine for growth. We reject the government's cuts to state grants to municipalities in rural areas. We prioritize growth, community services, and job opportunities throughout the country. It must be possible to live in all of Sweden, even if none of the SD government's ministers live north of Borlänge.

Madam Speaker! Gang crime is a national crisis. The violence is creeping further down in age, eating further into society, and affecting people's everyday lives. We are reached time and again by news of new shootings, new explosions, and new boundaries that are crossed. Investments in the entire justice chain are absolutely necessary but far from sufficient. What is required are urgent measures here and now, also to break the new recruitment and stop the shootings.

It is right to continue toughening the sentences and putting more gang criminals in prison. But it will not help if we do not also stop the new recruitment of children and young people into the gangs. We Social Democrats are therefore enormously concerned about the government's lack of measures to catch young people before they slip. One must start much earlier - much lower in the ages, long before things have gone seriously wrong - to succeed with crime prevention.

We therefore want to see a comprehensive investment in the tagging of young people who are entering into crime. It could involve a companion who follows the youth at all times, or, in the long term, an electronic ankle bracelet, so that we never lose sight of them during critical periods.

But we must also reach the gang leaders and choke off the gangs' financing. We want to introduce a Swedish mafia legislation to reach the top layers of the gangs. We want the public sector to take control over the operation of all HVB homes that care for juvenile criminals. They are not just any properties, and they should not be able to be sold on Blocket.

If we are to succeed in breaking the development, it is very important that we strengthen the school so that young people get more contexts and more adult role models. In our budget alternative, we therefore propose a major investment in the school and a number of investments in sports and culture for young people. In addition, we want to develop the culture school all over Sweden and invest in the training of more leisure leaders.

Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister's promise that no one would be laid off in Swedish healthcare was obviously worth nothing. The government has created a crisis in Swedish healthcare. The wages in health and care are the highest in over a decade. In many regions, they are hitting records. Thousands risk losing their jobs. The queues are getting longer. Ultimately, the patients suffer.

In this situation, the Sweden Democrats and the government choose to cut further on the funding for Swedish welfare. It is completely unreasonable. Their so-called investment in healthcare is in fact a cut. With the government's budget, the general state grant will be exactly 0 kronor higher in 2025.

This short-sightedness must come to an end. We Social Democrats want to see a new principle for how welfare shall be financed, where the general state grants shall be adjusted for inflation. This would provide predictable funding that municipalities and regions can always count on. If our policy had applied, the situation for the employees and the patients in healthcare would have been completely different.

In our budget proposals, we have shown that it is possible to have a completely different ambition for Swedish welfare than what SD and the government have chosen. In our budget alternative for 2025, we propose 6 billion to municipalities and regions in general state grants. In addition to general supplements, we also want to see a specific staffing initiative in healthcare to shorten the care queues. In total, we want to increase the supplements to municipalities and regions by 15 billion kronor next year.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I move for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservations and budget proposal for 2025. It is a budget for a wealthier and fairer Sweden. We prioritize reinforcements for healthcare and measures to strengthen Sweden's growth. We move forward with powerful packages of measures to stop the violence here and now and break the new recruitment to criminal gangs. At the same time, we support all the families with children, ordinary people, and retirees who have been hit hard by the cost crisis. We show that we can lead Sweden in a new direction, towards a stronger social cohesion with an economy that grows and benefits everyone.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! According to the Social Democrats and Mikael Damberg, it seems that all those who pay state income tax are not ordinary people, and the member usually likes to talk about ordinary people. But it is actually over 1 million people who pay state income tax, and a majority of Swedes will at some point in their lives do just that.

That the phase-out of the job tax credit is now being removed is fundamentally about the fact that it is harmful for Sweden to have high marginal taxes. Whatever job you have, the principle of half remaining should be protected. It was actually one of the principles that we from the Liberals agreed upon with the Social Democrats when we introduced the major tax reform in the early 90s – that those who choose to educate themselves should not be punished for it. With the current tax system, Sweden is one of the countries where it pays off the least to educate oneself. We have the lowest education premium in the entire OECD.

When the Liberals pushed for the abolition of the wealth tax, it was with reluctance that the Social Democrats let the proposal through. But in hindsight, it turned out to be a very good reform, as it led to higher tax revenues than it cost. A similar effect is expected now when we remove the tapering of the job tax credit: It is self-financed - to 125 percent.

I wonder therefore, Member Mikael Damberg: Can we not agree that it is very stupid to have such high marginal taxes that it does not pay off to educate oneself? Education is still needed in Sweden, isn't it?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We are in a rather tough situation. Ordinary families have lost ten years of real wage increases, rents have skyrocketed, and interest costs have been enormous. The grocery bill for an ordinary family with two children costs 30,000 more per year today than it did a couple of years ago.

To direct a tax cut in that situation solely to those who earn over 65,000 kronor a month – is that reasonable? Is it the right priority at the same time as the government is cutting support to the poorest families with children? It is said that one cannot afford to strengthen healthcare in this situation. We have record numbers of layoffs in Swedish schools, but one can afford to lower the tax exclusively for those who earn more than 65,000 kronor a month.

I myself would benefit from that tax cut, but the question is whether that is what is good for society in this situation. Had the government done everything for healthcare and for ordinary families, it could have been a discussion: Should we take the next step? But to do this now is actually completely wrong prioritization.

There is something strange about the work line that the government pledges. There must always be carrots for people who earn very much; they shall receive tax cuts for working more. Those who have small margins shall, on the other hand, receive lower social security for working more, and they may perhaps have a reduced sickness insurance if they happen to get sick. But the rich shall always get more money in their pockets for working more. It is a strange class policy that this government is conducting.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Member Mikael Damberg clearly did not want to answer my question. I think I will give the member another chance.

When the Liberals and the Social Democrats jointly implemented the tax reform of the century, as we called it then, one of the most important principles was that of "half remaining." That was what we agreed on. The purpose of the principle of "half remaining" was to increase incentives for both work and entrepreneurship and for long-term growth - an economic growth that enables a good welfare system. It is not the tax level that is what is important to be able to do all that which Member Mikael Damberg requests, but it is the tax revenues.

The agreement we had held until 1995. Then the Social Democrats introduced the wealth tax. In 2016, Magdalena Andersson raised the marginal tax again. Then you were involved in abolishing the wealth tax in 2020, Mikael Damberg – albeit reluctantly. Now you are critical that we are removing Magdalena Andersson's last wealth tax. You are against it. How, then, is one supposed to know what the Social Democrats actually want?

Do you still uphold the principle of half, or is it obsolete? Is it a penalty tax on education that is the Social Democrats' melody? Will you introduce the high penalty taxes if you come to power again at any time? How can one be able to trust the Social Democrats?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! One can trust that we Social Democrats stand up for ordinary people economically. This government has not done so to a sufficient extent. That is why we now have the highest child poverty in the Nordic countries. That is why we see how families with children today choose between paying for leisure activities and managing other necessary expenses in the family economy, which is very provoking. The economic policy being pursued has consequences.

It seems that the Liberals are religiously devoted to that bullshit theorem that is sometimes discussed, namely that one should always lower taxes for the wealthiest because it trickles down into society. But in the budget you are presenting, Cecilia Rönn, you are presenting savings in healthcare in real terms. You are presenting a deterioration for the poorest families with children. You do nothing in the budget to actually support the worst-off pensioners. You have chosen to do something else.

In this budget, you choose to spend the money exclusively on those who earn more than 65,000 kronor a month. I think it is an incorrect prioritization. Especially in tough times, I think one must ask the question of where the money does the most good. When those who have very much money cannot even account for what they are going to do with it, would it not be reasonable to imagine that the shop employees would consume a little more if they were given a little more money in their wallets—and that we would then get growth in Sweden moving and become richer as a country?

With your policy, Cecilia Rönn, is Sweden currently one of the countries in Europe with the worst growth. Can it be due to the economic policy, I wonder?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now we take further steps to strengthen growth and security in Sweden. We do this through continued investments in internal and external security and through well-balanced, well-motivated tax reliefs for ordinary people.

Opposed to a unified Tidö alternative, which is what we are to vote on this afternoon, stands something else – unclear what. What is the common line or the common thread in the opposition's economic policy is still shrouded in obscurity here in the second half of the mandate period. Taxes are to be both raised and lowered at the same time. Subsidies are to be raised and lowered at the same time.

This is perhaps best illustrated by the question of the aviation tax, which is to either disappear, remain, be raised, or possibly be made progressive. There are thus no fewer than four different lines – each of which is obviously mutually exclusive – in what should actually be a fairly non-complex question.

That one is not in agreement on every single issue is, in essence, nothing strange; the same applies, at least to some extent, also on our side of politics. Worse is that one is not even in agreement on the basic rules of the game.

Madam Speaker! Earlier this autumn, a parliamentary committee, composed of all the parties in the Riksdag, submitted its conclusions regarding the surplus target and the fiscal framework. Within the government base, we agree that it is time to move away from the current surplus target and replace it with a so-called balance target. The reason for this is quite simple; there are simply such large investment needs in Sweden - it concerns roads, railways, power grids, ports, airports, the Armed Forces and so on - while the national debt is relatively low and interest rates are heading down.

In the opposition, they have not managed to agree on these basic rules of the game. There, they either want a balance target or even a deficit target, depending on who you ask. Again, these are obviously mutually exclusive positions. It is roughly like if one were to play football and one team decides that they shall indeed have twelve players on the pitch. One should probably agree on the rules of the game before one starts playing.

If one has a goal, Madam Speaker, to reach a deficit in public finances, that will very much be the outcome. Borrowing money and indebting future generations to finance one's reforms would inexorably drive up inflation and effectively thwart the Riksbank's interest rate cuts.

Madam Speaker! The only thing the opposition seems to agree on is that it should be expensive to fuel the car and that we should not have nuclear power. We had the world's highest fuel prices last parliamentary term. Now, through reduced fuel taxes and a reduced reduction obligation, we are among the lower prices in the EU. I particularly note how the Social Democrats reject our proposals for further tax cuts on fuels.

I really wish it had been as fast to build new nuclear power as it was to decommission the existing, but unfortunately, that is not the case. It takes longer to build new than to tear down. The Social Democrats' decision to decommission fully functioning nuclear power during the last parliamentary term has had fateful consequences, and unfortunately, these are consequences that will remain for a fairly long time. This has been noticeable, not least, in electricity price area 4, that is, the southern parts of the country.

These two things - fuel and electricity - are input goods in almost all other production of goods. If one drives up the prices of input goods, prices, i.e., inflation, also increase on other goods. We took over in a situation with double-digit inflation figures. Now we have succeeded in pressing down inflation, among other things, by bringing down the prices on input goods.

Madam Speaker! Taxes for ordinary wage earners and pensioners will be lowered again at the turn of the year. Everyone will keep a larger portion of their salary or their pension after New Year's. The marginal tax will be lowered from approximately 55 percent to approximately 52 percent. The principle of half remaining is beginning to slowly approach.

The plastic bag tax has been removed. I hope you have noted that when you are out shopping. If the stores have not lowered the price as much as the tax has been lowered, I would at least exercise my consumer power, and I also urge others to do so. The aviation tax will also be abolished.

The tax on savings in investment savings accounts and capital insurance will begin to be lowered at the new year. It shall be easier and more favorable to build up a personal buffer with the security that it entails. Economic security provides freedom, and freedom is the most beautiful thing that exists.

During the mandate period, we will also get the long-awaited and important dental care reform in place. Teeth are a part of the body. Elderly people with declining oral health should not have to forgo care due to private financial considerations.

Madam Speaker! The investments in internal and external security are not only firm but are increasing. The state budget's expenditure area 4 The Justice System will increase by more than 50 percent during the mandate period, from just over 60 billion kronor to just over 93 billion kronor. It is a prerequisite for us to deal with the gang criminality, which is largely imported, that the previously conducted migration policy has given rise to. Harsher punishments, more resources for the judicial authorities, expanded powers, more deportations of convicted foreigners – the line is as clear as it is much-needed. Here, the Tidö parties' resolute line stands in stark contrast to the previously conducted "saft-and-bulle" policy.

The same applies to the supplement to the Armed Forces. Within a couple of years, we will reach 2.6 percent of the gross national product, GNP, in defense investments. That is not enough. Regaining capability takes longer than getting rid of capability. It is regrettable that previous governments of varying colors have daydreamt about eternal peace and viewed the defense of the Swedish realm as a special interest. Naive people like these should preferably occupy themselves with something other than politics.

Madam Speaker! In the end, everything boils down to priorities. The needs are almost infinite, the resources are not. One simply has to be able to make tough decisions and make tough priorities.

For the Sweden Democrats, for example, it is not a priority to send the Swedish taxpayers' money to the other side of the globe in so-called international aid. Therefore, we have lowered and will continue to lower the aid framework. Every krona that we do not send to the other side of the globe is a krona that we can use here at home.

This stands in contrast to, not least, the Green Party's budget alternative. There, they would rather borrow money and increase the national debt so that they can then afford to give away this money. We are talking about tens of billions of kronor. One has to look elsewhere for the height of irresponsibility. With such a policy, it would not be long before Sweden itself would be classified as a recipient country for international aid.

Madam Speaker! I can finally state that we here in Sweden can enjoy a lower interest rate than is the case in the Eurozone countries. We can do this because we have an independent Riksbank and our own currency, the Swedish krona. We shall also have the Swedish krona in the future.

At the same time, I see with great concern how several of the EU's member states are now pushing for increased public spending at the EU level in some kind of attempt to stimulate growth when they are actually suffering from completely different structural and, in some cases, almost chronic problems. This primarily concerns countries that do not have their own public finances in order, while Sweden, which has strong public finances, is obviously expected to join in and pay the bill.

This is deeply unsettling and worrying. But there is a pain threshold for what the Swedish taxpayers shall have to accept and put up with. When that pain threshold is passed, we need to sit down and have a serious discussion about Swedish EU membership.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I note that the Tidö parties' budget cooperation stands firm and steady. The Sweden Democrats support the budget bill. I therefore move to approve the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Eric Westroth (SD) agreed.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I heard the Sweden Democrat member speak warmly about the countryside and the need for investments there and about the state finances. My question to the member then is why the Sweden Democrats in that case choose to allocate 2.4 billion of the space to give 350,000 kronor per person in a kind of return migration grant, which the government's own hand-picked investigator calls ineffective, meaningless, counterproductive and a piece of candy to SD.

Can the member from SD possibly explain this prioritization, these billions, being spent on something that the own investigator says is a waste and meaningless? What is it in this that the expert, the investigator, has misunderstood in this proposal's wisdom?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not want to review the investigator as a person. He is actually not here, so he cannot defend himself. But for my part, I was perhaps not entirely satisfied with the investigation, if I may say so.

Why is this then reasonable and sensible? It is quite easy to start calculating what people who are in Sweden, are citizens of another country and support themselves on benefits, cost in terms of benefits. Suddenly it turns out that this is very reasonable from an economic point of view. If we view this investment as others do, the return is 100 percent already in a year. That is approximately how much it costs if one does not work.

It is that group of people we are talking about here. We are not talking about people who have come to Sweden, start making a career, and speak fluent Swedish. We are talking about people who have not entered Swedish society, have not learned the language, do not work, and do not pay tax but support themselves on benefits. Then it suddenly becomes a plus business quite quickly. It is quite simple to calculate. From that context, this is a path that we absolutely want to try.

There is already a return migration grant. It is not that the Sweden Democrats invented the return migration grant, it has existed for quite a long time. However, we are now ensuring that it is boosted up quite significantly. Then, of course, we have to evaluate it, as we do with all reforms.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Then we received another little SD theory about how this with economy and grants works. The Sweden Democrats still stand by that one should get 350,000 kronor per person to leave Sweden, even though the investigator himself has stated that this does not at all have the effect that the member from SD presents it as.

Think what could have been done with this money, Oscar Sjöstedt! You could have doubled the investments in Swedish infrastructure in your budget. Sweden's farmers have been deprived of 1.5 billion in EU money that you could not "match up", even though one received 2 or 3 kronor for every krona spent from those funds that they were actually entitled to. We could have used the money for that instead.

Think if we had spent the 350,000 kronor on a small business owner with a small café instead of on return migration grants! We could have lowered the employer contributions, so that one more person or two more people could have been hired. We could have lowered the tax on hiring. We could have invested in people in Sweden getting jobs, working and contributing - not withdrawing.

Can you explain how you can prioritize the money in that way? You put the return migration grant over small business owners, over the Swedish countryside, over infrastructure and over job creation in small companies when we have record-high unemployment in Sweden.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The investigator is not given by God. He is an ordinary mortal human being.

I thought I explained this quite clearly. The expenditures are decreasing. Here we are talking about people who support themselves on benefits. If they leave the country to return to their home countries, the expenditures for benefits decrease.

I can understand that this amount sounds quite large. Oh dear, so much money! I can understand that reaction. But if you look at what grants people who have immigrated to Sweden are entitled to, you see that it quite quickly reaches 350,000 kronor. In that case, the return migration grant becomes a plus deal in economic terms.

To talk about unemployment, it is well quite excellent that unemployed foreign people return to their home countries. Then unemployment in Sweden will fall. There we must reasonably agree. Unemployment is, to the very greatest extent, imported. Unemployment among those born domestically is vanishingly small. If very many of those people return to their home countries, unemployment in Sweden will decrease. We must reasonably agree on this.

There are, therefore, absolute economic reasons to try this reform. Then we will see - I cannot predict the future. It may turn out that Martin Ådahl is right and that this will not be a success. But I naturally hope that it will be a success. Martin Ådahl is completely right that it is the Sverigedemokraterna who have pushed for this. We do it because we believe in it. We have to evaluate this as we do with everything else. I hope that it will be a success. I hope that people who have immigrated to Sweden but have not found their place here, have not learned the Swedish language, have not entered the labor market, have not adapted and have not assimilated to the greatest extent return to their home countries. I think that it is wise policy.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! We are discussing the budget that the Sweden Democrats and the government have presented, as well as the alternatives that are on the table. The question is, Madam Speaker, what it is in the budget that we, as voters and citizens, should thank the Sweden Democrats for.

One can probably thank the world market for the oil prices. When it comes to the cash and the sugar substitute, there will be no increases but rather deteriorations. There is also an increase in dental care costs during this budget year.

Madam Speaker! I am asking my question because I assume that Member Sjöstedt, like myself, is responsible for negotiations in his party. The question is: What are the demands that the Member is proud that the Sverigedemokraterna have had pushed through in these budget negotiations?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! We do not comment on the negotiations that we have at that level.

The answer is the whole – if there even was a question, which I do not know if there was. One is not in agreement about anything until one is in agreement about the whole.

If Member Gabrielsson wants me to single out certain things, it will be roughly what I took up in my main speech. We continue the track of internal and external safety and security. Enormous investments are being made in the justice system and the Armed Forces with amounts of many billions. It is something that we have pushed for.

Wise tax reliefs are also being made. One could see it as a bit of tidying up. I see myself a bit like the cleaning staff. When the Social Democrats and their friends have ruled for two terms, some tidying up was needed. We are cleaning away some things that perhaps are not life-critical, such as the plastic bag tax and the aviation tax. We just tidy those away. We are also making wise tax cuts for wage earners and pensioners.

The answer would therefore be roughly the things that I listed in my main submission, I would say – if there were a question, which was a bit uncertain.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The question was: What is it that the member, before the voters he represents, is proud to have achieved in the negotiations that have taken place regarding the budget we are discussing and deciding on today?

Personally, I am proud that we and I pushed through 1,000 kronor in increased guaranteed pension, improvements in the sickness insurance, deductions for the union fee, and a lot of other things.

The government thinks that the tax cuts that have been passed are wise. For my part, I can describe this tax contribution as follows: From Moderates to Moderates. From the Sweden Democrats as much as possible, to every Moderate as much as needed.

The question to Oscar Sjöstedt must be: Why should my mother, who started working as a childcare worker when she was 15 years old and has worked an incredibly long working life, pay a larger share of her salary and her compensation in tax than you and I, who are members of parliament? Now she is much older and has received a half sickness benefit, because she has labored for over 40 years in working life.

Is it a wise prioritization that the sick and persons with disabilities must pay a larger share of their income in tax than you, I, ministers and other high-earners? Do you think it is right, Oscar Sjöstedt?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that the sickness compensation has been adjusted in a way that does not apply to the normal wage development during this period of high inflation. The same applies to the guarantee pension. The sickness compensation has been adjusted in a way that the normal income pension has not.

My approach in this is that pension is deferred salary. Therefore, pension should be regarded as salary, and thus it should be taxed equally. It is my basic approach that salary and pension should be taxed equally. That is what we have struggled with quite a bit. Since, like, 2006 – I don't know exactly how long ago that was – we have had a situation where employees pay lower tax than corresponding pensioners. I think that has been the very biggest problem.

I cannot [comment on] the situation regarding Ida Gabrielsson's mother, so I perhaps do not want to comment further on that.

But I can add further things regarding the original question. It is quite clear—and this I notice regardless of where in the country I am—that people are very happy that prices have become more humane when one is going to fuel the car. I am quite proud that we have pushed that through. We have pushed through all these tax reliefs for gasoline and diesel, and we have lowered the reduction obligation significantly. We have done approximately what Jimmie and I said in the election campaign that we would do. The diesel is to become 10 kronor cheaper, and there we have reached the goal a bit. I know that people are very happy about this, and I am very proud that we have been able to achieve it.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind again of the rules of the House.)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Before the 2022 election, the Sweden Democrats promised to make dental care cheaper. Teeth are part of the body, after all. Now that the Sweden Democrats are presenting their third budget, the announcement is the opposite. After New Year, the SD government will make it more expensive for Sweden's youth to go to the dentist.

I have noted that very many young people seem very surprised by the new announcement, as it can involve quite a lot of money for those young people who need to go to the dentist.

