The State Budget 2026 - The Framework Decision

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of the proposal in the Committee on Finance's report on this mandate period's final state budget. We Moderates, together with our coalition partners the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals, present a jointly financed proposal for the state budget where we solve real problems for Sweden. We make Sweden richer, safer, and more secure. Step by step and budget by budget, we have done this work.

Just as in all previous years during this parliamentary term, our joint budget proposal, which has the majority in this chamber and among the Swedish people, is set against four split proposals from the opposition, that is to say: The four opposition parties have not at any point during the parliamentary term been able to agree on a common economic policy. Not even for the final budget of this parliamentary term do they do so. It is a bit difficult to know what they want to do together.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the Sweden that the Moderates and the Tidö parties took over in the autumn of 2022. Despite a global boom, the Social Democrats left behind a Sweden with low growth, high inflation, and high unemployment. Inflation was over 10 percent, Madam Speaker. It hit Swedish households hard, but also hit companies. Everything became more expensive, and the money did not go as far as before. The interest rates on housing loans for everyone who owned their home skyrocketed, and for those who rented, the high prices came a year later.

Fighting inflation also became the first priority in the government position for our parties, and this we succeeded in together with the Riksbank and the labor market partners. Prices are no longer skyrocketing, interest rates are lower, and now growth also appears to be gaining serious momentum.

When our government took office, a liter of diesel cost 28 kronor and 50 öre. We had, Madam Speaker, in practice the world's highest fuel prices. With a combination of high taxes and a completely unreasonable reduction obligation, Swedish households that were dependent on the car had to spend a large part of their household budget just on refueling. It also hit companies that were dependent on transport.

Now we have lowered the reduction obligation, and we have lowered the fuel taxes. Diesel is now over 10 kronor cheaper per liter, and even gasoline is significantly cheaper. It is 500–600 kronor cheaper per refueling today compared to when Magdalena Andersson was Prime Minister.

In the name of better knowledge, the red-green parties also laid down fully functioning nuclear power, by a margin of one vote in this chamber. I was here, and I remember how the red-green parties applauded. We warned beforehand, and we got the result afterwards: high and volatile electricity prices and unpredictability for both households and companies.

We saw articles when we took office about how ordinary Swedish households would no longer be able to afford to stay in their houses if electricity prices continued to be so high. The red-green parties simply destroyed the world's best and most climate-smart energy system with their political decisions.

We have from day one done everything to get a lot of effect out of the electricity system we have left. From Swedish energy policy being based on the Green Party's pipe dreams, we have now begun to ground it on the laws of physics and engineering knowledge. We have begun the work of rebuilding new nuclear power. It will be possible to have cheap and predictable electricity prices in Sweden again.

The shootings and explosions escalated during the previous Social Democratic government. Gross organized crime was allowed to gain an ever stronger foothold in Sweden without necessary measures being implemented. Serious murders could result in a few years of youth care. It was a betrayal of both the victims and society. We have now tightened the penalties and invested in the police and the entire justice chain.

From having an annual budget of 60 billion kronor, we will now, starting from next year, spend more than 95 billion per year on the Swedish justice system. It yields results, Madam Speaker. Shootings and explosions are decreasing. There is still much left to do, but we have begun the journey toward it becoming better. It is not only this that has succeeded, but we have also put in place legislation that allows us to take the money from the criminals. We take their cars, and we take their watches. It shall not pay to be a criminal in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! If we are to build a Sweden for the future, we also need to invest in Sweden. That is why, during this parliamentary term, we have presented the largest infrastructure budget since the main lines were built. We are building new and renovating both roads and railways.

If companies are to stand strong in the global competition, we also need investments in education and research. Therefore, we have presented the largest research budget ever in Sweden. Thus, we build Sweden richer.

Madam Speaker! Russia's war against Ukraine shows that we no longer live in an era of peace. We have invested enormous resources in defense, and at the same time, we maintain strong public finances. In other Nato and EU countries, we see political division and budgets that are undergoing a baptism of fire.

I would like to, Madam Speaker, extend a big thank you to all the parties in the Riksdag for that we have had both constructive and good conversations when it comes to achieving a unified and broad initiative on defense and also on the support for Ukraine. Eight of the Riksdag's eight parties stand behind these two fundamental parts, in order to safeguard Swedish security. It is a strength that few other countries can exhibit. This, Madam Speaker, is Swedish democracy when it is at its best.

If we are to be able to finance an expanded defense in the long term, achieve better welfare, and ensure that every person in our country gets more money in their pocket, we must have economic growth in Sweden. This requires entrepreneurs and business owners who are free to develop their ideas, who are met by service-oriented authorities, who are not hindered by forms and bureaucracy, and who do not pay unreasonably high taxes in Sweden compared to other countries. Then the companies will be able to grow in Sweden.

It is remarkable that the Social Democrats claim to want to see economic growth but at the same time constantly present proposals to worsen conditions for companies. Last year, they wanted to abolish the Simplification Council. Last week, they criticized us Moderates for pushing forward for the EU's large regulatory simplification package. Now, they also want to see increased taxes on work and entrepreneurship.