One can ask oneself to some extent what an election promise from the Sverigedemokraterna is worth. This is because this happens repeatedly. There are quite a few patterns. When Sverigedemokraterna are involved in negotiating the budget, we see that it results in a worsened unemployment insurance. We get a construction crisis. We have a healthcare crisis. One has worse service in Sweden's rural areas in this budget. One has less money for those municipalities in Sweden's rural areas that have the most challenges. They continue with unlimited profit extraction in Swedish schools. Instead, they can afford to lower the tax for the richest percent of Sweden's population.

It becomes skewed here. One says one thing before the election, and then it becomes something else after the election.

Madam Speaker! My question is: How does Oscar Sjöstedt explain that one would rather lower the tax for those with incomes over 65,000 kronor, for example, than ensure that young people can afford to go to the dentist?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is explained by a concept called the self-financing rate. If one raises, lowers, or removes a tax, a lot of other things happen around it.

If the self-financing rate is 0 percent, it is probably a good tax, if I put it that way. It is, therefore, an effective tax. If the self-financing rate is 100 percent, you do not lose any tax revenue by lowering that tax. If the self-financing rate is over 100 percent, it is even the case that tax revenues increase by lowering a tax. It can, therefore, work in that way – the tax can be lowered in percent, but the tax take increases in kronor.

In this case, the self-financing rate amounts to as much as 125 percent, Madam Speaker. The state will therefore receive more resources, more money, to move with, which can be allocated to, for example, healthcare, if one so wished, or to something else.

That is actually the short answer, to that specific question at least.

When it comes to the dental care reform, we are allocating funds in the budget. Those funds are not there already for 2025, but the large sums are there for 2026. I can, in some sense, regret that we do not get this in place already by the turn of the year. It will take until next year's turn of the year, when we get the major dental care reform in place. It will facilitate things very much, primarily for the elderly - at least in a first stage.

That is how it is. We said that we would do this during the mandate period. January 1, 2026, is actually part of this mandate period, so we will deliver on that election promise as well.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the Sweden Democrats would have needed to speak a bit more about the self-sufficiency rate in the dental care insurance for Sweden's youth before the election, because it was not so clear before the election that one would worsen things for Sweden's youth when it comes to going to the dentist.

This debate is primarily about the 2025 budget, and in that year's budget, this only means a deterioration of dental care for young people, which may have long-term consequences for dental health in the future.

Oscar Sjöstedt! I ask the question again: How do you explain to Sweden's youth that you are making it more expensive for them to go to the dentist? Are teeth not a part of the body just for young people?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it obviously also applies to young people. This is heavily subsidized already in its original state, and it is absolutely not obvious how subsidized it should be. We are talking about young people. It is actually largely young adults, I see it that way. We are not, as it were, talking about small children. This is therefore not at all obvious.

Then there are capacity problems in this. There is not an infinite number of dentists, dental assistants, dental hygienists and everything it is called who are just sitting and waiting for us to expand dental care. And what we can see is that older people, at least as a collective or as a group, have greater problems with oral health than the younger ones do. The younger ones, as a group, normally do not have any major problems with oral health. On an individual level, it can of course look a bit different.

We need to take the existing capacity challenges into account. Of course, it takes time to expand the entire dental care system. One cannot do everything for everyone at once. What we have said now is that the dental care reform that we have budgeted for – we are therefore allocating money to it – in a first stage shall apply to those who are specifically elderly. We have said that it shall apply from 67 years and upwards.

My and the Sweden Democrats' ambition is, of course, that it should be rolled out broadly for all age groups, but for pure reasons of priority, we must start somewhere. We said that we would start with the elderly. It states in the Tidö Agreement that we shall do this with a focus on the elderly. That is what we are doing. It applies from 67 years and upwards. In the future, it is obviously my and the Sweden Democrats' ambition that we shall roll out this reform for all age groups.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I suppose I need to ask Oscar Sjöstedt a few questions about the Sverigedemokraterna's economic policy when he accuses Miljöpartiet of an irresponsible economic policy.

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by underlining that we have used the same reform space as the government, but that we are also very clear that we want to borrow for climate investments. This is not being done on loose terms – that one strengthens the budget for whatever one wants – but it is being done so that we can build a strong Sweden for the future.

This is something that the Sweden Democrats are very strongly against. They do not want to invest in reducing emissions. They do not see the climate threat as it is. When one pursues a reverse economic policy – that is, backs away from the commitments that Sweden has to reduce its emissions – one also pulls the rug out from under the Swedish industry, which is very far ahead in the green transition.

One says to want to pursue a responsible economic policy, but how one is then to be able to finance the nuclear power that one says to want is shrouded in obscurity. At the Finance Committee's hearing this week, we also realized that the financing model the government envisions risks undermining all energy production until at least 2035. It affects Swedish jobs, it affects households, and it affects the workforce and the competence that companies in Sweden say they want to have.

Sweden is therefore becoming poorer due to the Sweden Democrats' economic policy. Doesn't Oscar Sjöstedt see that?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now, it doesn't work like that in a budget that one borrows money for something specific. So it actually doesn't work; if one has a minus sign, red figures, on the bottom line, one has run the public sector with a deficit. I note that Miljöpartiet – and they are, of course, free to do so; I just want to inform the voters about it – prioritizes tens of billions in increased international aid, money that does not benefit Swedish voters and taxpayers in any way.

I simply state that it is so, and that prioritization must, of course, be made. I point out that we disagree on this, and it is probably good that we do.

I was at the same nuclear power hearing two or three weeks ago. What I took away as a "problem" was that if we build a lot of nuclear power, there is a risk that electricity prices will become so low, Madam Speaker, that it is not profitable to build wind power. That was roughly what I took away.

That electricity prices are so low that it is not profitable to build wind power, I see as a rather pleasant problem. For me as an ordinary mortal electricity consumer, this is not a problem at all. If I get low electricity bills, I become quite happy, and I assume that most people do roughly the same analysis.

I am not an engineer, but what I also took away from the hearing and believe I have understood in a reasonably good way is the concept of "frequency stability" itself, that is to say that one must have electricity production that is predictable and preferably not weather-dependent. It would be interesting to hear what Miljöpartiet's view is on that. Is frequency stability a made-up concept, or is it something that actually exists?

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Now, I am not going to turn this budget debate into an energy policy debate, something that the government and the Sweden Democrats very often want to make it. Climate policy and fiscal policy are significantly larger than that.

Of course, the concept is very real, but nuclear power does not necessarily have to be the answer to it. One still believes that Oscar Sjöstedt from Sverigedemokraterna should understand that with less electricity in the system, it will become more expensive for the customers, for the households, and for the companies. We do not know at all when this nuclear power will be in place, and if no more energy is added before 2035, 2040, or 2045, it will make both Sweden and the people who live here poorer.

If one is to inform the voters about anything, one can also state that the world is larger than Sweden. We have common great challenges. If the pandemic did not make the Sverigedemokrater understand that we have an interdependence, I do not know what will, but we can state that solidarity is not the Sverigedemokrater's strongest suit.

When it comes to informing the voters, the Sweden Democrats often want to make it appear as if they are the party for the elderly, the sick, the poor, and those who need society's support. Now, they have nevertheless agreed to raise the high-cost ceiling for pharmaceutical benefits. This will make it even harder for precisely this group, who will have to cut back on even more things in their daily lives to afford their medicines.

I would therefore like to ask Oscar Sjöstedt whether this is truly about looking after the elderly and the sick. Or was it just something that one wanted to make the voters believe so that they would vote for the Sverigedemokraterna?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! This concerns a few different matters, but I will try to tie them together.

If we jump back to the beginning, it is obviously in such a way, which I also said in my speech, that it takes much longer to build new nuclear power than it takes to decommission nuclear power. But it takes just as long to build an offshore wind farm as it takes to build a nuclear power plant. It is not the case that we can pull out a lot of wind power tomorrow or next week, it takes just as long. The answer in between is, of course, gas, which is also a controllable and predictable power.

The costs for pharmaceuticals have increased quite drastically. It is not something that we have decided, but it has simply happened anyway. We must remember that it is still very heavily subsidized. There is a high-cost protection, and the figures I have received indicate that for the group of patients who have the greatest need for pharmaceuticals, we are talking about an increase of approximately 80 kronor per month with the changed high-cost protection.

It is clear that one can discuss whether it should be subsidized by 100 percent or zero percent. Should it be 30-70 or 10-90? That discussion can always be had. But it is not we or the government who have decided that medicines should become more expensive, but rather the medicines themselves have become more expensive. That is what has happened, and it is not a political decision. It has become so for entirely other reasons.

It is clear that I think it is an unfortunate situation, but it is not we who have decided that it should be so. Then one can discuss how much it should be subsidized and how much should fall on the individual. Now we have landed on that we do it in this way. For those who have the greatest need for medicines, we are talking, as mentioned, about an increase of 80 kronor per month. But yes, it is absolutely possible to have that discussion.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The funniest in the Finance Committee, that's me, that. She can just stand there and say it, some might think. But no, it is actually my colleagues from different parties who, in turns, have appointed me to be that. The question, of course, is whether it is I who am extra funny, or if it is about them – Madam Speaker surely understands where I am going.

Today, dear colleagues, I must nevertheless disappoint you. Humor is necessary, especially when we navigate through tough times. But we also need the seriousness.

Sweden is more fragile than it has been in a long time. Citizens have been left alone by those in power to handle the consequences of the economic crisis. The welfare state is breaking down, not because it has to be so, but because we have decided that it shall be so.

One must say it as it is and not shift the blame. It is exhausting when politicians only blame each other. The new, weak Sweden has not emerged solely under the current government. It is a direction that we have taken for a long time, and in that, my party has also had a responsibility. The strong, secure and just Sweden feels far away as we now debate the state's budget for the coming years.

Sweden has been a strong country. Investments in infrastructure and housing created jobs and growth. Welfare was built up, and in the world's most equal country, we showed respect for those who built the country. That is not quite the case anymore.

Madam Speaker! That the opposition is warning is perhaps not so surprising. But it is not just us; it is more who are sounding the alarm. One only has to open their eyes. The government, however, has their blindfolds on, almost afraid to face their own citizens. Have they gone and hidden themselves, as we shouted at Jernvallen when the opposing team played poorly? They may have already placed themselves in the bunker of the Minister for Civil Defence, Carl-Oskar Bohlin - for in the reality where we others find ourselves, they are not.

When it nears Christmas in Sweden, we let children go hungry instead of ensuring that everyone can afford to eat their fill. Pensioner organizations describe widespread poverty among the country's pensioners. The sick and the unemployed have it even tighter. But it is not just these groups. Broad groups of wage earners have difficulty paying the rent. So that is what reality looks like.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is so imprudent of the government and the Sweden Democrats to choose in the budget to invest almost exclusively in high-income earners. The distribution profile makes Grinchen appear as generosity itself. Most of all from the state treasury, it is the one who has a whole fortune in monthly salary who receives. The Sweden Democrats lend their bowed spine to the Moderate Finance Minister to use as a springboard to bring home this year's Christmas present to the top tier. Merry Christmas, all Moderate core voters, wishes Jimmie - the government's own little passopp.

In the Christmas gift exchange, the Sweden Democrats have received an empty package wrapped in hate speech, and they are just as happy about it. But the happiest are probably the core Moderate voters, who have just received what they wished for as a Christmas gift.

The voters who believed in higher unemployment insurance, better health insurance and more money in their pockets are probably not as satisfied. The Sweden Democrats seem in the budget negotiations to only set demands on who should not get to take part in the investments and the compensations. Then they settle for that and let the Moderates use the workers' money to lower the tax by over 50,000 for those who earn the most.

Is it worth it? Do the governing parties still have to ask themselves when they are reached by the alarm reports about how staff are fleeing elderly care? Are they not listening?

Vänsterpartiet makes a different assessment. We increase the child allowances and housing allowances and safeguard the insurance systems that the wage earners have built up through their work. The sick and the unemployed should not pay a higher proportion of their wages in tax. Therefore, we remove the penalty taxes. It is more just than lowering the tax for ministers and members of parliament.

Madam Speaker! Never before have I experienced a government that is so unwilling to actually govern. The social problems are to be solved by the citizens themselves. The government statement is a pure self-help book, which is constantly supplemented with tips and tricks for the citizens. It appears more and more as if the ministers are not working in a government office but have instead taken jobs for a Q&A column in the newspaper Allers. Citizens are worried about high food prices, electricity bills, and interest rates. Does the government put a stop to that development? No! Instead, they give tips: Put on wool socks, change banks, and shop cheaply.

Wondering where the job policy has gone? Ask Saida, the government answers. A functioning elderly care is sought. It's in the lake, will be the answer.

Minister for Employment Pehrson has been replaced by another Persson. But what does it help? The new activity requirements do not seem to cover the Government Offices. In the budget we are to adopt today, the government itself expects hundreds of thousands more unemployed. What is then offered to the citizens? Well, a lowered unemployment insurance for the wage earners. Thanks for the coffee!

Bankruptcies are standing like poles in the ground. The train chaos is a fact. The construction industry has crashed, and the government's measures stop at industry support for airlines, oil companies, and cleaning companies. S and the Tidö parties have agreed on a framework for the coming eight years, which entails major consequences for the transition and growth. New investments and maintenance risk being omitted. Against the advice of all heavy experts, the choice was made to bind the politics. Instead of spreading the costs over generations, the bill has been placed in the lap of today's taxpayers. It is a historical failure that we could not reach an agreement between the parties on measures for cheaper electricity and trains that run on time.

The purpose of the framework has been to manage risks. The cleanup of the 90s is over. The Swedish national debt is among the lowest in Europe, and would continue to be low even if we introduce an investment goal. The new trinity, the Minister of Finance said about Vänsterpartiet, Svenskt Näringsliv, and LO when she received the agreement. Now, I do not belong to the most religious, but it is certainly remarkable that one blinks an eye to what all other important social actors see. Without a functioning railway, growth and jobs are threatened, and thus the development of public finances.

Madam Speaker! Governments get away with presenting historical cuts as investments because the state does not report the extent of the public commitments. The voters wonder if it is they or the governments that are crazy because the queues in healthcare are miles long and the emergency rooms are full. It damages trust when people are misled. Therefore, I do not understand why the Left Party's demand to play with open cards towards the voters was rejected, that is, to increase transparency and describe reality as it is. Instead, the choice was made to continue being the path toward hidden automatic cuts by not reporting how the room for reform arises.

It is the social insurance system and the welfare state that pay for the tax cuts that are now being implemented. It is through the proposals being presented today that healthcare, elderly care, and the school are forced to cut back. That is why families with children have to pinch every penny before Christmas. No one becomes poor. One is made poor through conscious political decisions and priorities. So stand for that!

Vänsterpartiet is the party that prioritizes welfare the highest. Therefore, we are today submitting a proposal for a recovery support. Years of erosion of the state's commitments have led to the fact that welfare is not functioning. We therefore propose almost 30 billion more for welfare. The government proposes 0 SEK in state grants, and they spend twice as much on the moderate grant directed at those who are already wealthy as they spend on the entire Swedish healthcare system. We can hardly believe that it is true.

Madam Speaker! There are barely two years left until the election. Hate speech does not cost much in the budget tables, but it costs a lot in how we treat one another. It is not free to curtail democracy. Much is at stake. Sweden needs to be built stronger. Elections are not won solely on the failures of others. It is not enough to say: "Vote for us. We are not them." People want, rightly so, to know what the difference will be. The US election, among other things, has shown us that.

If one has nothing of one's own to contribute beyond a self-proclaimed decency, then one does not have much to offer. If that own decency has, moreover, shifted more from content to words, then one must step up and offer something else. To say that we were the first with the policy, or simply to invite someone over to a match played on the opponent's half of the pitch, is doomed to fail. Anyone can talk, but we must show that we can turn the talk into action. Those of us who want something different must unite, not for the sake of the Vänsterpartiet, but for the sake of the citizens and Sweden. We need to do a job within the opposition if we are to turn the development around.

Madam Speaker! One must speak from the heart, that is my firm conviction. I believe in being honest in relationships and not letting sour grapes ferment. Since so much is at stake, it worries me that the Center Party seems to have prepared a sack for itself. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, have tucked themselves in with the Tidö parties. The hope is that the Center rolls out of the sack and wakes up from the dreams of the parallel universe and that the Social Democrats lie down on the right side next time.

The Left Party, Madam Speaker, also of course has a job to do. We have for all too long let others rule, and we must prepare ourselves to govern together with others and take responsibility. Those who want to get something done cannot allow themselves to be sidelined. A new government must shift the economic policy. This concerns democracy and the rule of law and not least welfare, growth, the transition, and the safety nets.

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

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be a country characterized by growth, innovation, high-level expertise and welfare. We have the potential to be world-leading in several areas, and thereby we can strengthen jobs, healthcare and much more.

With the budget bill for 2025, it is clear that we are changing tracks. We have left the worst behind us. Inflation has been lying like a wet blanket over the fiscal policy.

Now is the time to invest in Sweden's future and implement reforms that accelerate Swedish growth. The way forward is to have a school with a focus on knowledge, an innovative business sector that is allowed to operate in a good business climate, and excellent research.

Madam Speaker! Even though the budget for 2025 has a growth perspective, important investments for those who are not doing well are not lacking. During 2023 and 2024, I have visited all party districts in Sweden to deliberate on how our vision of social cohesion – an expression that more and more people seem to want to use – can be reached, what this social cohesion could look like, and what investments must be made. Before each such visit, I have contacted the local KD district and said that I want to visit BUP, the child and adolescent psychiatry.

Mental illness among our young people is one of the greatest crises of our time. Almost one in five girls or boys is affected by mental illness today, and suicide is now the fourth most common cause of death among 15-19-year-olds.

These are not actually figures that come as a surprise. It is a trend that has been ongoing for a longer period of time. And in my previous service as a parish priest and pastor, I have met, spoken with, and above all supported many young people who have lost hope in life and who struggle with what we call pitch-black anxiety.

In my meetings with BUP out in the country, I have met fantastic staff with a commitment far beyond the ordinary, staff who meet children and young people who lack the will to live and see no meaning in living. In my book, children's and young people's mental health must be placed high on the political agenda. It is a question of the future for our welfare state.

Madam Speaker! Even though it is ultimately the healthcare heads with directly elected politicians at the municipal and regional levels with taxing rights who are responsible for ensuring that children and young people who need specialized care for psychiatric issues also receive it, we here in the Riksdag, together with the government, can make a real difference. And that is what I mean that this government with Christian Democrats at the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs is doing.

In this budget, we have powerful initiatives in the area of mental health and suicide prevention. In December, we concluded an agreement with SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, where 1.6 billion was allocated to, among other things, support the primary providers in the work against mental ill-health and shorten the queues to care. The Riksdag has also approved the government's budget proposal for this year, which contained a record amount to strengthen the initiative on accessibility to child and adolescent psychiatry at over half a billion, and the proposal in this budget is that over the next three years we allocate 1 billion per year to shorten the queues to child and adolescent psychiatry.

But as usual, it is not all about money. The Government has also taken the initiative for national development teams within child and adolescent psychiatry, which shall be based on what is called best practice and assist the principals in developing the work within child and adolescent psychiatry.

What my visits to BUP in the countryside have shown is that there is a lack of research and evidence regarding what is the reason for this alarming development. Over the last 30 years, the proportion of young people with mental health issues has increased, and in the Nordic countries, the increase is greatest here in Sweden.

We know that the home, school, and lack of sleep are important factors. I receive the answer from the staff at BUP that social media has also contributed. But surely we can do more to bring forward real facts and knowledge.

Madam Speaker! Since I am on the subject of children and young people, it is difficult to bypass the leisure card, for it is something that we Christian Democrats are proud of. It is the government's major reform to promote children's and young people's active participation in sports, culture, and outdoor and association life in community with others. The objective is that children's and young people's opportunities to participate in leisure activities shall not be determined by the thickness of the family's wallet.

This is a public health reform that has not been carried out in many years. It is about contributing to an active and meaningful leisure time in community with others, increasing the movement of children and young people, strengthening fitness, and promoting creativity and cultural creation. From October next year, it will be possible to apply for this leisure card.

Madam Speaker! Financing everything that the children want to do and experience is not always easy for the family. What is also to the highest degree difficult is to put together one's unique life puzzle and to be enough. We all know this who have been blessed with the ability to have children.

The last time we Christian Democrats were in government, we pushed through the double days, meaning that both parents can be on parental leave at the same time and together get more time with their little baby. Therefore, it is an important victory and a step forward that our government has doubled the number of double days from 30 to 60 and extended the possibility to take these until the child is 15 months old. Additionally, it is now given the possibility for parents to transfer 45 days with parental benefit each to, for example, a close relative.

For me, this is an important freedom reform for everyone who tries to balance work life with family life. Decisions on how best to do this are best made at home at the kitchen table, and since every family's life puzzle is unique, we believe it is reasonable that we also ensure we create the greatest possible flexibility.

Madam Speaker! The unique life puzzle for me is [unclear/unspoken] into the car. The car is many times a prerequisite for the life puzzle to be able to be put together in a successful way.

This week I visited the southern part of Örebro county - I was down in Askersund and met my party comrades. They spoke with passion and commitment about the fact that an artificial turf pitch must be established in Askersund. The reason why it is so important is that the children in IFK Askersund, which is the club's name, today have to travel to Hallsberg in order to be able to train. This requires parents who have a car and can drive them. It costs money, of course, but it also takes a huge amount of time.

We Christian Democrats promised before the election to lower the price of gasoline by 5 kronor and the price of diesel by 9 kronor. The price of gasoline and diesel is admittedly set by the market, and there are several factors that politics cannot influence, for example the world market price of oil. But tax and reduction obligation are tools that we can influence and which also affect the price at the pump.

The increase in the reduction obligation levels means that the price will rise unless the tax is lowered. Therefore, tax cuts are included in the budget bill so that the price at the pump will not increase. This is something that at least all the parents in Askersund who are currently driving their children to Hallsberg are very grateful for.

Madam Speaker! It is always a bit tricky to come in this late in the debate, but I have chosen to focus on the soft issues that perhaps do not always get much space when a budget is described and debated.

The soft issues that I have highlighted ultimately rest on us achieving growth. That cake that we politicians so gladly want to distribute and have opinions about must first be baked, and we want it to become ever larger. The Christian Democrats' line in a government position is therefore to prioritize welfare – the soft issues, if you will. But we believe that is best done 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 welfare. And tax revenues do not arise out of thin air, but they arise when people work and pay tax.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Center Party's budget motion.

A heading in it is "The jobs, the jobs, the jobs". It is hardly by any chance, Madam Speaker. When we stood here two years ago, the unemployment in Sweden was already very high - 7.2 percent seasonally adjusted. Today that figure is 8.4 percent. Then there were 361,700 unemployed. Today there are over 440,000 unemployed. Unemployment is rising in Sweden while it has fallen in the rest of the EU. Everyone in the Western world has had high inflation, but Sweden is one of the few countries that has had high inflation and rising unemployment. We now have Europe's third highest unemployment. At the same time, the number of bankruptcies is the highest since the 1990s. New business creation is unfortunately decreasing, and growth is at the bottom of the EU.

These are figures, but I want to talk about what lies behind all these figures – the 440,000 unemployed. Since SD said that unemployment is vanishingly small among those born in Sweden, Madam Speaker, I want to say that it is actually 164,000 unemployed who are born in Sweden. SD is welcome to explain how this can be vanishingly small. Behind all these figures are many dreams that are crashing, many children who hope that mom and dad will get jobs, many opportunities for integration and for contributing that do not materialize, and much ground for hopelessness and for criminals' new recruitments.

It is noteworthy that while this has been ongoing, the new so-called bourgeois government has done nothing other than raise taxes and levies for hiring. A productivity commission has been appointed that has not delivered anything yet.

But what is most worrying is actually not that one does nothing, but that one does not even talk about unemployment. It is as if mass unemployment is the new normal - 8.4 percent.

Excuse me, but this also applies to the Social Democrats. I have not heard any powerful new proposals to reduce unemployment. Sometimes I think that you probably need to outsource the jobs policy to the Center Party if you are ever going to be able to manage this.

I have seen the entire job debates between the government and the Social Democrats which have been about the need for a few more labor market trainings. More labor market trainings may be needed at Arbetsförmedlingen, especially those that are truly close to the workplace. Above all, more continuing education and vocational training are needed, and this is what the Center Party is driving.

But, with all due respect, Madam Speaker: That there are too few labor market trainings is not the reason why we have Europe's third highest unemployment. More labor market trainings will not get 440,000 people into jobs.

Here I want to turn to you who are currently unemployed and perhaps watching this debate. You may have been that way for a while and felt all the worry and uncertainty that comes with it. I want to say that you deserve better than this. And we in Centerpartiet will not stop talking about unemployment. We will not stop proposing powerful improvements so that many more jobs are available for you.

We want to start with simple things that work. It must become much easier to hire in small and growing companies. We cannot have the Western world's highest taxes on hiring. We must prioritize investing in schools to reduce the dropout rates of youth there, and also in further education. The so-called integration measures – language courses, internships, and all this – for those who have recently arrived must be much more intensive and demanding. Do your duty, but also demand your right – so that you get into a job!

And so we must now invest in the countryside in a completely new way. It is about schools, railways and roads - things that for a very long time have not been invested in. Sweden is not functioning.

It is about simple things: letting the new, green energy through and freeing it from all the obstacles that this government sets up so that we can get the green industrialization started. We must free people's opportunities to be part of the climate transition and ensure that they can afford to switch to an eco-friendly car - simple, obvious things. We cannot continue like this.

But let me come back to the unemployment crisis - we will talk about it. We can talk about innovation; it has been done here. We can talk about getting growth started with better regulations. We can talk about the AI commission, which just came up with a number of proposals that the government does not seem to take any seriously.

But I thought I would start somewhere else entirely. A few days ago, I spoke with a carpenter in Övermo, which is located in Leksand. I was going to order a new pine board for the kitchen table at home, and since I live in Stockholm, I asked if it was possible to ship the board there. "You know," the carpenter replied, "I have sold to Japan and North America, so it should be fine." One can only love this: a small company in a small place, selling to the whole world.

Now, Madam Speaker, you ask: What does the carpenter in Övermo have to do with the state budget and unemployment? He has everything to do with unemployment! It is small companies, in small towns, that create the jobs in Sweden.

Here I want to address you who are entrepreneurs and perhaps are listening to this. I want to say thank you - a thank you that you rarely receive. For it is certainly not the government or the Riksdag that creates the new jobs in Sweden. Thanks to you who carry the job creation in Sweden! Four out of five jobs are created in small businesses. There is a new research study that straight up claims that 96 percent of all net jobs are created in new, small and growing companies.

Now that we have a level of unemployment that stands out in the entire Western world, we must start there. We must invest in small businesses. We cannot see these record levels for the bankruptcies.

Take a café with three young employees. They are large figures today, but let's take it. This government and the Sverigedemokraterna have raised the café's tax for hiring, the employer contributions, by 100,000 kronor. Just when we really do not want young people to hang around in town and end up in the wrong company, they have shock-raised the tax for hiring just these young people.

Centerpartiet wants to lower the cost again, by 100,000 kronor. And if the small café or the carpentry shop hires three more, we want to lower the cost for this by 100,000-200,000 kronor so that people can get into jobs.

The government wants to allocate 350,000 per person for some kind of repatriation grant, a measure that proved to be ineffective, meaningless, and counterproductive. According to the investigator, it was a piece of candy for SD – a very large piece of candy, it should be said, amounting to 2.4 billion kronor. Take these meaningless 350,000 kronor and put them toward small businesses so that people can be involved and contribute, not withdraw! Lower the income tax further for those with the lowest wages!

And so we must invest in the school. Every year, 20,000 teenagers are dropped out of the school system - they do not proceed to upper secondary school. This is 16 percent of all youth, and this is also something that stands out. It is 3-4 percent in our neighboring countries in the Nordic region and 16 percent in Sweden, even though we know that precisely upper secondary school is so crucial for job opportunities.

If we are to manage integration and stop the epidemic of socially dangerous crime that hits Sweden, many more patrol officers are needed in everyday life and adults on the streets and squares. But the police themselves say: If we are to bring this down, we must bring down unemployment and the dropout rates in school.

And for people to be able to live in the countryside, we must have roads, railways and community services that function and schools of high quality. It is not possible to continue underinvesting and building up a large maintenance debt on our roads and railways around the country.

I want, Madam Speaker, to conclude by saying something about what also must be done. Right now, modern business is far ahead of politics when it comes to the new, the green transition. They have found ways to reduce emissions. They want to deliver fossil-free cars and trucks. They are ready to expand wind power to produce cheap energy. Ordinary people want to buy fossil-free cars and just need to be given a little push.

But now the politics, the conservative parties. It has become 50,000 kronor more expensive to buy an electric car. Electric car sales are plummeting. Fossil fuel cars dominate new sales again, because people cannot afford it. The tax per kilometer is now higher on green electricity than on fossil diesel. Take that in: One has, therefore, shock-raised the tax on green electricity so that it is higher than it is for fossil diesel per kilometer.

I want to turn to those who want to make the switch and get an electric car, a hybrid, or a gas car but perhaps have not had the means. We in Centerpartiet will not let you down. We want to give you a people's bonus so that you can change cars. We want it to also include used cars so that everyone, not just wealthy people, can be part of the climate transition. We stop the 11 percent tax increase on green electricity.

I also want to turn towards the green industry. We will remove the obstacles. We will ensure that we get the wind power built, that the cables are laid, and that we get production up, which has stood completely still with this government.

It is time to stop the resignation. Enough of the cynicism now! This government is not working. It is not delivering on the jobs, not on energy, and not on crime. This, my friends and Madam Speaker, is not Sweden! It is not the Sweden that has become rich and successful.

Now we must invest in people regardless of gender, ethnicity and religion and show that they are a part of society. We can lift you up - not pull you down with either taxes or prejudices. We can give you the tools to start working. This is what in all times and in all countries has carried the jobs, the growth and the prosperity.

I therefore move for approval of reservations 3 and 7.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Economic growth is what Sweden needs to become wealthier, greener, and safer. Everyone who can work shall work. The entrepreneurial spirit shall be stimulated and studies shall be rewarded.

With growth, we can have a safety net without holes for those who fall. With growth, we get a Sweden that we can rely on. We can trust that we will get help if we become ill, that we will get care if we need it when we become elderly, that our children get the support they need in school, and that the freedom to live an independent life shall apply to everyone through a good LSS throughout the entire country.

For me, this is what the state is for: to create a security and a safety net that catches but does not hold back.

Sweden needs more faith in the future. With this budget, we in the Liberals are helping to enable a brighter tomorrow. It is only through strong economic growth that we can secure a good welfare. One does not exist without the other.

This is a budget to kickstart economic growth through major investments in school, climate, vocational training, research, infrastructure, the conditions for companies, and tax cuts.

Madam Speaker! As we Liberals have always said, it always starts with the school. This applies in particular to our future opportunities to create a solidary and prosperous Sweden. Every child must succeed in school. But we must realize that we have a knowledge crisis in Swedish schools. Today, every fourth student in upper secondary school cannot read properly. The number of reports and threats has doubled, and it is clear that the foundations are not functioning in Swedish schools today.

The Liberals have begun work on rebuilding the foundations of the school again. It is about the student's right to proper school books, staffed school libraries, and access to good student health. Also, the introduction of a national school funding norm and a fully renovated friskola system are much-needed reforms that we are now driving, as well as reducing the teachers' administrative burden and getting back the rule-governed school.

In the budget for 2025, we are making a major investment in schools. It is the second-largest school budget in 20 years. We ensure that half a million real textbooks replace the students' distracting screens. We give the municipalities the opportunity to create smaller teaching groups, and we double the support for emergency schools. The noise and the harmful zeal for digitalization shall be cleared away. The school shall return to the basics.

Furthermore, we are finally tackling what the previous Social Democratic government did not have the strength to do. The Liberals and the government are introducing a ten-year primary school. Thus, we strengthen the focus on reading and writing training. Last week, an inquiry into compulsory preschool was also commissioned. Through early interventions, we can create better conditions for the children who need them the most. Therefore, we are also investing a full 900 million in preschool during 2025 to increase the quality.

So we build the future Sweden from the ground up. This is when social liberalism is at its best.

Madam Speaker! We have a paradoxical situation on the labor market. We have high unemployment at the same time as there is a major skills shortage in several industries. Therefore, we continue to expand the vocational training and strengthen them with 11,000 places. In total, we can now in Sweden offer over 120,000 places in adult education. Additionally, we strengthen the supervisor support in apprentice education and increase the apprentice allowance.

Madam Speaker! I was a CEO for the first time when I was 23 years old. I love companies and entrepreneurs. It is they who, together with their employees, build Sweden's welfare and competitiveness. We in the Riksdag have a duty to enable and facilitate business and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs often risk everything they have, both financially and in terms of time, to realize their dream. If they succeed, masses of jobs are created that benefit the entire society.

Now we are giving a vitamin injection to the very smallest companies by making it cheaper to hire with an expanded and increased growth support. Additionally, we are making it easier for companies to attract the world's top expertise with an improved experts' tax and new rules that facilitate and shorten the permit process for the highly qualified labor immigration that we so much need.

Madam Speaker! We are also presenting the largest investment in research ever. Swedish research needs to continue to hold its own internationally. Sweden shall be a knowledge nation. It is clear that a liberal Minister for Education is needed so that knowledge, research, and innovation shall be prioritized. Sweden shall not only award Nobel Prizes but also strive to receive them.

Investing specifically in research has so incredibly many benefits. It is fantastic, groundbreaking research results that enable viable companies to contribute to medical development, the green transition, and technological innovation. Research is one of the things that enables Sweden's competitiveness and allows us to attract international expertise. It generates tax revenues and jobs and solves major problems in the world. But one must not forget that research in itself has an important value in society: We gain more knowledge and understanding, which in itself has a great added value.

Sweden is a pioneer when it comes to investments and innovation. We succeed in attracting a lot of venture capital to Sweden. This is very important, and now that we are making a historic investment in research and innovation, we are taking steps to continue to be a competitive nation built on our most important asset, our human capital.

Madam Speaker! Now we are strengthening the work line by lowering taxes for everyone who works. The Liberals demanded during the previous term that the government should remove the wealth tax. We got that through. Now we move forward.

In this budget, the tapering of the job tax credit, Magdalena Andersson's penalty tax on education, finally disappears. It will give strength to growth and provide incentives for more people to, for example, take extra shifts at work or pursue further education.

There has been a lot of noise from parts of the divided opposition regarding this reform. But we politicians must dare to do what is right and proper for Sweden in the long term. That is what we are doing now. This reform costs 4.7 billion, but it will generate tax revenues of 5.9 billion. It will therefore give us more tax revenues for the welfare in the long run by lowering the very highest marginal taxes. This is clear evidence that it is not the tax level that creates the welfare, but it is the tax revenues.

The Social Democrats' strategy is populist and focuses on short-term reforms rather than long-term growth creation, which makes everyone poorer. Let me be clear: punitive taxes on education and work through high marginal taxes belong in the trash. We shall fight poverty, not wealth.

Another freedom reform is to improve the possibilities to save. ISK is a very popular form of saving. Now we are making it even more favorable to save so that more Swedes can build up their own freedom capital. It is a freedom and a security to know that one can get out of unwanted situations.

Madam Speaker! Our climate goals shall be met. We present a budget that takes us towards net-zero emissions in 2045. With this budget, Sweden's total emissions will decrease. With these emission reductions, we are estimated to meet our ESR commitments by 2030. Emissions will be lower in 2026 than when we took office in 2022.

There is a very high tone from the opposition regarding climate policy. But we have clearly been able to see in all of the opposition's budget motions that their results are in line with the government's climate policy. This applies to all except the Center Party, which is not expected to reach any of the climate goals—not even the ESR goal.

What the Liberals have done in the government is a total reorganization of the climate policy to create the conditions to reach net-zero 2045. By all the parties in the Riksdag now standing behind the goals, conditions are created for an effective climate policy moving forward, without the Green Party's shock increases of fuel prices.

We are reshaping energy policy to electrify the transport sector and industry and in that way eliminate emissions entirely. Therefore, we continue to electrify transport through an electric vehicle premium, an investment in charging infrastructure, and an investigation into reduced tax at public charging stations. Additionally, the planning to ensure that new nuclear power is built in is entering a more intensive phase. I hope that we can soon break ground for new reactors at Ringhals, in my home municipality.

Most knew that political decisions and punitive taxes on nuclear power led to our six reactors being decommissioned prematurely. That electricity prices skyrocketed when two reactors at Ringhals were closed can be clearly seen in the statistics. Prices would have been 30-50 percent lower in southern Sweden if the reactors at Ringhals had not been decommissioned. Now we have to clean up the mess.

All fossil-free electricity production is needed for the climate transition now and in the future. To increase the municipalities' incentives to say yes to wind power, a support for the municipalities will be established based on property tax for wind power installations.

Emissions in agriculture need to be reduced. We are therefore introducing Kväveklivet. It is a new temporary investment support to reduce emissions of ammonia and greenhouse gases within agriculture.

The work of preserving valuable nature and ecosystems needs to continue. To enable this, we are investing, among other things, in preserving nature values in protected areas and restoring grazing lands.

Madam President! This year marks 30 years since the Liberals pushed through one of our time's greatest freedom reforms, LSS. Under the Social Democratic government, the standard allowance was eroded through constantly low increases. For the Liberals, LSS is just as important now as it was then. We have pushed for a higher increase. This year it has been doubled, and we have also halved the parental deduction. It is a first step in the right direction. We are proud but not satisfied. Persons with disabilities have the right to an individual assessment of their needs. The Liberals will continue to fight for a better and stronger LSS.

Madam President! We Liberals have fought for equality and women's rights ever since we fought for women's suffrage a hundred years ago. We strengthen the Gender Equality Authority and proceed with investigations on protecting one of the most vulnerable and forgotten groups, women in prostitution. At the same time, we are firmly determined to combat all forms of honor-related violence and oppression. It is the freedom of tens of thousands of women that is at stake. The fight against honor-based oppression is one of the foremost freedom struggles of our time.

Reform for reform is the Liberals with, and they shape a brighter tomorrow where people get greater power to create their own future in a better Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I am proud that my party is part of a government that is presenting a budget for growth, climate, and knowledge. It is a budget with clear liberal successes that will make a big difference in people's everyday lives.

I vote in favor of the Finance Committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I actually intended to ask a different question, but I will begin by addressing what was claimed from the parliamentary rostrum regarding that we in the opposition have a high tone. We merely noted that it states in the government's own budget that they are unable to reach their climate goals. It stands in their own tables.

It says in SCB's statistics that emissions increased by one million tons during the first quarter. Still, the government comes up with some kind of makeshift calculation regarding us opposition parties, when it clearly states that we are to reverse exactly what increased the emissions. I noted that the Ministry of Finance does not even stand behind the claims that the Minister for Finance presented this morning. They were apparently made in the name of the Moderaterna.

Regarding the greenhouse effect, one should perhaps not throw stones in this greenhouse. It is simply not possible to explain away the failure of the climate policy with a lot of rhetorical tricks.

My question concerns the high unemployment. It was mentioned that one is now going to lower the tax a little bit - or take back a tax increase of 80 million that has been made - but one has indeed raised the tax on companies' opportunities to hire. One has raised the tax by 12 billion kronor.

I have a few proposals for the member from the Liberals. The first is to make it easier for small business owners to hire by lowering the employer contribution. Only then will more companies dare to grow and hire. The second is to make it cheaper to hire young people through targeted reductions of the employer contribution. Youth unemployment requires powerful measures here and now. The third is to invest in integration measures that lead to more foreign-born people getting jobs and entering the workforce faster. A job is the best way to integration.

These proposals are not in the government's budget. They are in the Center Party's budget, and the member probably recognizes them, as they are taken from the Liberals' election manifesto ahead of the 2022 election. Why is the opposite of what was promised to the voters and small business owners being done now?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! That was a blessed mixture. It will be very exciting to try to sort it out!

When it comes to climate policy, I simply looked at the Center Party's budget motion, and it becomes clear there that one does not meet the ESR commitment or any other climate goals either.

Regarding the government's budget bill, the forecast is that we will meet the ESR commitment by 2030, partly thanks to the reduction obligation which is now being increased, plus many other measures. We will therefore have lower emissions in 2026 than we had in 2022.

As I said in my speech, we are shifting the policy to reach net zero by 2045. For that, much clean, fossil-free, predictable electricity production is needed so that industry dares and can make the investments that are necessary to transition, even in the transport sector.

We obviously have different views on this, but I would recommend that Member Ådahl read the government's budget bill properly.

Regarding the labor market policy, I am very happy that the Center Party is inspired by the Liberals' election manifesto. It is fantastic. I also welcome the Center Party to participate in a constructive way in some kind of majority to get its policy through. That is what we are doing now. I don't really know how Member Ådahl could get his fantastic entrepreneurship policy through with his friends on the red-green side.

We are improving the growth support so that it becomes cheaper to employ both one and two people. We are raising the salary ceiling. We are exactly the vitamin injection that Member Ådahl requested from the rostrum. Give power to the very smallest companies, which account for the greatest possible growth in Sweden! That is what we are doing now, together with many other things, such as a major investment in vocational training to meet the skills shortage.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It would be interesting if the Liberals could not only inspire us, even though we thought so before as well, but also themselves in the government instead of introducing SD's massive tax increases for small businesses. You can start there, Cecilia Rönn.

Your 80 million corresponds to 1 per mille of the reform space of 60 billion, but it is only a restoration of a tax that you raised when you took office. You will not escape these figures.

The parliamentary leader from the Liberals and I share the commitment, no doubt about that. It is just that you don't get anything out of these issues, but you in the government are trampled on by the Sweden Democrats. There is absolutely nothing to be gained compared to what we did together under the January Agreement, when we lowered the tax for small businesses and the employer contributions.

Then we have this again with the climate. There must still be some sense and reason. We have read your budget where it states that Sweden will not meet the climate goal, and that is why we speak out.

Seriously: How in the name of all that is holy can you, who have caused electric car sales to plummet, say that 100,000 more electric cars and hybrids can increase emissions compared to today, when people are forced to buy 115,000 new fossil fuel cars because the alternatives are so damn expensive?

Now, suddenly, the reduction obligation is the best thing ever invented and is going to fix the climate goals. How can massive investments in cheap biofuels lead to higher emissions? How can more wind power lead to higher emissions? I actually understand nothing.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I understand that it is difficult to be a member of the Centre Party. You have had some difficult weeks. I am terribly sorry for that. We have also had a difficult time in the Liberals, but we came to the conclusion that the best thing is to be constructive in order to be able to form majorities, get one's policies through and become relevant in Sweden instead of being a whining interest club. I truly understand that it is difficult and that one needs to consider what to do.

When it comes to the conditions for companies, I think the question is incredibly large. We are now making very many good reforms to improve things for the country's entrepreneurs. Again: It actually starts with the school. I apologize if I am perceived as repetitive, but we need to take the school back to the basics. Every child needs to pass primary school. They should be able to go to upper secondary school, become whatever they want, choose a vocational education, or continue to further their education to obtain the competence needed in the labor market.

In addition to this, lifelong learning with vocational training was needed, which we are now investing heavily in. As I said from the rostrum, we have 120,000 vocational trainings for adults in 2025, precisely in order to be able to meet the companies' skills shortage.

I often meet with entrepreneurs and talk to them, and I myself have extensive experience as an entrepreneur. It is the general skills shortage that makes it difficult for companies to grow, hire, and find the opportunities they need.

In addition to this, we are now developing the growth support, as I just said. It is a liberal reform that we have fought for for a long time. We are lowering the income taxes, just as the Liberals want. We are making important investments to be able to take back the initiative to the country's entrepreneurs so that they can become enablers for growth.

I am proud of this, and I think we have a very good budget that will make it so that we get up the growth and get down the unemployment in Sweden.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam President! Sweden currently has an extraordinary opportunity to move from being a good country to becoming an example. We are a country with enormous opportunities. We are one of the world's richest countries, with an extensive system for welfare. We are one of the world's most equal countries. We are an industrial nation that for the last 100 years has been at the forefront of development. There is much good to build upon.

At the same time, we face a number of major societal problems today that we need to solve. We see that the transition is being delayed, and emissions are not decreasing at a sufficiently fast pace. The violence, the insecurity, the unemployment, the inequality, and the gaps in society are increasing. Healthcare, schools, and elderly care are underfunded and are forced to make cuts.

People can no longer rely on the trains running on time - if they run at all, as is the case on many routes. This creates serious problems for everyone who travels by train and for our companies, which must be able to rely on the goods arriving on time.

Many families are finding it difficult to put food on the table, following the cost crisis that lies behind us and which was caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

But it doesn't have to be like this. All of this consists of societal problems that can be tackled with offensive economic policy and investments in our common good. But instead of lowering emissions, building unity and increasing trust and security, the government prioritizes using almost half of the reform space to lower taxes - on emissions but above all for the rich.

We in Miljöpartiet want to show the way to a different society instead. Our budget motion therefore contains an economic policy to support households with small margins, break the insecurity, protect welfare from cuts and make necessary investments for the future.

Our greatest challenge right now is that Sweden and the world are in a climate crisis. The Earth's average temperature is constantly increasing. Right now, we do not only appear to be missing the 1.5-degree goal, but we also risk exceeding 2 degrees if emissions are not reduced at a rapid pace.

The news reports about the effects of the climate crisis around the world are coming more and more frequently, and downpours, floods, and forest fires are becoming more common even in Sweden. It should therefore be a self-evident matter that a government's task is to pursue a policy that lowers emissions so that we, together with the rest of the world, can escape the worst effects. What we see now is unfortunately only a breeze compared to what we will see if we go up to and over a 2-degree temperature increase.

Instead of taking this seriously, the government has managed the feat of significantly increasing our climate emissions, in a recession where emissions usually go down. This is in itself a failure of historical proportions.

In the budget we are debating today, the government is investing more than six times as much money in measures that increase emissions as in measures that reduce them.

The government and Elisabeth Svantesson often speak of electrification as the solution, but instead of investing in it, they have slowed it down by making electric vehicles more expensive and fossil fuels cheaper.

Furthermore, one has increased the costs and complicated things for wind power to such an extent that the important and already initiated offshore wind project Kriegers flak has been put on ice. Additionally, 13 more wind farms are now stopped. One wonders if this government wants any energy production at all before nuclear power is in place, when that now might be the case.

The government is also removing the aviation tax, despite the fact that the tax reduces emissions and has the support of a majority of the Swedish population.

The government has halted the expansion of main lines and underfunded the railway so that line after line is now at risk of being closed. Some have been saved, but only for the coming year.

It is simply obvious that the government lacks a plan for climate policy and still behaves as if it is climate policy that is the societal problem, not the climate crisis.

What is required instead now are large investments in the climate transition. The Green Party therefore presents a budget that matches the government's reform space, and in addition to that, we want an investment budget for green transition corresponding to 1 percent of GDP.

We have an enormous investment need in Sweden and have for far too long done far too little for our infrastructure. Now we face a hump where we need to refurbish both the railway, the water and sewage system, and the power grid. We also have investment needs linked to the new green industries, which are emerging in, among other places, northern and western Sweden. Here, the state and the business sector must work together.

There is now a window of time where we must not only reduce emissions but also transition in order to maintain our competitiveness and not be overtaken by the USA and China. In a few years, it will be too late. Miljöpartiet wants us to invest in cheap green electricity for the Swedes through investments in energy efficiency and green base load, and in the transition of companies and society through Klimatklivet and Industriklivet.

Energy efficiency is by far the fastest, cheapest, and most sustainable way to release more electricity. According to the Swedish Energy Agency, there is potential to release as much as 25 terawatt-hours through energy efficiency. This can be compared to the 18 terawatt-hours from new nuclear power that the Tidö parties want to add by 2035.

We want to see investments in sustainable transport throughout the country through a Sweden card that costs 499 kronor per month for adults and half the price for youth. We want a fair electric car bonus where the cheapest cars give more bonus and those who live in the countryside get a higher bonus. Many still cannot afford to buy a new car. For them, there is our rural-oriented leasing support for electric cars. Everyone should be able to afford to transition.

We also want to see proper investments in trains that arrive on time. From north to south, it is about expanding the Oslo-Stockholm route, investing in the Malmbanan, the expansion of the Norrbotniabanan, and double tracks on the new Ostkustbanan. But above all, more must also go towards maintenance. For it to be effective, it also needs to be taken back under state management.

It is not only the climate policy and the green transition that this government refuses to prioritize. They also have as their hallmark in environmental and nature policy to first slaughter the environmental budget and then put back a small crumb and call it an investment. This budget is unfortunately no exception.

We know that biodiversity is in sharp decline worldwide, and Sweden is unfortunately not spared in any way. It is now necessary with extensive investments to create more resilient ecosystems and strengthen biodiversity and ensure that Sweden reaches our set goals. Otherwise, it will be too late to reverse the development.

Powerful initiatives are needed for valuable nature and threatened species and types of nature, and for securing the right of public access. Initiatives are needed for wetlands and natural grazing lands and strengthened biodiversity in the agricultural landscape.

We need to protect the last remains of valuable forest that we still have left, including the mountain forests - a thousand-year-old ecosystem. Instead, the logging levels are breaking all previous records, and the expert authorities are warning of a particularly urgent loss of natural values that cannot be recreated. But the government is doing nothing.

Just as much as we need to protect nature on land, measures are needed for our seas and waters. Microplastics and PFAS are now found almost everywhere one measures. In the Baltic Sea, we have a situation where we risk a total collapse of the herring and sprat stocks and, consequently, a collapse of entire ecosystems. The cod is already gone, and we are about to do the same with the sprat.

In that situation, the government allows continued high quotas on fishing. Instead, a powerful increase in the work with the marine environment and a substantial upscaling of the budget is needed. After years of cuts, the government instead plans to further reduce the work on the marine environment by nearly half a billion within the coming years.

We in Miljöpartiet want to instead propose a marine environment billion, which creates the conditions required to scale up the work that is needed. It also gives the few remaining coastal fishers the opportunity to manage their finances and transition.

After having noted that the environment and the climate are left without investments, I had hoped that we would see even more investments in healthcare and schools, in culture, equality and civil society, and on everyone's opportunity to put food on the table – but no. The budget that the government has presented is unfortunately also a death blow both for welfare and for the families living in economic vulnerability. While the rich get richer, through targeted tax cuts, others are left behind.

It has now almost been a year since the Prime Minister promised that no one would have to be laid off in healthcare, but in reality, nothing has improved, quite the opposite. The queues are getting longer and longer, which leads to enormous consequences for those affected. Both patients, relatives, and healthcare staff deserve better than that. A completely decisive structural reform to secure the welfare is to index the support to municipalities and regions. We must put a stop to the automatic cuts, which erode healthcare and the school system.

If healthcare is to function, it also requires investments in everyone who works within it. More money provides greater opportunities to hire more people and a better and less stressful work environment. But in the spirit of being against everything that Miljöpartiet is for, this government has abolished the recovery bonus. It contributed, among other things, to new ways of working being developed, models for shorter working hours being tested, and shared shifts being reduced. We want to reintroduce and strengthen it.

We simply want to invest in women by giving more to female-dominated occupations, single parents, and those women who are far away from the labor market. I had hoped that the government meant seriously to remove the labels but let the content itself remain. But that is not the case. Sweden's women's organizations have called this budget a world-turned-away men's budget. It does not lead to more equality, but to less.

Madam Speaker! A completed education is the best vaccine against crime and exclusion. For me, it is completely incomprehensible that the government does not see and prioritize it. Less money to the municipalities inevitably leads to cuts in school and preschool.

One of society's most important tasks is to create the conditions for the school to provide all children with the support required to complete both primary and upper secondary school with passing grades. But that is not where we are today. The market school has prioritized shareholders' profits over children's development, and the lack of resources has left far too many students behind. If that pattern is to be broken, the state needs to take greater responsibility for funding and level socioeconomic differences.

The conditions for children's development begin as early as preschool. It is incredibly important to improve integration and give children greater access to the language and a good start in life. We therefore want to see a preschool billion, so that more children can take part in preschool activities and so that all children who do not attend preschool today shall be offered a place from the age of two.

Children are also important in other ways. We prioritize them through investments in after-school centers, student health, and free breakfast for all school pupils. These are reforms that give every child the conditions to succeed in school and thus in life.

Investments in children and schools are the reforms that are absolutely most important in the long term to break exclusion, push back criminal gangs, and give young people hope for the future. But active work is also needed here and now to restore safety throughout Sweden, stop the spiral of violence, and prevent more children from either being murdered or becoming murderers.

We all know that there is no quick and easy solution. But we know that large-scale investments are required in all areas, both the justice system as well as social services and welfare, which will last over a long period. We therefore want to see specific investments in the crime prevention work against new recruitment to the gangs. It is about interventions in schools, in social services, in special youth homes and in other public institutions.

If Sweden is to be a country that truly holds together, it requires both a strong welfare state and well-functioning safety nets. In one of the world's richest countries, no children should be forced to grow up in poverty and no adults should have to live in economic insecurity. But during the cost-of-living crisis, this security has been eroded, and Sweden's families with children have been left alone. Prices have increased significantly, but not the child allowance. One gets considerably fewer sneakers and winter jackets for the child allowance today than one did before the crisis.

We therefore propose that the child allowance be increased by 230 kronor per month. This means an increase of 5,520 kronor per year for a family with two children. At the same time, we strongly reject the government's proposal to reduce the housing allowance. Instead, we want to see that the safety nets for families with children are inflation-adjusted every year and do not continue to be eroded.

Madam Speaker! Society is more than just healthcare and school. It is the organizations that form civil society and all those people who every day are engaged in making Sweden and the world better for more. We want to see a stronger civil society, more democracy work, more for youth movements and more meeting places for young people. We also want to see more culture throughout the country: more for the culture school, more for the cultural cooperation model and more for amateur culture. We also want increased production incentives for Swedish film. It is important for creativity and creation.

The world is bigger than Sweden. Our international development cooperation is important for the development of the entire world. Sweden can be, and shall be, an example. To disparage and pull down does not facilitate that work, but on the contrary. In a time of great challenges, wars, and climate changes that force many to flee, Sweden has an opportunity to be solidary. Let us be that, and let us be an example! The aid budget should be at least 1 percent of GNI. We shall strengthen the support for international cooperation and show that Sweden is a strong voice in the world. That is how we build Sweden and the world better. Let us take that chance, and let us invest in each other and in that which is our common. That is how we build a better society for everyone.

I vote in favor of the Miljöparti's reservations.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are living in a time that is uncertain, to say the least. In that context, it is a strength that Sweden stands on a stable foundation. It is a stable economic foundation with strong public finances and a stable political foundation. There is a clear majority for the budget here in the Riksdag, but also a majority that stands behind and agrees on the direction in very many important issues for Sweden. It is a strength in an uncertain time.

From day one, the government's and the Sweden Democrats' most important task in economic policy has been to combat high inflation. We have succeeded in that, and prices are no longer increasing at the same rate. However, the consequences of the high inflation still plague many households and several companies. Wage earners have also seen ten years of real wage increases erased. That is why our four parties are now taking the next major task fully seriously. That task is to strengthen the purchasing power of households and Swedes, to accelerate growth both in the short and long term, and to re-establish the work principle so that we now get out of the recession.

Madam Speaker! It is with this in mind that we have presented a growth budget that puts more money in people's pockets and accelerates growth, while at the same time we succeed in increasing resources for defense, welfare, the justice system, and many other important areas.

We are now halfway through the parliamentary term. The government took over two years ago in a Sweden that had become more dangerous. Now, 47 of the Tidö parties' 48 important reforms that are to turn, and which will turn, the development started or completed. The policy has already begun to make a difference. So far this year, the number of shootings has decreased compared to both 2022 and 2023. Many more acts of gross violence are being prevented and solved due to new tools that the police and the justice system have received from the government.

In Stockholm alone, the clearance rate for fatal shootings has increased from 15 percent in 2022 to 70 percent in 2023. There are still major problems with crime, violence, and shootings, but it is now moving slowly but surely in the right direction, even though it will take time.

Our four parties are determined: Gangs shall be crushed, and Sweden shall become safer. Through additional funding in this budget and in previous budgets, the justice system, the police, and other law enforcement agencies are now growing. They are growing and working harder than ever before. You know—it matters who is in power.

Madam President! The government also took over a Sweden that had become poorer. At that time, the country had an inflation of 10 percent, low growth, and high unemployment. To push back the inflation has, as I said earlier, been our absolute highest priority. Now it is below the target of 2 percent. Even though prices are still high, a lower inflation means that the pressure decreases, both for households and for the welfare sectors. Municipalities and regions will have 50 billion lower pension costs next year just because the inflation has now been pushed back. It has been important, and it makes a difference.

As I said, we took over a country with low growth. Furthermore, there has been a recession, and inflation and high interest rates have held back consumption. That is exactly why this budget is a growth budget. It is intended to contribute to getting the economy moving. It contains historical investments in research and infrastructure. It also contains a tax cut on labor, which many here have spoken about previously. The IMF, the International Monetary Fund, forecasts that Sweden's growth will be the highest among comparable countries next year.

Madam Speaker! Now we have seen all four opposition budgets. We are here to discuss the dividing lines in Swedish politics - that is democracy.

So we can now place the four opposition budgets next to our budget and see which dividing lines can be drawn. I would say that these lines are very clear. The left side is split on many issues that are important for Sweden.

Another side that I see is that there is a lot of sloppiness and budget holes - I will return to that. There is a lot of subsidy policy and tax increases.

I think, Madam Speaker, that it is quite fascinating with increased benefits versus lowered taxes. When our side makes it more profitable to work, and when wage earners get to keep more money in their pockets, it is the same complaint every time. We have heard this from several speakers, or singers, before me. The chorus in that song is always about how they are so worried that we make it more profitable to work because it then becomes less profitable to live on benefits.

The four left-wing parties never stand on the side of hard-working people. They never stand on the same side as industrious people who set the clock, go to work, and perform an important task in different parts of Swedish society. Obviously, they see benefits as a long-term livelihood instead of a temporary safety net. I mean that this is the difference between the work principle and the benefit principle.

Madam Speaker! I believe in people's ability. I want to see an inclusive Sweden where everyone who can participate and contribute also does so, and where more are given the opportunity but also feel an obligation to contribute. That is how we increase the sense of solidarity. That is how we get a sense of a "we," a we who together take responsibility for Sweden in a difficult time.

That is why the government is working on a subsidy reform, lowering taxes for two years in a row on low incomes, increasing the number of places in vocational training, and making it easier for persons with functional variations to study. We do all this so that more people can become self-sufficient and participate and contribute. As someone here said earlier: It is about more people having to do their duty in order to also be able to claim their right.

Madam Speaker! We also took over a Sweden with major integration problems. Much remains to be done, even if we see glimmers of light. More and more immigrated persons are entering work faster, and the employment rate is higher, which is very good. But if we are to be able to continue on the path taken, it is absolutely necessary that immigration is kept at a low level for a long time. Otherwise, integration will not work. There is a very clear difference between the two sides in Swedish politics. With our policy, Sweden is now expected to receive the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1997, while the other side wants to increase immigration.

The list of differences in policy is long. The government lowers the tax on savings while the left side raises it. The government lowers fuel prices year after year while the left side's policy leads to increased prices. The government removes the aviation tax so that people and companies can live and operate throughout Sweden and so that we have aviation. The other side wants to increase the aviation tax so that Swedes will remain on the ground.

The government is also lowering the marginal tax so that higher education pays off better and Sweden gets a well-educated workforce. We think that one should be able to keep at least half of what one has earned after tax. But the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party do not think so. That they want higher tax on labor, we have heard from almost every person who has spoken here.

There is also a difference in the view on how tax money is used. Our four parties have been careful to reprioritize among the expenditures. We are also careful that the state's money, that is, the taxpayers' money, is used in the best way. A household must plan its expenses and cannot use more money than it has, and in difficult times, many need to pinch every penny for the finances to balance. The state must also do that, and therefore we make tough prioritizations such as reducing aid. But Sweden still has an enormously generous aid in relation to the vast majority of countries. We also streamline the state's activities and reduce the number of agencies.

This ability to prioritize lacks the other side in politics, which I regret. What do they do instead of prioritizing? Yes, they raise taxes, and if one is called Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, one also wants to heavily indebt future generations. It is no news but nevertheless irresponsible.

Madam Speaker! I am, however, most surprised by the Social Democrats' budget. When the Moderates were in opposition, my position was always that our proposals should be feasible and that they should be financed. But the Social Democrats' budget has many holes, which is remarkable. They say no to the steeper phase-out, which costs money. But they do not budget for it. They want more places in adult education, which is great, but they miss that it costs more in student support, approximately 300 million. The list of misses can be made longer, and it is serious. I will leave it unsaid whether it is a matter of carelessness or if they think that the policy will never become a reality and is a castle in the air. But large parties must be able to budget so that the budget is feasible if it wins. That attitude must always be maintained.

Madam President! Let me also bring up a few things that unite us across the block boundaries and which make me happy.

First, what Janine Alm Ericson was on: We need to reduce emissions and see it as urgent. Even here, Sweden is a pioneer country, but we must do much more. With the government's budget, emissions will decrease next year, just as they did last year. Furthermore, we are projected to reach the ESR commitment by 2030. At least three of the opposition's four parties have policies in their budgets to reach the ESR commitment, which is good.

Another very important issue is Ukraine. We here in this house will not be silent, but we will continue to act militarily and economically. We will be a voice for Ukraine. It is also a strong and clear signal to both Russia and Ukraine that all eight parties here in this house stand together on this issue.

Madam President! I will conclude where I began, with that Sweden stands on a stable foundation. When I meet my colleagues around Europe and the world, many tell me that they are currently struggling with high indebtedness, large budget deficits, for their countries record-high tax pressures and great needs for investments. In Sweden, the situation is completely different. We have low public debt and the lowest tax pressure in 50 years, while at the same time we invest more in public investments than very many other comparable countries.

This shows that it is possible to prioritize. It is possible to conduct a sustainable economic policy and simultaneously invest, and that is a strength for Sweden. We have had some tough years behind us, and it is still tough for many. But my conviction is that Sweden is heading towards brighter times. With this budget, we take important steps, and we have a majority for our policy. We get things done, and step by step we build Sweden both wealthier and safer.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not strange that a Finance Minister wants to defend her budget; it seems reasonable. But that she is so incredibly satisfied with the economic development and the priorities the government has made is still a bit surprising.

My reply will not be about the historical development in Sweden, but Sweden was one of the countries that both went through and came out of the pandemic strongest economically. When we see how Sweden has performed during the cost crisis, Sweden stands out in the other direction. Sweden has had a weaker economic development.

Priorities can always be discussed, and it is not strange that we prioritize differently in our budgets. But with large deficits in the state budget, the government chooses to borrow for tax cuts. If we Social Democrats win the election, there is therefore a great risk that we will once again have to clean up the economy after a right-wing government and a bourgeois finance minister.

The fact is that the Finance Minister completely skips over talking about that Sweden's growth is at the bottom of the EU, that companies all over the country are going bankrupt to a very high extent, that the interest rates are high, that unemployment is the highest in ten years, apart from the pandemic effect, that housing construction has come to a complete standstill, and that the government repeatedly in its forecasts pushes back when the turnaround in the labor market is supposed to come, when growth is supposed to pick up, and when consumption is supposed to increase among households. Add to that the uncertainty in the world around us.

We Social Democrats have proposed a series of measures to get housing construction started, speed up the expansion of energy, increase the number of educational places, and give ordinary families more money in their pockets. But the government is passive.

My question to the Minister for Finance is: Has the Minister for Finance pursued an economic policy that is too poor, resulting in these outcomes, or has she simply been unlucky again?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam President! Thank you, Mikael Damberg, for the question!

It has been just over two years since I got this job. From the first day on the job, I have had a very clear plan. We inherited a high unemployment, a low growth, and a very high inflation.

Of all these three, inflation was the most acute to manage. If it were not dampened, interest rates would continue to rise and plague households and companies. It would lead us completely the wrong way.

I follow that plan, as I said then. I was very clear, and I have said it many times publicly.

Push back inflation by simultaneously supporting households.

Strengthen the work line.

Strengthen Swedish growth.

Now the first point is completed. We have fought inflation. With this budget, we now take the next step. It is about getting the economic wheels turning in both the short term and the long term.

Sweden is in a recession. There are many other countries in recession, for example Germany and France. The Swedish recession is due to a very large extent to a very interest-sensitive economy.

Households and companies in Sweden often do not fix their loans, and Swedish households have high debts. Therefore, consumption and housing construction are naturally affected.

With this budget, together with the Riksbank's interest rate cuts, we, the Riksbank, and also others assess that the growth in the economy will increase. The IMF even tracks that we will have the best development next year compared to comparable countries. We have to see how it turns out. It is also about what happens in other countries.

I will not be either proud or satisfied until I see that all parts of the plan are fulfilled. But I see that step by step, what we have done is happening, and I am very happy about that.

Every day when I go to work, I have people before my eyes. I have said it before. I have before my eyes hard-working Swedes who go to work.

I know that the high inflation has tormented very many households. Now we are going to support and ensure that they get back what they have lost and get the economic wheels moving. We know what generates growth. Now we are also presenting proposals that provide that.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is good that inflation is falling back in Sweden as in other countries. I have the exact same view as the Minister for Finance on that matter. It really takes a toll on those with low incomes, and it destroys the economy in the long run if one has high inflation.

It is said that one is following a plan. That plan did not include that we would have the worst economic growth in all of Europe, did it? I hope not. I do not hope that the plan included that we would have a record-high number of company bankruptcies all over Sweden.

I hope that the plan did not contain a total halt of housing construction in Sweden or that unemployment increases in Sweden when it has not increased in many other European countries. Sweden has not performed economically these years in relation to other countries.

Then one must ask the question: Has the government's policy been correctly directed? Are the right choices being made in the budget that lies on the Riksdag's table? Could one not imagine doing something for next year to increase housing construction in order to boost growth?

Could one not do more to speed up the energy expansion here and now, as it means so much for Swedish industry? Could one not make targeted investments in education policy and labor market policy in a situation where unemployment is increasing?

All those questions matter, but so does the distribution profile. Wouldn't it have been better to invest more, as we have proposed, in ordinary people's wallets rather than on lowering taxes mostly for those with the highest incomes?

Ordinary people, a police officer or a nurse with two children, get more money in their wallet with our policy than with the government's policy. I am convinced that it also leads to increased growth.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damberg!

I understand that the member is now doing everything he can to give the impression that the Social Democrats have indeed supported households over the years. To me, it becomes a bit strange. The entire speech breathed what I said earlier: It is troublesome that it will now pay off better to work and worse to live on benefits.

I want to step back a bit. I am not going to say anything about Mikael Damberg's eight years in government. I do not intend to do that. I will only state that the challenges we had when we took office are still there. We are working very clearly with a plan. It differs quite a bit from your policy.

Our four parties are very determined to solve major problems and to facilitate things for Sweden and the Swedes after a very tough time. I am proud that we can do this together.

What do we do then? We have, in just two years, lowered the fuel prices while you have wanted to raise them. We have now lowered the tax on savings while you have wanted to have other and higher taxes.

We are lowering marginal taxes so that people can keep 50 percent of what they earn. This leads to more people wanting to study and educate themselves and to an increase in growth.

We continue to lower the tax on pensions for those who have worked. On that, we agree. It is interesting that we have the same view on some tax. We are removing the aviation tax so that Sweden and Swedish companies can operate here.

We are lowering employer contributions for those companies that want to hire their first and second employees. We are making things easier bit by bit for households and for companies. It will have an effect.

It was very good that Sweden came out of the pandemic quickly. We helped each other, to say the least. Some of us were here every day, pushed the government, and submitted our own proposals. We reached agreements, and we were able to save jobs and companies.

We take responsibility. We did it in opposition, and we do it in government. I have, as I said, people before my eyes every day. Sweden shall become richer, and more shall be distributed. But then one must be able to do two things at the same time.

It is about prioritizing, focusing on growth, lowering taxes, simplifying rules for companies and ensuring that many more people have a job to go to. That 20 percent of adults are not self-sufficient is something I will never be satisfied with, even if you were during your time.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I just want to quickly say that I completely agree with Ukraine. It is only that the government should increase its support to 1 percent of GDP per year so that it truly corresponds to the situation.

I have something serious to discuss here. Emissions have increased dramatically with this government. It appears from your own budget report that you are not reaching the climate goals.

We in the Center Party have proposed that now that electric car sales have totally stagnated and even decreased while fossil fuel cars have increased, we should receive a powerful electric car bonus to get 100,000 new electric cars.

When you stop the wind power, we want to see much more powerful incentives for the municipalities. We want to, for example, run the cables to Kriegers flak. It could have given half a million households in Skåne lower electricity prices and green electricity. We want a lower tax on green electricity than on fossil diesel and not to shock-increase it.

We want to do what the Climate Policy Council and the experts recommend in order to reduce the emissions that you have driven up. But instead of stopping polluting the climate today, you are throwing mud at the opposition.

You are coming with a lot of unfounded claims. It is nothing to laugh at, Finance Minister. When we request the basis for the baseless claims, you classify it as secret and refuse to release it from the Government Offices, where you have forced them to make the arbitrary calculations. It is Trump-style tactics. Lift the secrecy on the arbitrary calculations so that we can examine them and compare, proposal by proposal, who is doing what for the climate and what affects the emissions! Explain what you mean instead of throwing mud!

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I choose to rejoice quite often, even when things can be a bit difficult and heavy.

It is brave, perhaps almost bordering on reckless, what Martin Ådahl is now undertaking. I have heard the speech, and I have heard the member pose the question.

I want to say a few short things. It is brave of Martin Ådahl to go on the offensive. He says that we are mud-slinging. No, that is not at all the case. We make assessments of all budgets. The officials are working hard on that.

We can only observe that since the Center Party rejects the new reduction obligation and replaces it with another proposal regarding the procurement of biofuels, it is very difficult to know what it will lead to. It is not obvious that it will lead to you reaching the ESR targets because we do not know what the effects of the prices are. I think one should be a bit careful, as I said earlier to the Social Democrats. It is very difficult to make that assessment.

It is good that Martin Ådahl is pushing for more electric cars. We also think it is needed – really. However, it has been a time of high inflation, and many have held back consumption. There are therefore also natural reasons why many are now holding back when it comes to buying a car at all.

Madam Speaker! I listened earlier to Martin Ådahl, and I think it is brave of him to come forward with the rather large and strong attacks regarding unemployment, entrepreneurship and other things. But honestly - is it something that Martin Ådahl will be known for after his years in the Riksdag, is it, that he destroyed Arbetsförmedlingen? There is no single person in Sweden who has had such a great impact on that reform, which has now been implemented and is being sawed to pieces with the foot-knots. So do not come and talk to me about fighting unemployment!

Madam Speaker! When it comes to entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurs I meet, small as well as large, appreciate what we do. They appreciate what we do in the crime area, that we lower taxes on profits, that we keep order in the Swedish economy and that we press down inflation. They appreciate our policy. I do not know whom Martin Ådahl meets, but the entrepreneurs I meet and have constructive conversations with appreciate the policy that we are now pursuing.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It is simply a matter of stating: First, Elisabeth Svantesson says it is brave to talk about what I am bringing up, and then one is smeared.

You have no new job proposals. And those entrepreneurs who are so very happy that you have raised the tax on hiring by 12 billion - I don't know where the Finance Minister has met them. I note that this just continues and continues. You have no proposals of your own, but it is just mud-slinging.

We had a specific question so that we can compare the proposals with each other. Why do you not lift the classification? Why do you not present the underlying data openly so that we can compare how you increase the emissions and how we reduce them, tone for tone?

Seriously: Earlier, at the press conference just before the debate, it was said that we are increasing emissions. That was said from the rostrum. Now you say it is difficult to know what Centerpartiet wants. Yes, it is clear that it is difficult to know when you read the opposition's proposal as if you were reading the Bible! You are engaging in this type of mudslinging and fabrication.

How is it – is it difficult to know or is it rather difficult for you to understand how one reduces emissions with cheap biofuels, and above all by getting electrification started and producing wind power? Or is it just general talk?

I repeat: If this is to be for real – lift the secrecy and let us lay the proposals side by side and compare them! We stand for the measures that the Climate Policy Council stands for. It is they who can turn the development so that ordinary people can be part of the climate transition. So we increase the wind power so that the green industrialization returns. That is what we need. Stop smearing it! Do your homework instead!

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I only note that if one says no to the new reduction obligation we have and at the same time have the proposal to procure biofuels, it is probably no one other than Martin Ådahl who believes that it will be cheap. It will probably become very expensive.

When we go through the Center Party's various climate proposals, we see that it is uncertain. Seven out of eight parties in here have a policy that makes it very clear that the ESR goals can be reached. But it is not the same with the Center Party. If the member thinks that it is mud-slinging to just say it as it is—what is stated in a budget—then let that be up to Martin Ådahl.

Madam President! We have made quite accurate calculations of different types of effects. It is not just about distribution effects in general; it is also about people who live in different types of regions and in different parts of Sweden and how they are affected or impacted by the policies of different parties.

Here, the Center Party stands out more than any other party. Whether one lives in the countryside or in a large city, the average relative change of the Center Party's economic policy implies a worsened standard in all areas. There is not a single person - or perhaps one person but very few people - who gains anything from the Center Party's policy.

There is a homework assignment to be done. One can be very firm and confident, but then the policy must be able to withstand scrutiny. We do not see that the ESR goals are being met, but Martin Ådahl is welcome to convince me otherwise later. We do, however, see that practically no one, no matter where they live in the different parts of Sweden, benefits from the Centerpartiet's policy. It does not strengthen households, and it simply does not make things easier.

When it comes to the entrepreneurs, Madam Speaker, it is very simple. I have mentioned several things that the government has done over two years, and we will continue. We will soon have worked out the 3:12 package that we have talked about and much more that I have already brought up. We are making it easier for entrepreneurs, step by step, because we know that it is there that the jobs are and are created.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance says that she has people in front of her every day when she goes to work. The question is only which people. Is it the colleagues in the ministerial group she is talking about?

The work line does not need to lecture me. I come from a hard-working family. My parents have worked in care and in retail. My father did not have a single sick day. The last absence he had was when he was on parental leave with my little sister in 1985, when he was struck by cancer at the end of his working life.

The social insurances, the safety nets, and our insurances are what the employees have built up. They are not subsidies available for the Finance Minister to scatter and pay for tax cuts for those who have absolutely the most. They are our insurances. That is what it means for it to be worthwhile to work. One should have the right to compensation when one becomes ill, because one has paid in oneself.

If the government and the Minister for Finance had cared about the wage earners who have had their wages cut, they would have acted against the pricing behavior we see in the poorly functioning markets. Instead, the wage earners were left to take responsibility for the economic crisis alone, while banks, food giants, and electricity companies were allowed to continue to run rampant. Why did the government not take that responsibility and ensure that prices were kept down? Then the real wage cut we are now seeing would not have hit as hard as it does.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ida Gabrielsson, for an important question! I truly share the view that those who have taken the toughest and hardest hit during the high inflation of recent years are the wage earners. Those who have different types of benefits—not all, but very many—have had them increased as compensation for inflation. That is how our safety nets work in the large whole. It applies to guarantee pension, sickness and activity compensation, CSN and many other parts.

But just what Ida Gabrielsson points out is what the government is doing something about, that is to say that we ensure that also the wage earners, who have had their real wages eroded, both this year and next year get a tax cut. They keep more of what they have earned themselves. Hardworking people who go to work will get to keep more in their wallets, whether they vote for Vänsterpartiet or Moderaterna.

The work line for me, Madam President, is exactly what I said earlier. Everyone who lives in Sweden and who has the capacity to work shall participate and contribute and be given the opportunity to do so. But right now, it is 20 percent in the age group 20-64 who are not established in the labor market in such a way that they can be said to be self-sufficient.

More of them must come in, and more of them must be given opportunities. It is about language training, it is about requirements, and it is about a subsidy reform. But it is also about helping people and giving them opportunities to come in.

I have not given up on these people; I want them to be included. It is for their sake - that they have a salary of their own to live on. But it is also for the common good - that more people pay tax. It is a work line for me.

When more people work, we can also secure and protect the safety nets. We will, of course, secure them against all those who want to use our safety nets to defraud the welfare state in different ways – gang criminals and others. But we must also ensure that more people work and participate and contribute so that the cake grows. That is what our budget is about.

Since we have different views on taxes, absolutely! But fundamentally, more people need to be involved in paying taxes. Then the economy can grow, and that is the point of the budget that our four parties have presented.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance and the Ministry of Finance themselves calculate higher unemployment. How one could be involved and contribute by having reduced unemployment benefits, I find difficult to understand. The only thing that happens then is that wages are also kept down. When the benefits that we wage earners ourselves have paid into are reduced, wages are pressed down.

We shall not have working poor in Sweden. We shall have good, real jobs for everyone.

Even the Fiscal Policy Council, the government's own agency, says that the path of reduced insurance systems and reduced benefits is exhausted. What is needed to get people into work is matching and labor market policy. That is where the government fails and instead cuts back.

We must make investments in Sweden's infrastructure. The coming generations will not be happy that Sweden has the world's lowest public debt if the pipes in the water and sewage systems are leaking and the trains do not run on time. They will not thank us for it. We need to invest, and therefore the investments should be spread over the generations.

Vänsterpartiet agrees with Svenskt Näringsliv, LO and other heavyweights in economics that it is regrettable that the government does not ensure the creation of jobs and growth through such investments. The business sector expects losses of up to 100 billion if the neglected maintenance of the railway is not carried out. This threatens the state finances.

The question is whether it is worth, in the situation we are in now, to give a large sum not to all wage earners but to those wage earners who earn over 65,000 a month, while children go hungry to school and cannot afford to join the school trip.

Welfare and healthcare are on their knees. People are fleeing elderly care. Is it not better to put the money on healthcare or the children if that is where you want them to end up, Finance Minister?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam President! I thank Ida Gabrielsson for further questions.

I am convinced that everyone in this chamber right now wants Sweden to be richer, safer, better and stronger in the years to come and for the next generation. In that case, the economy needs to grow.

Something that concerns me quite a lot is that the EU's competitiveness in relation to, for example, the USA has been weakened. Why must the economy grow? Well, because we need resources ahead for, among other things, that which Ida Gabrielsson mentions. It is about defense, infrastructure, energy systems, and much more.

That the economy grows is number one, I mean, in order to be able to do more. Number two is about prioritizing. Both of these points are obviously more difficult for those on the left side than for our four parties. Then one must have a framework that is reasonable and ensure that we have order and clarity. Six of the eight parties in here think exactly so.

But then we come to taxes and to the view on work. It is no secret - it can be read in the Left Party's budget - that they want to raise marginal taxes already from 45,000 kronor. We should know that half of all police officers and nurses have that salary level. Even if it is said that one wants to facilitate generally for people who go to work, quite a lot more will get increased taxes if Ida Gabrielsson's budget were to go through.

I also find it a bit difficult to understand the reasoning regarding the capital gains tax, given that the coalition partner Centerpartiet wants to lower the capital gains tax more than anyone else in here, I think, can imagine. The division is total in both taxes and other parts.

At this time, Madam Speaker, it should be known that we are four parties who together do what is now required. We make the economy grow and strengthen the households' purchasing power.

And the marginal tax, which so many have brought up, is thus 5 percent of all the investments we are making this year. We have a reform space of 60 billion and are making reprioritizations of 37 billion. That means the marginal tax cut itself, which is self-financed within a few years, is 5 percent of the total investments. That was just a small piece of information.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam President! I thank the Minister for Finance for the presentation.

I intended to dwell a little bit on the strengthened purchasing power that the Minister for Finance was proud of in her speech. In plain words, one could say that she is therefore proud of having lowered the tax for the wealthy.

There is actually nothing strange about that. It is classic moderate economic policy. But just because of that, it is not an effective cyclical policy. A better cyclical policy would have been to invest in investments, for example in the green transition. Then we would also have come further when it comes to reduced emissions and meeting Sweden's emission goals. It would have been a good business policy that would have given our companies greater strength and confidence to make the transition. Instead, this government has succeeded in making the companies worried about whether their investments and the large investments they have made so far have been wrong. It is incredibly alarming.

When it comes to public consumption, we know that healthcare is still on its knees. Yes, inflation has been defeated – not thanks to the Finance Minister, but because the entire world economy has pushed back and succeeded in bringing down inflation. Sweden's curve follows the curve for the entire European area very well.

It is also a better economic policy to invest in those who have the least. When you lower taxes for people who have a lot and do not lack the most necessary things, they usually save, while others spend that money.

It is also a bit worrying how the government views diligence. Apparently, it is more important that high-income earners are diligent than those who earn little, because they haven't received a share of the tax cuts - or some have received 9 kronor a month.

Why should some people's diligence pay off more than others'? That is what I would like to ask the Minister for Finance.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam President! I am almost impressed by how one can choose to view our tax cuts. I have, in opposition and now in government, lowered the tax on low and medium incomes on a number of occasions. I have done that precisely because I want people's diligence and hard work, regardless of what one works with, to pay off better. We see the industriousness. We see those who carry much of society.

I have also said – and I think that is important – that the economy must grow in the long run. We know some very fundamental things, such as the importance of good infrastructure. In the infrastructure bill that we have now submitted, we have ensured that so much money is allocated that it can pay the maintenance debt plus new investments. We have a research bill at historical levels so that Sweden can be a country at the top. That which has made Sweden wealthy will also make Sweden wealthy in the future. We have high-quality jobs.

But we also have one of the world's highest taxes on labor and very high marginal taxes. I don't know if Janine Alm Ericson thinks it is okay that one pays 560 kronor in tax on the last thousand, that is to say, keeps less than half. One might think so. I think it is reasonable that we remove Magdalena Andersson's higher tax on higher education. OECD, the Productivity Commission, and many others agree with that. One might think it is stupid, but as I said, it is therefore 5 percent of all investments. We need to do it so that growth will increase.

Also remember – I think this is important for everyone listening to this – that for me it has always been important to lower the tax for all wage earners. In Sweden, we have eleven times higher tax on the higher wages. The person who has 125,000 kronor pays eleven times more in tax than the person who earns 25,000. We have a progressive taxation and will continue to have it. But it must pay off to study and take an extra job. Why is it so difficult for Miljöpartiet to think that? I don't know.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is still interesting to hear the Minister for Finance quibble about different tax levels and so on, and proudly assert that she has been involved in lowering taxes many times. If I put it this way: It may not actually be the tax cuts themselves that are the biggest problem, but rather what world we find ourselves in – how the situation looks.

If we had a welfare state without queues where all people received the care they need when they need it, if all students completed their schooling and if we had enough teachers and preschool educators—people who want and have the energy to stay in welfare professions—we would have a completely different situation. But this is about money that could have been invested in common welfare and in a stronger Sweden moving forward, rather than on more people being able to increase their wealth in the bank.

It is also a matter of that it is a better economic policy to invest in those who have the least, in public activities and in investments for the future. On that point, the Finance Minister is trying to distract us through his tax quibbling.

I would also like to ask the Minister for Finance about this issue of saddling future generations with debt, something that Elisabeth Svantesson from the rostrum accused the Green Party of wanting to do. There must still be a difference in what one does with the money – what one invests in.

Investing in a house that protects against wind and weather and provides a home of one's own, which we know is worth its weight in gold, and giving one's children security and a good upbringing must surely be better than continuing to live in a mud hut. We are building a future together, and therefore it must be possible to make investments for the future. Or shall we continue to remain where we are and not dare to take a chance?

The Minister for Finance must still see the differences between these two parts.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that Janine Alm Ericson does not quite hear what I am saying. One can do many things at the same time when one prioritizes - when one dares to say no to certain things and yes to others and dares to do the right thing.

We in our four parties have shown that we can fight inflation while simultaneously supporting the important welfare sectors. This year, 40 percent of the reform space went to regions and municipalities, and there were additional funds in our supplementary budget. It was a very large investment. We will never take our eyes off the welfare sectors. But we also know that the economy must grow. A half percent increase in GDP yields 15 billion in increased reform space. That is why we focus on all of this.

We can prioritize what is important - money for defense, money for the police, money for the justice system and money for welfare - while at the same time we can lower taxes broadly, for everyone, for two years in a row. That is why we can ensure that saving is favored more by lowering the tax on ISK. That is why we make it cheaper to refuel for those who have had it tough and have had to use the car even though they actually haven't been able to and have fallen behind on it. It is possible to do several things at the same time.

I am very pleased that it is also possible to push down emissions. We are doing so; next year emissions will decrease, and last year they decreased. Because we changed the reduction obligation which was completely impossible for the vast majority, emissions have increased this year, i.e., during one year. But Sweden is a pioneer country in this and shall continue to be.

When it comes to large investments and debts, my point - and I believe many here share it even if they are not Moderates - is that it is possible to make investments if one has a framework that maintains order. If one saves in the barns during good times and invests in worse times, one can also make investments, and Sweden makes larger public investments than the vast majority of comparable countries.

One can, therefore, do several things at the same time. We have a low national debt, and we have large investments ahead of us. We will get through this situation and support the households in the meantime. I believe we all agree that Sweden can and will become both safer and wealthier.

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is therefore time to debate tax policy, a subject that engages many and affects everyone in our society. Income tax, value-added tax, excise taxes - everyone pays tax, and everyone is therefore affected by tax policy. Perhaps that is why taxes engage so many citizens.

Madam Speaker! When the current government took office, inflation was very high. This has meant a heavy economic burden for households as well as companies, municipalities and regions. Therefore, the Tidö parties' focus has been to combat inflation, and the measures we have taken have had an effect. Inflation has fallen significantly and is expected to land just below the inflation target of 2 percent, measured with KPIF, 2024.

Even though the fight against inflation has been successful, challenges still remain for the Swedish economy, Madam Speaker. The lingering effects of the high inflation are still palpable, especially for families with children.

For the average wage earner, the rise in inflation has significantly weakened purchasing power since the end of 2021. Because wages have not risen at the same rate as prices, more than ten years of real wage increases have been lost. Pensioners have seen the real value of their savings accounts decrease. Those who have mortgages have been hit by increased interest costs, which has weakened their finances. This, in turn, has caused business owners to face declining demand while their costs have increased.

Madam Speaker! Many households felt the effects of inflation when the prices for food, travel, and housing increased at a very rapid pace at the end of the previous term. Those who were living on the margins already before inflation increased were hit hardest. Therefore, it is very important to combat inflation, Madam Speaker.

To keep inflation down, the Tidö parties have reformed several of the taxes and regulations that have driven up cost levels in our country, not least regarding transport costs. The price of diesel is an extra important factor if one wants to keep inflation down, as diesel is the fuel used most in both agriculture and the transport sector. Therefore, we have taken measures to keep fuel taxes at the lowest level that the EU allows as well as reduced the reduction obligation.

As I said, Madam President, the inflation target looks set to be reached this year, but continued perseverance in the fight against inflation is required – not least since the uncertainty in the world around us is great. Geopolitical unrest and war in our vicinity can, for example, drive up energy and freight prices, which would risk increasing inflation again.

Now that inflation has stabilized at a low level, the Tidö parties intend to support the economy's recovery through reforms aimed at strengthening households' purchasing power, reducing unemployment, and increasing growth and investment - with maintained low inflation. Therefore, we are lowering taxes for the Swedish people on, among other things, work, pension, savings, and transport. We are laying the foundation for the work of making Sweden both wealthier and safer.

Madam President! I have said it before, and it still applies: Perhaps the most worrying thing in the tax area is still that the EU is reviewing the possibility of changing the decision-making procedure for taxes so that only a qualified majority is required, instead of as it is today, unanimity, for decisions.

This is a very worrying development that we need to counteract jointly from the Riksdag if we are to be able to continue to pursue an economic policy that is good for Sweden and good for our country's inhabitants. The member states have different conditions, and we need variations in taxes to level the playing field for companies and union citizens - not the same taxes in all countries. Already now we are limited by the EU, for example, when it comes to the level of tax on fuels because the EU determines the minimum level for it in the member states.

Madam Speaker! This budget contains quite a few changes in the tax area. Much has already been said, but let me mention some changes that perhaps have not received as much attention as they deserve.

The ineffective tax on flights has not affected our travel significantly and does not reduce the emissions on the trips that are nevertheless undertaken. It only makes it more expensive for hard-working families to travel for a much-needed holiday. If a family with two children goes to the Canary Islands, the tax makes the trip 300 kronor more expensive. It is then completely illogical that the tax is 1,260 kronor for the same family to go to Algeria, which is a shorter travel distance. For Thailand, it becomes approximately 2,000 kronor more expensive for the same family. One can possibly see some logic in that.

I think it is good that this tax is abolished as it hits hard-working people and their families' vacations unnecessarily hard without any actual impact on the climate.

Madam Speaker! That the malus for motorhomes is being abolished pleases me, as my party has pushed that issue for a long time, and now it is becoming a reality. Motorhomes are not used in the same way as other vehicles where the malus is applied. Instead, it concerns vehicles that are most often used during a limited part of the year and have relatively short mileage. The malus for motorhomes thus becomes distorted compared to the actual emissions one wants to target, because motorhomes are not driven as much and therefore do not emit as much exhaust.

Another thing that I am very pleased with is that the alcohol tax for small breweries is being lowered. It creates conditions for small breweries to hire or retain staff, something that is very difficult for them today. The production of small breweries is largely a craft that we should be grateful for. Much good beer comes from these breweries, even though it is a challenge for them to achieve economic viability in their operations.

This is also not a public health issue, as it concerns beer which, due to the price, is consumed in highly justifiable quantities, not primarily to get drunk. With this legislative change, I believe we will see more of these wonderful golden drinks in Systembolaget's assortment in the future.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if there is much in Per Söderlund's speech that one can sign off on, but I shall give him an acknowledgment for one passage. Much good has come from microbreweries. We are in complete agreement on that.

Otherwise, there were many technicalities and a focus on fighting inflation, but there was no talk about the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's direction in the budget bill, its purpose and objective. That is what they are low on.

We who have participated in budget debates over the years have become aware that the Sweden Democrats' interest is something completely different from what they try to pretend. We see it in this year's budget bill; it is those who are better off who are now to be prioritized over ordinary wage earners. We see it time and again. We see it in this budget bill, and we have seen it in the other budget bills. The gunpowder is to be placed on tax cuts for those who already have it well-positioned: people with the highest incomes and largest assets, the wealthiest percent.

At the same time, the Sweden Democrats are trying the trick of pretending that they stand on the side of ordinary wage earners. If anyone still doubts that the Sweden Democrats have completely abandoned ordinary people, I will raise an example that we debated already two years ago, namely the unfair "funkisskatt" (disability tax). It concerns the tax gap that the Sweden Democrats have reintroduced between those who work and those who receive sickness and activity benefits.

Two years ago, the Sweden Democrats' Per Söderlund said that he had to return to these issues at a later date. A year later, Söderlund denied the existence of the funkis tax. Now, two years have passed, and the funkis tax has rather been expanded, despite Söderlund's and the Sweden Democrats' promise to return to the issue. Now I wonder: Why do you not want to abolish the unjust funkis tax?

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thought the question was heading in a different direction and was almost surprised that the question regarding the so-called funkisskatt did not seem to come. As Niklas Karlsson said, we have indeed debated it twice before.

I have not denied that there are tax differences between those who receive activity compensation and those who work. What I have opposed is the expression "disability tax" (funkisskatt). This is not a tax that one is hit by because one has a disability. There are many with functional variations who go and work every day and have the same tax as those who do not have any functional variation and work. It is the concept of "disability tax" that I oppose. I think it is very misleading.

We naturally have different taxes on work and on other types of income, and that is how it should be. There should be a difference. Then the question is whether one thinks it is right or not. For my part, I think it should pay to go to a job if one can do so, therefore we shall have a difference.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam President! Regardless of what Per Söderlund calls this - a funkis tax or not - there is de facto a difference in taxation between those who work and those who are in need of this and have chronic illnesses or something else. It is unfair and unjust. That is not how a modern welfare society should look.

I note that the Sweden Democrats, in their promises to those who have been asked to vote for them, have said that the funkis tax shall be abolished. Previously, Per Söderlund has said that he intends to return to this, that the promise holds, and that the fact that one stands for the bourgeois government in order to maintain and increase the tax gap is only something temporary. Now we hear, two years later, that the Sweden Democrats did not mean at all what they said. They have promised one thing but think something else. This is even admitted now in the chamber of the Riksdag and it is said that the tax gap is reasonable. That promise they gave was worth nothing.

One can wonder about what other promises the Sweden Democrats have laid out that they do not intend to carry out. My perception that the Sweden Democrats give the appearance of standing on the side of ordinary wage earners but then carry out something else because they represent other interests certainly finds water on its mill.

It is a tedious time we live in when the lie begins to become a working tool in politics. In that case, it is better and more honest to say what one thinks, what one stands for and why it is right. In my world, it is not so, neither to have the lie as a working tool nor to carry out such a policy.

There is probably nothing further to add. The Sweden Democrats are showing once again what party they are and which interests they represent: those who already have great assets over ordinary wage earners.

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam President! We must remember that we are talking about indexed compensations. They have received historically large increases given that inflation has been as it has been, and wage earners have not received it to the same extent. There are differences there that naturally must be taken into account.

I think one should be a bit careful about accusing parties of breaking election promises. The Social Democrats have probably not been the very best at keeping promises. We all remember the promise to have Europe's lowest unemployment, which they absolutely did not manage to fulfill. It went in the total opposite direction instead. One should probably be a bit careful from a Social Democratic perspective.

Regarding the fact that we stand on the side of the well-off, I suspect it is about the marginal tax rate that is being lowered now. It is something for which we have received support from the OECD, the Productivity Committee, and several renowned researchers, who have said that this needs to be done. We stand out in the OECD and Europe through very high marginal taxes. Furthermore, we have a large difference in what one pays in tax depending on whether one earns a little or earns a lot. Even from a Nordic perspective, there is a large difference.

I suspect that this is what Niklas Karlsson is talking about. I do not quite agree with the picture he paints. Furthermore, we have kept many of the election promises that the Social Democrats have previously accused us of not keeping. Just look at what the gas price is today! It was one of our strongest and most important election promises, and we have kept it. There are several election promises we have kept, and several things are in the works.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to move for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservations 1 and 5.

We live in a time of change where old patterns are being broken and new challenges demand attention. It is about how we shall manage to maintain and strengthen our common welfare and about how we ensure that every human being gets the opportunity to give life to their innermost dream and longing.

The challenges are certainly great. Unemployment is at a record high. Sweden's growth is among the worst in Europe. Food prices have soared. Healthcare is in crisis. The maintenance debt is growing. The climate transition is urgent. In the wake of this, inequality and exclusion are growing.

In a situation where Sweden is becoming poorer, a policy is required that is rooted in reality and sees people's everyday lives, a clear idea of what kind of society we want to build, and a clear direction for how it should be implemented. But reality is obviously not in focus for the Sverigedemokraterna and the government. In this year's budget bill, the government cuts healthcare, allows the new recruitment to the gangs to continue, ignores the future for the construction industry and the industry, and fails to support all those who are struggling to make ends meet in their everyday economy.

The Swedish people want measures to address the problems they encounter in their everyday lives. Instead, the government chooses to borrow money to lower taxes for those who already earn the most. Instead of tackling the major societal problems, the government chooses to burn billions on tax cuts for the people who have the greatest assets and highest incomes. The crisis is allowed to hit with full force, and the price is paid by the welfare state through constant cuts and by hard-working wage earners.

Madam Speaker! The old neoliberal maxim "if it rains on the priest, it splashes on the bell-ringer" is embodied in all significant aspects of the government's pursued policy. Let me take a few examples!

In their budget, the government and the Sweden Democrats are lowering the taxes for themselves by over 30,000 kronor a year, while simultaneously refusing to increase the child allowance - as the only country in the Nordic region - and cutting the housing supplement for the most vulnerable families with children. In a situation where the government has created a healthcare crisis and we have the largest layoffs since 2010, the government chooses to cut resources for healthcare.

The government chooses to call its budget a growth budget, but that is not correct, Madam Speaker. Had the government prioritized growth, it would have invested in things that generate growth: housing construction, faster energy expansion, and education. But that is not where the government is spending its resources; instead, it is doing so on tax cuts for the wealthiest. Even more favorable and lower taxes for small-scale companies are pending, the exit tax to prevent tax evasion is something they do not want, and so on. The list could be made much longer.

At the same time, we Social Democrats represent completely different interests. We stand for a completely different view of society and people. In our budget, we choose to prioritize the problems that ordinary people face in their everyday lives. We support all those Swedes who have been hit hard by the cost crisis. We propose measures to strengthen Sweden's growth, and we want to provide more money to welfare and healthcare. We are moving forward with powerful measures to stop the violence here and now and break the new recruitment to criminal gangs.

Madam President! Tax policy is not just figures in a budget document – it is the very foundation of our social construction. For us Social Democrats, it is a tool to create justice, finance the welfare state, and ensure that all people, regardless of background, are given a reasonable chance to live a good and meaningful life.

Tax is the nursing assistant at the residential home, the breakfast at the preschool, and the midwife who delivers when children are born. Tax is hip surgeries, national tests, and school transport. Tax is trains, buses, and public transport. That is how it connects. Tax is the joint financing of common affairs and common welfare. When we witness a poor working environment within healthcare or too little teaching and support in school, we must link it to the conducted economic policy.

Madam President! That is not enough. Today's tax system is also designed in such a way that we pay more in tax on income from wages than on returns from capital. The question that every Member of Parliament should ask themselves is: Why is it reasonable that the cashier at Ica should pay a larger share of her salary in tax than Ica's owner does? It actually does not add up. And there are many more similar examples. Therefore, it is obvious that the need for a tax reform is great to make things more comprehensible, more uniform and, above all, more just.

Madam President! Some observe how reality is and ask themselves: Why? I dream of the future and ask myself: Why not? So beautifully and concisely George Bernard Shaw, the British playwright, once formulated it. It is an image that holds up even today. The fact is that the future is not something that just happens to us. It is something that we create and shape together. And even though the contemporary era we live in places great demands on us, in order to be able to create a future to long for, there is no lack of opportunities.

We Social Democrats believe that the foundation for a good and meaningful life for the vast majority is a strong general welfare. A clear and just floor for the welfare creates freedom for the majority. It is because welfare frees people from the shackles of economic subordination. We do not become dependent on our own economic assets to be able to access healthcare, school, and care. We also avoid having to give up large parts of our own lives to take care of relatives who need such services and do not have the opportunity to buy them on a market.

The general welfare is based on the public service principle that we contribute collectively according to our ability, so that welfare is there when it is needed, distributed according to need. But it is the welfare that pays the price in our country for a bourgeois budget where one clearly prioritizes tax cuts for those who already have high incomes and large assets.

Instead, we should ensure that we strengthen the welfare and the foundation, as we Social Democrats propose supplementary funding for the welfare through increased general state grants of 6 billion SEK to municipalities and regions. We also choose to index them with inflation to secure the foundation in the welfare. It is an investment that in total means increased supplementary funding to municipalities and regions of 15 billion SEK just for next year.

We propose 3 billion in staffing investments to shorten healthcare queues and increase accessibility. People should feel the security of the welfare when they need it. Only by investing in the staff can we get out of the healthcare crisis that the bourgeois government and the Sverigedemokraterna are helping to increase. In this way, we can also strengthen the welfare in the long run.

In the budget for 2025, the government and the Sweden Democrats choose to significantly worsen dental care without any improvements being in place. They remove free dental care for young people without having settled on the proposal for how it should be invested in the elderly. They choose to pit group against group - young against old. We Social Democrats say no to that. Teeth are and shall be a part of the body. Therefore, we reject the government's cuts.

Madam Speaker! To give people hope and a desire to look forward to tomorrow, without knowing for certain how it will look, I mean is one of politics' absolutely most important tasks. It is not just about the next budget or the next mandate period. It is about who we are as a nation and how we want the next generation to view the Sweden we leave behind.

In conclusion, one can state that the hope, the faith, the security, and the will to wake up to a better and brighter tomorrow, which is one of politics' most important tasks, perhaps still does not quite belong to what all people in our country feel when they go to bed tonight.

It is a bourgeois government with the support of the Sweden Democrats, one can thank them for that. But it is still reasonable to say: For those who want, those who desire, and those who hope for another direction, it is possible. You will get the chance to vote it in in just about a year.

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam President! Tomorrow it is one year since we stood and debated a tax cut on petrol, diesel, and agricultural diesel. The Social Democrats then attacked the government and the Sweden Democrats very harshly because we had achieved a reduction of 14 öre. That reduction is significantly larger today. It is over 10 kronor for the diesel.

The proposal from the Social Democrats at that time was instead that a fuel discount of 2,000 kronor should be introduced. I showed here in the chamber that it becomes very distorted, because the less one drives, the more one earns from such a fuel discount. It is a very strange way to compensate them in rural areas for high gasoline costs or fuel costs.

This year we see that the Social Democrats have lowered the tank discount to 1,000 kronor - instead of 2,000, which it was last year. I would like to ask Niklas Karlsson what that is due to. Could it be that it is a small, small acknowledgment that the policy we have had regarding fuel prices has actually worked?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In the previous exchange, I could at least go as far as to give the Sweden Democrats an acknowledgment regarding the fact that much good has come from the microbreweries. I choose not to go any further than that right now, because fundamentally, it is a direction in the budget bill with a clear focus on those people who are already well off.

One can try to present the proposals from Sverigedemokraterna and the government as if things are being done out of care for ordinary wage earners and ordinary people. But it is not true, and no one will fall for it.

When it comes to exactly fuels and gasoline and diesel, I do not share the Sweden Democrats' view - that it would be something bad to create incentives for people to drive less. One should not use the car more than necessary.

In the Sweden Democrats' world, it seems to be the opposite. One should perhaps encourage people to drive as much as they possibly can, to take the car to Ica, 100 meters away, or to the gym, 200 meters away, when they are going to run 5 kilometers. I think it is an unreasonable policy.

At the same time, it is important to provide people with the right conditions. We who live in large cities or metropolitan regions have access to public transport. We can utilize it and should, of course, do so as much as we possibly can. But those people who do not have that possibility and who are more dependent on the car must also feel a sense of security. They must be given the conditions for a bearable and meaningful life. Therefore, we propose, in contrast to the Sweden Democrats and the government, not to simply lower the tax on fuels. That is, in fact, counterproductive, and it is environmentally unfriendly. We find other systems, for example, a tank discount.

We can very well imagine developing these thoughts, but not with the same purpose as the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have.

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Niklas Karlsson focuses very much on one part here. But there are other advantages to lowering the tax broadly on fuels. Among other things, transport becomes cheaper. It becomes cheaper for farmers to conduct their operations. It is therefore also an inflation-dampening measure that actually benefits everyone, regardless of whether one lives in rural areas or in a large city.

But the fact remains regarding the 1,000 kronor that you are now proposing as a scrap discount. If you buy a scrap car that has been sitting for a year, you then get 1,000 spänn. That is not what should be subsidized at all. It is about ensuring that costs are kept down for the necessary journeys one makes in the countryside. An annual mileage of 1,500 mil is not at all unusual. One does not need to travel very far out into the sparsely populated areas to end up with that mileage. There, one has already lost out on your proposal compared to the reductions in the fuel tax – and the price reductions that it has entailed – that we have made. They pay off more for those who live in the countryside, and also for farmers and for the transport sector.

I know that it is very important to keep these costs down, because they come back in several stages and drive inflation. Since the government took office with our support, it has been our goal to keep inflation down.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe it will become clear here what the difference is between the government and the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats when it comes to shaping society.

We say that it should be reasonable to have a good and meaningful life even if one does not live in large cities or metropolitan regions. People should be given the conditions for this in other parts of the country where one is more dependent on the car than one is in the metropolitan regions. Then it is about giving them the conditions to live with their car and to have a good life - and it should not involve unreasonable costs - without simultaneously doing so at the expense of the environment and the climate, so that they deteriorate. We believe in the possibility of doing both.

In the world, it seems that you do not care about the environment and the climate threat. The price for lowering the tax on fuels, on gasoline and on diesel can be as high as it wants to be.

I think this is reflected somewhat in the example that Per Söderlund, Sverigedemokraterna, himself brings up when he highlights transport. When it comes to the challenge for Transportsverige today, it is not primarily about lowering the tax on fuels. It is about transitioning so that transport becomes environmentally friendly, becomes part of the climate transition, and becomes growth-creating. Then it can rather be about upgrading the railway and ensuring that freight trains can pass through our entire country. It can be about moving freight from road to rail or, for example, to waterborne transport.

It is clear which different interests we represent in politics. The Sweden Democrats and the government stand on the side of the people who are already well off. You do not care about the environment. It must take the hit required for you to push through your politics. Opposed to this stands a responsible, climate-friendly and just alternative that, among others, we Social Democrats represent.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam President! Thank you, Niklas Karlsson, for an as always interesting and thought-provoking speech!

I agree with what Niklas Karlsson said about that welfare is there when we need it and that it is distributed according to need. But for there to be any welfare to distribute, someone must create that welfare. That is the part that is missing in Niklas Karlsson's speeches – I say speeches, because he misses it every time.

For example, he criticizes the Ica merchant, who surely, when he started the company, took large risks, borrowed against the family's home and made sacrifices. I do not believe for one second that the Ica cashier dislikes that it is going well for his employer. If it goes poorly, then both the Ica merchant and the Ica cashier will be without work.

Enough about this. I actually have a question for Niklas Karlsson.

In every Social Democratic budget motion in recent years, there has been talk of a readiness tax to finance the defense. This year's motion is no exception. There, it is mentioned, but without any other details than that this reinforcement shall be borne by those who have the best economic conditions.

When one has now heard that people who earn 65,000 a month are the pinnacle of wealth, one wonders: Is it they who are to pay the readiness tax and whom the Social Democrats consider to have the best economic conditions?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that the Moderaterna believe that welfare should be distributed according to need. The question is what it is worth when you cut back on welfare and it is no longer general and does not cover everyone. It is also about upholding principles and being prepared to finance welfare.

It is exactly as the Moderaterna say: resources are required for this. Then one can consider what it is that creates resources and creates growth in our country. Is it to give Member of Parliament Åberg further tax cuts, which the Member of Parliament can save, take a trip for, or buy something better to eat on a Friday night? I do not know.

The alternative is to use the money on welfare - to ensure that every child manages in school, that one can get a job when one comes out, and to invest in labor market training so that there is a workforce to hire for the companies that want to hire. In that way, one creates growth, general welfare, and conditions for everyone to succeed in life. It is also growth-creating.

That is the alternative we stand for. We want to make the cake grow, and we want to distribute it better. That is where the bourgeois side differs from the Social Democrats.

No, I do not object to the grocer making money. What I question is the principle that the grocer, who earns much more than the employed cashier, should pay less in tax than the one who is employed. I do not think that is fair. That is what I question, and I think that one should do it differently.

The same principle applies when we are now to finance the upgrading of the defense due to circumstances that we do not control and which we must adapt to. It is correct to invest in an increased defense, both military and civil, and then we must also be prepared to contribute to the best of our ability.

That is why we are introducing a readiness tax. If the Moderates share that view, we are prepared to discuss how such a tax could be designed. We can start here in the chamber foyer immediately after the debate if the member wishes.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to tax cuts for the member Åberg, the Social Democrats gave an even larger tax cut for both me and everyone else here in the chamber by abolishing the wealth tax. We thank them for that. So much for the Social Democrats' principles.

I believe that defense is one of the most important tasks for a country, and it is a pity and a shame that a country that has one of the highest tax levels in the world cannot prioritize defense. Instead of a readiness tax, we can get money by stopping all the frauds that have truly flourished under the Social Democrats' rule. They have not wanted to stop crime, and they have not wanted to stop an irresponsible, uncontrolled immigration.

In the Socialdemokraternas budget motion, one sees that it is particularly urgent to conduct a review of the taxation of capital, including the so-called 3:12 rules. Low-hanging fruits are the cap and an adjusted tax rate within the threshold.

I presume that Niklas Karlsson is aware that the 3:12 rules affect just over half a million companies which together employ 1.6 million people and that entrepreneurship involves great risk-taking. The owners invest very much in both work and capital.

I wonder if Niklas Karlsson and the Social Democrats are prepared to worsen the conditions for entrepreneurship and business.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In one respect, I agree with what Member Åberg presents from the rostrum of the Riksdag: Investments in defense are important. They are necessary. We live under such circumstances and in such a world that there is no alternative to us building up a people's defense again, both military and civil, and we shall do so together with others.

In turn, it means that the funding increases we are now seeing for the Armed Forces are of such a magnitude that that expenditure area will soon be the third largest in the state budget. If one is to be prepared to invest in it and finance it, it is not enough to talk about squeezing criminals, hunting tax evaders, or going after those who collude with grants. It is right and proper: Fraud is fraud and must be fought, everything from tax fraud to tax evasion and tax avoidance. On that, we are in complete agreement. But it will require resources on a completely different scale.

Then there are two alternatives. We can contribute to this together through, for example, a preparedness tax which shall primarily be paid by those who already have high incomes and large assets, which we consider reasonable and fair. If one does not want that, one must instead start prioritizing within the cake that the state already has, and then the question to the Moderaterna, the government, and the Sverigedemokraterna is: Who is it that is supposed to pay for that financing? Is it once again the sick, the unemployed, and the pensioners who are to make sacrifices and face cuts? Is it once again welfare that is to receive fewer resources so that we can upgrade the defense?

We believe and think that one should do both.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! It feels very good to debate the government's budget on the tax area. After two years of fiscal policy with full focus on combating inflation, we have reached the goal with that task. The inflation of 10 percent inherited from Magdalena Andersson's government is now down below the target of 2 percent.

Politics is truly the art of the possible, to quote Olof Palme. But it requires a proactive government, and it facilitates having a majority in the Riksdag. The battle won by the government against inflation has, in addition to a stabilization of the cost of living in general, also led to lowered interest rates to great relief for all who have mortgage loans but in the long run also for those who rent their housing.

Now the government's focus is on Sweden and the Swedes becoming both freer and wealthier. Sweden as a nation has a stable economy and, not least, a national debt that is very low in international comparison. Now it is a matter of pursuing a policy that also enables the Swedes as individuals to become wealthier.

Madam Speaker! Nowhere in the world are shares and equity funds as popular a form of savings as in Sweden. 3.6 million Swedes save in investment savings accounts. We can thank Gösta Bohman for that. It was the Moderate leader Gösta Bohman who, when he was Minister for Finance in the 70s, turned share savings into a mass movement. He realized the importance of private savings as an expression of security and individual freedom and introduced the so-called tax savings in 1978. It involved the possibility of setting aside a small part of each month's salary in equity funds, to withdraw the amount tax-free five years later. Subsequently, in 1984, the system was replaced by the similar allemanssparandet.

The Swedish people's ownership has been and still is important for Swedish companies. Shares in companies such as Electrolux, Volvo, ABB and Atlas Copco, which created the industrial miracle, are still traded on the stock exchange, together with shares for numerous other companies that create jobs and prosperity.

Therefore, the government's proposal to introduce a tax-free base level of 150,000 kronor on investment savings accounts next year and to raise it to 300,000 kronor the year after is a very good proposal that will stimulate and facilitate savings in funds and shares. Thereby, people's security and freedom are increased.

Madam Speaker! For several decades, Social Democratic governments have defended one of the world's highest tax burdens by arguing that the money goes to welfare and the security systems, and that the day one becomes ill or unemployed or needs help with their livelihood, the money is there.

But that is not quite right. When one falls into economic difficulties, one is forced to meet with case officers, turn one's finances inside out and get rid of everything of value in order to be eligible for, for example, financial assistance. One has to stand with one's hat in one's hand, and one's fate rests in the hands of someone else who judges whether one is eligible for help or not.

That is not the case when one has their own savings. Then one has created a security for oneself; one is simply freer. Not least, own savings is important for women who want to leave destructive relationships. Therefore, own savings should be encouraged.

Madam Speaker! I believe in social mobility. By getting an education, working hard and sacrificing, one should be able to secure a better life than one's parents had. The Social Democrats obviously no longer believe that. How else can one explain the anger that has been directed at the abolition of the tapering of the job tax credit?

In the Social Democratic budget motion, they write about the government's proposal that one "burns money on the rich." What then is burning money? Whose money is it? Do the money not belong to the one who has worked to earn them?

And who are the rich according to the social democratic rhetoric? Most are civil engineers, teachers, doctors, and specialist nurses. That is, not those who, on computer screens, move around other people's money, as one of the Social Democrats in the Committee on Taxation claimed recently in an interpellation debate.

It is, therefore, a question of people who go to work every day and work at least eight hours, often more, for their wages. It is not only morally justifiable that people should be allowed to keep at least half of their earned wages, but it is a matter of pure and simple decency. The opposite situation is directly immoral.

Madam Speaker! The Government has laid out a budget for increased growth. Increased growth is, in fact, the only path to prosperity. When the tapering of the job tax credit was introduced in 2016, economists warned that it would lead to affected groups working less, which would be harmful to productivity and thus to growth. That turned out to be an entirely true prediction.

Six years later, in 2022, the state Institute for Labour Market and Education Policy Evaluation conducted a study on the tapering of the job tax credit, which showed that those affected by the tapering had changed their behavior and started working less. It was quite logical. Why work more when one's efforts go up in smoke - sorry, in taxes?

In its referral response regarding the abolition of the tapering of the job tax credit, the aforementioned Institute for Labour Market and Education Policy Evaluation stated that the self-financing rate was higher than 100 percent, or in other words, that it would even lead to tax revenues. Let me repeat this once more. The abolition of the tapering of the job tax credit is estimated to lead to higher tax revenues.

Higher tax revenues mean more money for welfare, that is, more money for healthcare, school, care, infrastructure and other important things. And the higher tax revenues shall come exclusively from more hours worked, not from higher taxes for those who work.

And let me once again enlighten the tax-raising parties in the chamber that tax, by definition, means that society takes money from someone. We can be in complete agreement that to some extent it is necessary to finance some common affairs. But lowering the tax never means giving anything to anyone. It only means taking less. Therefore, stop talking about tax cuts as gifts to those who work - to those you call rich - or as a cost for the state. They are not.

Madam Speaker! I shall conclude with a quote by Gösta Bohman. Even though the quote is 50 years old, it can well be applied to what lies behind the government's budget: a budget for stronger defense, a budget for a functioning justice system, and a budget for growth.

"For us, freedom is central. No task is higher for us than to secure a future in freedom for our nation, for our people, and for all citizens of our country. A freedom against external coercion and internal guardianship. A freedom that gives every human being equal opportunities to develop as a citizen and as an individual."

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to tell you about Grönkullaskolan in Alvesta.

I visited Grönkullaskolan and met some of the school's students and the principal, who has worked for seven years to improve very poor school results. It is a school that has been hit hard by pedagogical segregation, as for many years they have placed teachers here whom no one else wanted at their school, where the children's parents are the least resourceful and have the worst conditions to complain loudly.

68 percent of the students at Grönkullaskolan live in child poverty. With active leadership from an experienced principal who has been committed to ensuring the recruitment of not only qualified but also engaged teachers, the school results have turned from very many students failing to read and write at a basic level to a large proportion now meeting the goals in all subjects. It is a fantastic development.

Collaboration with the church and other civil society organizations means that one can now offer snacks at this school. But the principal told about their student council, which had gathered and been allowed to wish for one thing. Do you know what it was? They unanimously wished for lunch at the school graduation so that one would not have to leave the school hungry on the last day.

Madam Speaker! So many students and children live in poverty. How can you then prioritize tax cuts for the very richest, Boriana Åberg?

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the still bright story!

With joint efforts and with someone who commits themselves, as in this case this principal, children whose parents probably cannot read or write - or at least cannot do so in Swedish - can learn to both read and write and have the opportunity to further their education and become something. That was what I mentioned. I believe in social mobility. I believe that people, regardless of what circumstances they have and from what circumstances they come, should be able to become what they want.

I remember a report in Sydsvenskan many, many years ago. They asked young people in Rosengård what they wanted to become, and the vast majority answered that they wanted to become rich. When they were asked the follow-up question, how did they answer: I want to play football. I want to become a rock star. I want to win the lottery. No one said: I am going to educate myself. I am going to work hard. I am going to start a company.

In Sweden, many still have not realized that one can become rich through one's own work. It is because parties like Annika Hirvonen's Miljöpartiet want to do everything to ensure that people who exert themselves and sacrifice should not have the right to the fruits of their labor.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Really skilled and committed principals and teachers can make an enormous difference with the resources they have, but it is not possible to do everything that needs to be done at the same time as municipality after municipality cuts back on schools.

At Grönkulla School, they now serve lunch at the school graduations, two days a year. But I asked the principal what would be needed for all these students that you are now engaging with to pass school and get the ticket they need for a good life, the ticket that prevents the gangs from succeeding in luring young people into criminal activities, the ticket that allows one to be proud and support oneself. She still answered that it is more teachers and that all children can have breakfast in the morning so that more demanding lessons can be held even on Monday mornings. That cannot be done today.

Now, with the government's proposal, the cuts in schools will continue to be a fact. Fewer students will have a student assistant who can ensure that they manage to learn to read. Fewer students can get an extra special education teacher or a teacher who has the time to sit down and help that specific child overcome their challenges and reach their potential.

It is about priorities in politics. The money is not enough for everything. In the Green Party's budget, we invest more in poor families with children, more in increased child allowance so that more children get breakfast in the morning, and more on welfare so that the schools do not cut back.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to turn to Annika Hirvonen and say that the two things are not in opposition to each other. The more people who work, the higher the tax revenues will be. Then you can invest more. And this principal who leads their school so exemplary surely has over 65,000 kronor a month. That is usually a principal's salary, at least in the constituency I come from.

Annika Hirvonen speaks about the municipalities' opportunities to invest, but the municipalities are actually independent. We have municipal self-government in Sweden. The municipality can examine how the money is used and perhaps prioritize in a different way if one believes that is what would create change.

When it comes to money for the municipal sector, I just want to say that SKR has concluded that by next year, pension costs for the municipal sector will decrease by 50 billion. These are funds that can be used for other purposes, and that would not have been the case if Miljöpartiet had been given the chance to fuel inflation.

Since this government took office, we have invested 43 billion in municipalities and regions, of which 16 billion is on increased permanent general government grants. And the single largest investment in the budget both this autumn and in 2024 is on welfare.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Let us talk a little bit about our respective political projects.

As a social democrat, I believe in the idea that one should contribute to people having a free and meaningful life and being able to realize their dreams and their innermost longings. This means that the pursuit of equality also becomes central in the political project, because it is about giving people the living conditions required to achieve this.

We are different. We have different circumstances, and different efforts and different support are required for people to be able to achieve this. This in turn means that in my idea of creating and building a society, the general welfare becomes central. To each according to their ability, to each according to their need - and everyone participates in financing.

If one wants to create a general welfare, which is comprehensive and makes people free by giving them the right conditions, depending on their life circumstances, one must also discuss how that project shall be financed. That is how we talk about tax. We talk about what we want to do, what society we want to create and how we shall express it.

When one listens to the Moderaterna in the parliamentary debates, one understands that in their world it is precisely the opposite. The common project shall be as small as possible. People should not have to give up parts of their income or assets; they are theirs and no one else's. What is common hardly exists. It is reduced to defense, the judiciary and police - the night-watchman state, the minimum. It is something completely different.

If one has that starting point, one understands why the government pursues the policy it does and lowers taxes for those with high incomes and large assets. It means that the journey you began two years ago has only just started. Then the questions become: Who will bear the upcoming tax cuts? What can we expect? Who will pay for them?

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! When one listens to Niklas Karlsson, a desire arises, which is not so realistic: One wants to give him some writings so that he can read up on moderate politics. What he says about us only investing in defense and police is, in fact, not true. On the other hand, it is true that we invest very much in defense, which is completely natural given the global situation we find ourselves in. And we invest very much in the police and other law enforcement agencies, because we have a situation in the country that the Social Democrats have been a very contributing cause of, with enormous crime and gangs that shoot both each other and innocent people. It is therefore correct that we invest in this.

But we are also investing in welfare. I will not repeat what I said in my previous reply to Annika Hirvonen, but investments in welfare have been the largest expenditure items both in the autumn budget and in the spring budget for 2024.

The abolition of the tapering of the job tax credit is also an investment in welfare. It is financed, and it will provide more money for welfare when people work more hours – when the doctor takes the extra shift and operates on a patient who can return to their workplace faster and begin living a better life.

The two conditions are therefore not in opposition to each other. We invest in growth by having more people work. That is simply how one creates welfare.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In more than two minutes, Boriana Åberg failed to sort this out. That is probably because the politics she represents is so thin.

Now the government chooses to use almost half of the reform space, 28 billion, to lower taxes, with a focus on those who already have high incomes and large assets. This is not the first major tax cut - we have seen it before. It was also done in the other budget bills. We can suspect that this journey will continue.

When one claims from the rostrum of the Riksdag that one can do both—implement large tax cuts for those who already have large assets while simultaneously investing in welfare—this is not true. One only needs to step outside the chamber of the Riksdag to see how reality manifests. Healthcare is in crisis. We have the highest unemployment in ten years. We have a school system that is insufficient. We have gang crime that is creeping further down in age.

It doesn't help. If one is to get this right, give the children the right conditions and have a healthcare system that is accessible and distributed according to need, one must be prepared to finance this. It is simply not possible to do both - and that shows in reality - regardless of how many writings on moderate policy Boriana Åberg thinks I should read.

The question therefore remains. With the direction that the government and the Sweden Democrats are now establishing, with large tax cuts focusing on those who already have large assets and high incomes, who is next in line? What tax cuts can we expect the Riksdag to have on its table? And above all, who is going to pay for them? Is it the children and young people who go to school? Is it the sick who will not receive the care they need? Is it the elderly who will not receive the secure old age they have a right to? Is it the unemployed, the sick, or the pensioners? Tell us about it, Boriana Åberg!

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! This government has stopped the inflation, which was 10 percent when we took over after the Social Democratic government. Unemployment was the second highest in all of Europe, even though the Social Democrats had promised that we would have the lowest unemployment as early as 2020.

I repeat once more: The tax base must be broadened. It is only by having more people working more hours that we get money for the welfare, and that results in more tax revenue. It cannot be a pyramid, where the top peak is supposed to pay more than half.

Perhaps the Social Democrats and Niklas Karlsson think that everything would become perfect if we had a tax pressure of 100 percent. But that is not the case. There are studies that show that if one does not receive the fruits of the extra work shift, one chooses not to take it. Time will prove who is right, because the Social Democratic policy has been tested over very many parliamentary terms.

When it comes to crises in regions, it was exactly the same when the Social Democrats were in power. It was exactly the same rhetoric. But then it was the regions' fault. Now that there are regions that have financial problems, it is the government's fault. We still have municipal and regional

self-government.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! There are many tax cuts in the government's budget proposal for 2025, but not for those who are ill or unemployed or have a disability that prevents them from taking a regular job.

In SVT's Frågan är fri, where Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson participated, 47-year-old Ellen tells that she has to borrow money from her mother to be able to buy food. Before tax, Ellen receives 12,163 kronor, and she asks the Prime Minister what he earns. The Prime Minister answers that he earns 190,000 kronor a month, and with a concerned expression, he says that he would wish that everyone earned enough to be able to live in a good way and that all the benefits that exist for people who cannot work must be high enough. But there is not enough money in total, says the Prime Minister.

But Ellen and everyone else who lives on unemployment insurance, activity compensation, or sickness benefit receive zero kronor in tax cuts, while Ulf Kristersson himself receives nearly 5,000 kronor a month in tax cuts. Other cabinet ministers receive almost 4,000 and we members of parliament receive about 1,500.

So, according to the right-wing government, there is enough money to lower taxes for high-income earners, but there is no money to increase compensation or lower taxes for those who cannot work. Or to use the Prime Minister's own words: There is not enough money in total for the compensations that exist for people who cannot work to be high enough.

But there are enough funds. It is a matter of priorities.

Just the removed tapering of the job tax credit for those who earn over 65,000 kronor a month costs the state budget 4.7 billion kronor. There is money for that. But to lower the tax or to increase the compensation for Ellen and everyone else in her situation, there is, according to the government and the supporting party, not enough money for. The Prime Minister forgot to say in his answer. There is not enough money for you, but there is enough money for us who already earn a lot. That is what the Prime Minister should have answered Ellen.

Overall, the government's tax cuts mean a rain of money for those with million-dollar incomes but significantly less for welfare and for the most vulnerable. In total, it concerns tax cuts of 34 billion kronor.

For next year, the government also announces an increased co-payment within the high-cost protection. The fee increase of 600 kronor is, of course, compensated for those of us who receive a tax cut, but for those who already today live on or below the margin, it will mean that they will be forced to choose between picking up necessary medicine, paying rent, and having food on the table. It has never been more expensive to live in Sweden than it is now.

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces several major challenges, all of which require public commitments. The defense needs to be upgraded, more police officers need to be hired, and the welfare system needs a recovery program. At the same time, we face a climate emergency that requires large state investments. In this situation, the government chooses to allocate half of the reform space to tax cuts. It is tone-deaf and unimaginative.

The tax cuts will not strengthen Sweden's competitiveness or increase employment. In the budget bill, it is clear whose interests the government represents, namely those of the well-off.

Vänsterpartiet does the opposite. In our budget, we ensure that the tax gap is closed for those who receive sickness and rehabilitation allowance, unemployment insurance, sickness and activity compensation, or parental allowance. This means lower taxes for groups with small economic margins.

SCB stated last week that around half a million people in Sweden live in material and social poverty. The proportion has increased from 2021 to 2023. The policy has entailed lowered taxes for high-income earners while low-income earners and those who have not succeeded in the labor market or cannot work have fallen behind. The gaps in our Sweden are increasing more and more. Sweden belongs to those OECD countries where economic inequality has increased the most since the mid-1980s.

That more and more people live in material and social poverty certainly pleases one or another bourgeois politician who counts on this poverty to force people into non-existent jobs. The government and the supporting party Sverigedemokraterna have, in fact, failed totally to stimulate the labor market. Now, they are also cutting back on labor market training.

Sweden today has the third largest unemployment in Europe, yet the government is pursuing a policy that aims to impoverish the sick so that they will choose non-existent work over sickness benefits. It is a policy that aims to impoverish the unemployed – as if it were a choice to be unemployed when the cause is actually the government's failed labor market policy with increasing unemployment as a result!

In the right-conservative logic, high-income earners work more if they receive more money, while low-income earners, the sick and the unemployed work more if they receive less money.

Madam Speaker! Climate change is an acute threat to humanity's future life possibilities. A comprehensive tax reform is needed 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. In the budget bill for 2025, the government proposes a reduction in petrol and diesel tax. Furthermore, the government proposes that the aviation tax should be abolished. To this should be added that the government abolishes the tax reduction for micro-production of renewable electricity, makes it cheaper to buy motorhomes with large climate emissions, and makes it more expensive to install solar cells.

The world is burning, but Sweden's government is increasing emissions.

Madam Speaker! It has been a real nightmare for municipalities and regions because the right-wing conservative government has not compensated them for inflation and other cost increases. The regions have had to cut staff. In my region, for example, they are closing departments, raising bus prices, and no longer prescribing expensive medicine.

The cuts within the regions are estimated to total approximately 5,000 employees this year, mainly within healthcare, and the cuts are expected to continue next year. The right-wing majority's contribution to the regions does not cover the need for either 2024 or in the budget for 2025. In August this year, there were nearly 180,000 people waiting for a measure or an operation within healthcare. Half had waited longer than the care guarantee's 90 days. The waiting times are unlikely to become shorter next year when the right-wing majority chooses to lower taxes for high-income earners instead of securing good healthcare and care.

High earners can buy their way past the healthcare queues through private health insurance and also receive lower taxes on both their income and their savings. The class society is reinforced and deepened in the new Sweden, with large gaps, an increasing proportion of billionaires, and an increasing proportion of people living in material and social poverty.

A radical realignment of the economic policy is needed.

Vänsterpartiet therefore submits proposals for increased taxes on capital income, inheritance, gifts, and real estate etc. as funding for investments in welfare, crime fighting, social insurance, and housing and infrastructure funding, as well as reduced tax for those who earn the least. In this way, we increase equality while simultaneously strengthening welfare and building Sweden stronger in a world of harsh global competition.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the Left Party's reservations.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Government is now laying the foundation for new growth. We must deliver and invest in that which builds Sweden, so that we become a strong and secure country again and ensure that our children and grandchildren can live a rich and better life in Sweden.

This is the third budget that this government is presenting. It differs from the previous ones. After two restrained budgets, where the fight against inflation has been the most important, it is now structural reforms and getting Sweden moving that is what is important.

Madam Speaker! It is our proposals that create growth. It is primarily the companies that generate a stronger welfare. The budget we present today is about exactly this, to create a growth environment so that companies across the country have better conditions to succeed.

For the Christian Democrats, it is important to strengthen welfare here and now. But we must also do what is required to strengthen competitiveness, jobs, and welfare in the future. The Government is therefore presenting historically large investments in infrastructure and research in two upcoming propositions.

More people shall be covered by the experts tax. The salary level required to receive tax relief is lowered. This creates better conditions for companies to attract and retain international key competence. Through research and innovations, we develop Sweden and Swedish companies, which can employ more people.

Madam Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, the freedom of the family and the individual is central. Therefore, we welcome the proposals for reduced tax on work, pension, and savings. Strengthening households' purchasing power is crucial - not least for families with children and pensioners, who have been hit hard by the effects of inflation. Therefore, we extend the special housing allowance that goes to families with children, especially single mothers, who have the smallest margins.

We in KD also emphasize the importance of measures to support the economy that reach out to the entire country, especially to the countryside, where higher transport costs affect the everyday lives of many families. By lowering fuel taxes, we enable more people to live in the whole country.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats prioritize welfare. We do this by paving the way for more people's opportunity for self-sufficiency and by letting individuals' diligence and work pay off. It is and remains tax revenues, not tax rates, that finance welfare. Tax revenues do not arise out of thin air; they arise when people work and pay tax. When people enter the workforce, choose to work more, or educate themselves to get a good job with a good salary, tax revenues increase.

We have already heard the opposition claim that the choice lies between tax cuts and welfare. But the previous S-led government raised some taxes, and yet welfare did not improve. On the other hand, the future of welfare is threatened if we do not get growth moving.

Madam Speaker! Exclusion is a dead end, and its destructive passivity must be broken. Children who are forced to see their parents sitting at home year after year instead of going to a job never learn to understand what social cohesion means. The tax and benefit systems must therefore encourage work and employment. It is not just about economics but equally about the individual's self-respect. Therefore, the job tax credits are important. The Christian Democrats and the government continue to build bridges from exclusion to self-sufficiency. Only in that way is the social contract and the functioning social cohesion restored.

Madam Speaker! As a resident of Scania, I must express great joy today. Today we are making a decision on a new tax agreement between Sweden and Denmark, the so-called Öresund Agreement. It shall create better conditions for everyone who lives and works in the region. The cooperation between Sweden and Denmark is crucial - not only for the labor market but also for social cohesion and the quality of life for the inhabitants.

The Christian Democrats have always championed a policy that simplifies people's lives and gives them the freedom to choose how they want to live and work. The new Öresund Agreement is a step towards reducing the border barriers that have for a long time created frustration, but we must also look forward and ensure that the integration between the countries can continue. It contributes to people's freedom in the Öresund region. It is a region where families can feel security, companies can grow, and every individual gets the opportunity to contribute to both Sweden's and Denmark's best. It is our responsibility to build bridges - not only of steel and concrete but also of trust and cooperation - for a future where borders do not hinder but unite.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats share the government's goal to strengthen Sweden's economy and security. A policy that puts the human being, the family, and the local community at the center is the best way forward.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In recent days, it has been reported how multi-resistant E. coli bacteria are becoming increasingly common. E. coli are common in urinary tract infections. They now risk becoming very difficult or, in the worst case, impossible to treat with the antibiotics we have available.

We stand as societies facing many existential threats. This concerns nuclear weapons and climate change, but one issue that receives far too little attention is antibiotic resistance. I pose the question to the Christian Democrats because you are responsible in the government for healthcare and health issues, but also for agricultural policy.

We in Miljöpartiet take this threat seriously, and therefore we have a proposal in our budget regarding an antibiotic tax on meat. The fact is that the majority of all antibiotics today are given to healthy animals. Swedish farmers, just like those in many of our neighboring countries, are among the best in the world at reducing antibiotic use and not giving antibiotics to healthy animals. But in a report from SVA, we see how resistant E. coli bacteria in livestock are very common in the countries that also have all too high antibiotic use.

We need tax steering funds to tackle this health risk. I am therefore wondering if the Christian Democrats are open to considering an antibiotic tax.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Annika Hirvonen for the question!

Multiresistant bacteria is not exactly my area of expertise, I can admit. However, I truly think that our Swedish farmers make a fantastic effort every day with an animal husbandry that is a model for many others. They show through their way of managing it today that it can actually work even without giving antibiotics to their animals.

I am afraid that Miljöpartiet wants to come in and control the farmers who are doing the right thing and are skilled. I do not think that targeting them would help anyone and, above all, not against multi-resistant bacteria.

I believe that Sweden is a pioneer country within agriculture, and we must safeguard that in every way. I do not believe that a meat tax is the right way to go.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is probably okay not to be an expert on multi-resistant bacteria, but if Cecilia Engström had read the Miljöpartiets proposal regarding the part we are now debating, she would have known that a tax on antibiotics would be very good for Swedish farmers. It would namely mean that the competitive advantage that the imported meat has, because the animals have been treated much worse than Swedish farmers do and have had to over-use antibiotics, would decrease. It would become fairer, and I think that is something we also need to work for.

Swedish farmers are at the forefront in many different ways compared to their international competitors. One way to benefit Swedish farmers is to level the playing field.

Those who overuse antibiotics and in that way risk making multi-resistant bacteria more common will then face a higher price tag than the Swedish farmers who produce meat with much higher animal welfare and dramatically less antibiotics than what is used both in most EU countries and globally. An antibiotic tax on meat would therefore be both a health gain and benefit Swedish farmers.

We in Miljöpartiet have several other proposals in our budget, for example, agricultural deductions to provide support to farmers. We see right now that profitability is very low, despite the fact that food prices have gone up. Those profits have not ended up with the farmers.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the floor. For us Christian Democrats, Sweden's farmers are an important part of our Swedish countryside and for the whole country to be able to live. Swedish farmers have an advantage in that they are loyal to their way of working. I believe that many countries in Europe would need to learn from Swedish farmers how to have good animal husbandry and in that way reduce multi-resistant bacteria in the meat and in society otherwise.

I believe that Sweden should be a leading country and show other countries how it can be done rather than that we should punitively tax someone. I do not think that is a good way. I believe instead that we as consumers can make a good choice, and I believe it is important that we learn that. It is we as consumers who make a choice and who also show what is good for Sweden's farmers.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to move for the approval of our reservation, so that it may be implemented.

Centerpartiet is not like other parties. Some would surely say, with a certain saltiness in their mouth, that our party constitutes the narrow middle. And yes, why not? In the polarized political landscape, we balance on the edge between two extremes. That is one way to look at it.

Another way is to realize that the traditional left-right scale does not quite easily capture the essence of the Center Party's political identity. The Center Party's voters are found across large parts of the left-right scale, but they are united by a strong belief in the human being, partly as the engine in a growing green economy, and partly as fellow human beings who help each other in vulnerable situations.

The short version is that we lean to the right in economic policy and to the left in social policy.

Madam Speaker! I intended, from a tax policy perspective and our alternative to the state budget, to try to describe the Center Party's identity and societal ambitions. We will touch upon the labor market, integration, and energy.

Our starting point is the human being - every human being as a unique person, every human being as an opportunity, and every human being as a vital part of something larger, something great. Every human being shapes society, not the other way around. It is our identity. It is about decentralization, decision-making, accountability, and entrepreneurship. It is the forest owner who best makes decisions about forestry. In the same way, it is the researcher who best directs their research. Property rights and academic freedom are part of our identity.

Madam Speaker! One can imagine a local community. It could be a village in the countryside, a football team, a book club, a work team at a regional hospital, a law firm, or perhaps a housing cooperative. In the local community, we see each other. We see each other's strengths and weaknesses. Everyone is good at something, but no one is good at everything. Everyone can develop, and the local community can grow in quality.

We see that the freedom of all gives strength, but we also see that freedom must be met by an equally large dose of responsibility. Freedom always comes with responsibility. We see that everyone must do their part, but we also see that if someone suffers in the village, hurts themselves in the football team, or loses their spark in the work team, we others are there for our fellow human being - the individual in the collective, the collective for the individual.

Madam Speaker! Among the worst things we can do in a local community, both for the individual and for the community as a whole, is to marginalize someone. How can we grow economically and socially if we marginalize people?

Madam Speaker! Unemployment is rising in Sweden. More and more people are being left out of the labor market. In 2025, Sweden is predicted to have the third highest unemployment in the EU. While unemployment has fallen in the EU on average over the last two years, it has turned upwards in Sweden, and it is not expected to fall back significantly in 2026. Unemployment in many European countries is now considerably lower than in Sweden, in several cases half as high.

In Sweden today, we marginalize people, build thresholds and obstacles. This is wrong in many ways. We need a tax policy that lowers thresholds both from the individual's side and from the companies' side.

Madam Speaker! Swedish integration policy is a historical failure. In short, we place people who have left their home country in rental apartments, with subsidies and high thresholds to jobs.

When you think about it, it is not strange that parallel societies become a more attractive choice than a society that shuts people out. We see it in school, with a grading system where 20,000 students fail and are shut out from society. We see it on the labor market. We see it in the limited supply of education that leads to jobs.

The core idea in Swedish integration policy seems to be to place people in passivity. It is far from the view of humanity that constitutes the Center Party's identity. It is, if we compare it with the ideal image of a functioning local community, the total opposite of how it should be. People as opportunities and potential imply freedom, responsibility, a job, and being able to become part of the work team or the law firm, not sitting with benefits in a rental apartment.

Madam Speaker! To reduce unemployment, improve integration and give people a chance to take responsibility, we propose a package of measures in our budget motion.

Firstly, the Centre Party argues that it is necessary to lower the costs of hiring if we are to be able to reverse the unemployment crisis. Therefore, in our budget motion, we propose a very powerful reduction of the employer contributions on entry-level wages, that is, up to 27,000 kronor. The reduction shall be permanent, and in this way, we reach both young people who have difficulty entering the labor market and people who are entering from unemployment and social exclusion.

Secondly, since four out of five new jobs are created within small businesses, we need to focus right there and sharpen the Swedish growth engine. Much of the job creation in small companies is weighed down by the high fixed costs for the first employees. This is unfortunate as these small growing companies house many of the entrepreneurs who, on a small and large scale, renew Swedish business life. Therefore, we want to powerfully lower the tax for the smallest companies as an effective way to increase growth, improve integration, and break the high unemployment. We propose ten tax-free employees, i.e., that companies are exempt from the employer contribution for the first ten employees, for two years.

Thirdly, the Center Party has long advocated for income tax cuts to encourage more people to move from benefits to jobs and so that more people have incentives to work more hours and fill the acute skills shortage that exists in large parts of the Swedish economy.

We must lower the threshold from the individual's perspective. For the very lowest wages, which can serve as an entry point to the labor market on full-time or part-time, the Center Party's tax cut is more than ten times as large as the government's. It will have major effects on employment, not least for the individual.

Madam Speaker! Let us move on to energy policy. Right before our eyes, perhaps the greatest failure of our time is unfolding. We are going to move from a belief in the market, in human capabilities, and in entrepreneurship to a planned economy model where the state shall force in an old technology at any cost.

The Tidögänget is currently constructing a gigantic reverse printing press. Without creating any extra value compared to the market's alternatives, the tax collective shall pour in money. That is the idea. I am, of course, talking about the nuclear power policy and the financing of the same.

When the Finance Committee held an open hearing last week with some external experts from the financial market, the energy market, and academia, it became almost glaringly obvious how incredibly wrong the government is. Tax-financed electricity production would lay a wet blanket over all the initiatives that currently exist in the electricity market.

With the government's model, there will be no investments in land-based wind power, offshore wind power, energy storage, combined heat and power, gas turbines or flexibility technologies. The list can be long. A wet blanket - there will be no green transition in industry, because investments in the electricity system are paralyzed. There will be no reduced carbon emissions in Sweden.

A giant reverse printing press, without creating any extra value compared to the market's alternatives, I said. But in fact, it is actually worse. It is even a giant reverse printing press with negative values compared to the market's alternatives. So we cannot have that.

With the Center Party's identity – faith in the human being – the energy policy would have had the task of setting up societal rules of the game, for example climate goals, security of supply goals and consumer price goals. And it would be the market's task to meet these rules of the game, that is, the people in all companies on the energy market, those who know something about the matter.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party believes in the human being, in markets, in entrepreneurship, in abilities, and in caring for one another. Our tax policy orientation takes its starting point in this identity. We want to use the tax instrument to lower thresholds in the labor market and shape a society where everyone can participate and contribute. We want to use the tax instrument to release the power of small business, for the benefit of all of us who live and work in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Nearly 50 years ago, in March 1976, one of the most famous texts ever published in a Swedish newspaper was released: Pomperipossa i Monismanien. In the text, Astrid Lindgren described the result of what Göran Persson, many years later, on the occasion of Astrid Lindgren's death, called an abnormality in the tax brackets, which forced her to pay 102 percent in marginal tax.

As is well known, the tale ends with Pomperipossa not writing any more books and, to quote Astrid Lindgren, "so lived the social-supported Pomperipossa happily all her days".

Madam Speaker! This saga teaches us a pedagogical lesson about what we could call the Pomperipossa effect, that is to say, that high taxes lead to a loss for both society and the individual.

A couple of years before Astrid Lindgren wrote her famous saga, the economist Arthur Laffer explained more technically what this loss entails with the help of the so-called Laffer curve: that tax revenues decrease because the tax base shrinks when a certain tax level is passed.

A number of economists have repeatedly shown that Sweden's highest marginal tax rate is higher than what can be justified by the Laffer curve, with significant welfare losses as a result. In their opinion, our country is on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, that is to say, we have passed the point where tax increases on high incomes cease to lead to increased tax revenues.

The negative impact of the high level of marginal tax on the tax base was also documented in a 2022 report published by the Institute for Labour Market and Education Policy Evaluation. Three experts had studied the effect of the tapering of the job tax credit that was introduced in 2016 and which is now to be removed following demands from the Liberalerna.

The conclusion in the report is that the increased marginal tax had "a significant negative effect on earned income." Furthermore, the following can be read: "Our results suggest that the highest marginal taxes today are at a level where further increases risk reducing, rather than increasing, tax revenues."

In this context, it is important to remind that the report authors appreciate that the effective marginal tax, that is, if one also includes the employer contribution and indirect taxes, is over 70 percent. To keep less than 30 kronor of 100 newly earned kronor is problematic, not only from a short-term revenue-maximizing perspective, as one works less than one otherwise would, but also from a long-term growth perspective, because it reduces the incentives to educate oneself further.

In this context, it is worth pointing out that Sweden's education premium, that is, the economic return of further education, is particularly low. According to OECD's Education at a Glance 2024, the Swedish education premium, together with Norway's and Denmark's, are the lowest among all of the organization's member countries if one compares how much more a person who has studied at university earns in comparison with those who have only studied at upper secondary school.

The Swedish level is at 25 percent. This should be compared with, for example, the OECD average of 56 percent and with Ireland's premium of 72 percent. In real money, with the same purchasing power, the income for an Irish woman who invests in higher education increases 2.5 times more than it does for a Swedish woman. For the men, the difference is even greater: a full 5 times.

Madam Speaker! It is about dramatically large differences. But do these differences play any role for the actual will to pursue further education or for different countries' growth potential? Can there be any connection between this and Ireland's extraordinary growth capacity? Could this have something to do with the fact that Sweden has less than half as many graduates per 1,000 people between 20 and 29 years old in so-called STEM subjects – natural sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics – as Ireland has? Does it have something to do with the fact that Sweden ranks 32 out of OECD's 39 countries regarding the proportion of graduates of university students in STEM subjects?

Can this help us explain the paradox that a country like Sweden, which occupies a prominent position in terms of innovation, cannot translate this into more dynamic economic growth?

It is however not only the high income taxes that hinder our growth capacity. The corporate tax is another important example. The Irish tax level of 12.5 percent for the vast majority of companies should be guiding for a tax reform that makes us more competitive within this area, which is so important in the long run.

Madam Speaker! Those who deny these long-term negative effects of our tax system or do not care about this do not care about Sweden's future either.

This is what the tax-raising parties do. They seem to let themselves be guided by only one thought: to deprive the citizens of as many resources and thus as much power over their own life choices as possible. This is an aspect that is often overlooked in our tax debates, but shifting the power over our life choices from the individual to the politicians is what taxation ultimately means. It can be necessary in some cases, not least to ensure everyone a basic welfare and a good start in life, but it must not be converted into a tool in the politicians' hands to generally direct the citizens' consumption.

The Social Democrats already chose in the 1930s the path of socializing consumption instead of the old Marxist idea of socializing the means of production. Since then, this has been the party's ideological guiding star. Even more so has it been for fringe parties such as Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, who are prepared to drive this pursuit to the point of absurdity. It is enough to look at these two parties' proposed tax increases in their budget motions to realize how far they are prepared to drive their confiscatory zeal.

Madam Speaker! In order to justify this hunger for taxes, two arguments are often used that many see as a kind of axiom. The first argument is that it would be necessary to create a more equal society. The second is that it would be the price to be able to obtain a welfare of the highest class.

The equality argument can easily be dismissed by comparing Sweden's Gini coefficient with typical developed low-tax countries such as Switzerland, Japan, and Ireland. If the argument were to hold, these countries would exhibit a significantly higher Gini coefficient - which is the most commonly used measure of inequality - than what Sweden exhibits, but that is not the case at all.

Madam Speaker! Let me move on to the second argument, namely that high taxes are a condition for being able to achieve a good welfare state. It is the tax-hike parties' eternal litany, which many have accepted as if it were a self-evident truth. But is there really evidence for such a claim? It is a fundamental question, and therefore it is justified to discuss it a bit more closely.

In a report recently presented, Stefan Fölster and Nima Sanandaji report a long series of welfare indicators regarding the labor market, health status, school results, and social exclusion. They show that developed countries with significantly lower taxes than Sweden perform better than Sweden in most relevant respects. This is the case when it comes to, for example, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand. The report's conclusion is that low-tax countries on average have succeeded in delivering better welfare with less tax money and that particularly some low-tax countries have succeeded exceptionally well with welfare.

Furthermore - and this is no trifle - the developed low-tax countries perform better regarding economic growth, while the high-tax countries have tended to underperform in this regard.

Madam Speaker! I have problematized much of what we often believe about our taxes, not least in relation to the welfare we receive for our tax money. It is time to realize that we do not live in the best of worlds and that our social systems are not superior to many other countries. Today we are not exceptional regarding growth or welfare but rather mediocre, if I may put it bluntly.

This is the grim truth, which we must not repress if we wish to continue to live in the fairy tales' delightful but also dangerous world.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is a terrifying experience as an opposition politician from the Green Party in the Riksdag to see how the Tidö Government is totally wrecking Sweden's climate transition policy. In connection with the latest climate summit, we saw how Sweden's climate policy has fallen from the world's top - from second place in the world, after the neighboring country Finland - to 44th place in the ranking.

We noted early in the term that electric car sales plummeted when the government abolished the bonus for new electric cars. Since then, we have seen how reform after reform in the climate area has been cut or abolished. Regarding the reduction obligation, the government performed a bit of a plateau and a U-turn at the same time when it was finally realized what enormous fines Sweden would risk having to pay because the country is not living up to what the countries in the EU have agreed upon.

It is also terrifying to see how the consequences of the government's climate policy are propagating out into the business sector and how companies are revising their forecasts for when they will reach the climate goals, for example when Volvo is to fulfill its climate goals. We see how companies that have received all the approvals for new wind power at Kriegers flak, where new electricity would have been needed most, are pausing because the government has changed the regulatory framework for connection to the power grid.

This will have consequences. Future generations will have to pay the bill because the government here and now instead chooses to make it cheaper to emit. Large sums of money are being invested in lowering the price of emissions from fossil energy. They make the use of gasoline and diesel cheaper instead of supporting the households that would need support to be able to transition and become fossil-free. Instead of facilitating things for the poorest families with children, the government chooses to only facilitate things for those who drive fossil and for those who are the wealthiest.

We in Miljöpartiet show with our budget that another path is possible. We show that it is possible to support the households - both in cities and in rural areas - that need it most without it leading to increased emissions. For example, we have a proposal for a leasing check for households with low incomes that allows one to switch from driving a fossil fuel car to driving fossil-free and furthermore do so in a way that can lower the costs for the car. We lower the price of public transport through a Sverigekort, which also becomes redistributive because the highest prices for public transport today are more often in those parts of Sweden where public transport is actually sparsest.

We have a policy that strengthens families living in rural areas with a tax deduction that amounts to a total of 4,000 kronor per year. In that way, we provide a targeted support without going through increased emissions.

In our budget, Madam Speaker, we take responsibility for one of the greatest challenges that our generation is set to handle: the climate transition. We realize that we need to make large investments in our common infrastructure here and now to make Sweden stronger, while simultaneously managing the climate transition.

All of you who travel by train have noticed that large investments in the railway network are required. We see a government that instead prioritizes tax cuts for the richest.

All over our country, companies are ready to make this climate transition. Just as Sweden has historically been a leader in making major technological shifts, the Swedish business community has the opportunity to do so now as well.

On Monday, several of my colleagues visited a factory in Ludvika that produces the technology that allows us to stabilize the power grid with renewable energy. The government says that the technology does not exist in Sweden, and that is a truth with modifications. It is made in Ludvika and exported to other countries. But in Sweden, we do not yet use this technology that is manufactured here. Instead, the government chooses to lay a wet blanket over this renewable future technology when it begins to speak of gigantic subsidies for one type of power: nuclear power. Even though it lies far in the future, it affects the willingness to invest here and now in an incredibly negative way. It could have consequences for electricity bills, not least in southern Sweden, already in the coming years. Then I hope the government realizes its mistake and does not just come with tips about using wool base layers, even though I certify that it is, of course, a good idea.

We in Miljöpartiet see that the climate transition is a collective political responsibility. It cannot be solved solely by individuals or consumer power. As an individual and consumer, it is not possible to personally lay the tracks for the new main lines, and no matter how much one tries to book tickets on SJ, it is not possible. We must make these investments collectively.

Then there are some alternatives. Either we invest together now in the infrastructure that will last over time and ensure that the generations who use the railway pay off the loan, or we say: No, no, we cannot borrow for the investments in the climate transition, as that must occur at the expense of the welfare. Here, in Miljöpartiet, we want to warn that if one instead chooses that path and says that we cannot borrow for the climate transition, one risks either that we do not meet the climate goals and the climate transition in time, or that the price is paid by the students who go to our schools here and now, that there will be cuts in the municipalities on schools or that the care queues become longer.

We in Miljöpartiet do not accept this. The transition that needs to happen now must be carried out in a way that ensures we reach the climate goals but without it coming at the expense of welfare. Therefore, we need to change the fiscal framework so that we can make these investments. We propose that one simply borrows for climate investments corresponding to 1 percent of the budget.

Madam Speaker! In addition to the climate challenge, we face an enormous challenge regarding equality in Sweden.

Major cuts are being made to welfare across the country, not least in schools, and it is very worrying. If we save on the students in school now, the price tag will be even larger in the future. We have chosen to prioritize welfare over making large tax cuts for those who have the most.

It is distressing that the Sweden Democrats and the government are making the largest investment in the budget on lowering taxes for those who already have the most, while we see how the queues for the Stadsmissionen and Red Cross food distribution are growing across Sweden. It is no longer just the homeless and drug users who stand in these food queues. Now it is also people who work but who still cannot make ends meet. They are not the ones who will receive large tax cuts, because they do not have such high wages – on the contrary. Single parents with low incomes who work cannot make ends meet in the everyday life with higher food prices that we face. We need to raise the child allowance and the housing allowance for families with children instead of lowering them.

These are some of the major challenges that we in Miljöpartiet face with our budget proposal. I therefore wish to move for the approval of our reservation.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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