They also want to worsen ISK, one of the most successful reforms ever in that area. ISK enables hard-working Swedes to have the opportunity to save, perhaps for the first apartment or to get a slightly better pension. At the same time as the Swedish people save, companies also receive risk-tolerant capital. This has been a rare happy combination with few counterparts in our global environment. That Swedes save in stocks and funds is a success story. The rest of the world looks enviously at Sweden when it comes to this.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates have for decades fought for lower taxes. We have fought for all those who build Sweden, every single person who sets the clock, gets up in the morning and goes to work. That is what builds Sweden strong. It contributes to the fact that we can have a top-class welfare, that children can receive an education, that the sick can receive care, that we have roads to drive on and that we have a defense that protects us against those who do not wish us and our neighbors well.

When people go to work, they probably do not do it primarily to pay tax for all of this. They do it because they want to build their own lives richer and ensure that their own dreams can be fulfilled for themselves and perhaps for their family. We Moderates are always proud of fighting every day for all hard-working people and ensuring that they get to keep as much as possible of their salary while at the same time we must be able to afford the common good.

We see now that the budget that is on the table today and which will hopefully receive the Riksdag's approval this afternoon means 1,800 kronor more per month for an ordinary, hard-working family in Sweden. After these four years, Madam Speaker, the same family will have 5,000 kronor more left in their wallet when the tax is paid compared to when we entered this mandate period.

We are also lowering the electricity tax by nearly 20 percent next year.

The first 300,000 SEK on an ISK will become tax-free in order to encourage people to start saving.

A pensioner will have a food basket that is approximately 4,400 kronor cheaper next year, because we are also lowering the food VAT.

A regular diesel tank is, as I said, Madam Speaker, 500–600 kronor cheaper at every refueling. That makes a difference.

Madam Speaker! As stated, the four opposition parties have once again presented four different budget proposals. Magdalena Andersson fails to unite the red-green parties ahead of the election, but if one reads the four budget proposals side by side, the picture still becomes quite clear: If the red-green parties win the next election, a spree of tax increases awaits.

There will be higher taxes on wages. There will be higher taxes on pensions. There will be higher taxes on savings in ISK. There will be higher taxes on gasoline. There will be higher taxes on diesel. There will be higher taxes on holiday trips. Mortgage loans will become more expensive. There will be no travel deduction. The list can be made long. It will be a frenzy of tax increases, Madam Speaker.

Furthermore, they write about a broadened tax base. Those of us who know, we know what is hidden behind this. It is wealth tax, inheritance and gift tax, and property tax – taxes that we know are bad for the economy and the economy's development.

For the companies, higher employer contributions, higher taxes for small companies, and a good deal of other things are also waiting.

If the red-greens' budget proposal were an advent calendar, Madam Speaker, there would be tax hikes behind every door. The red-green parties' combined policy would mean around 80 billion kronor in increased taxes at a time when we actually need to stimulate the Swedish economy. At a time when Sweden needs higher growth and lower unemployment, they want to raise the tax on labor and make it more expensive to hire. It is simply irresponsible.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, Magdalena Andersson and the Socialdemokraterna are being sloppy with their budget. There is a lack of 50 billion kronor in funding, so they must either raise taxes even more or betray the promises they have made to the voters. Both are not possible when one is sloppy.

Madam Speaker! On January 1, it is the anniversary. That is when the tenth job tax deduction since 2007 will become a reality. These are much-needed tax cuts for hard-working people. For an ordinary nurse, the ten job tax deductions will mean that one gets 4,400 kronor more left in the wallet every month when the tax is paid.

This has been a reform that has moved power from politicians to the people in our country who go to work. The Moderates have been the driving force behind all these job tax credits. The Social Democrats have voted against every single one of them.

The tax burden is now the lowest since 1975, and it is a win for everyone who goes to work every day. Tax revenues have increased during the same period by 200 billion in today's value. It is a substantial increase. Lower taxes for people who go and work means that more people will work, more taxpayers, and higher tax revenues. It leads to more investments, it drives growth, and it means that we can also develop our welfare.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for approval of the Tidö parties' proposal for the budget and approval of the proposal in the report from the Committee on Finance.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Now the SD government has presented its final budget, and their results have been costly for Sweden. I will return to that in my speech, but first I want to give a clear message to the Swedish people.

Nine out of ten Swedes would benefit from the Social Democratic budget, according to the Riksdag's investigation service. The policy that this government is pursuing is not only unfair – we can even call it immoral in some respects – but has also proven to be harmful to the Swedish economy.

The recession has been prolonged as a consequence of the Finance Minister's misprioritizations and a miscalibrated economic policy. The results speak for themselves. Growth has been at the bottom of the EU. Sweden has performed worse than the rest of Europe. Large Swedish companies are issuing warnings and laying off staff. Bankruptcies are at record levels. Since the government took office, almost 30,000 companies have gone bankrupt. This is an enormous failure for Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson.

Not least, the SD government has failed with unemployment. While unemployment has decreased in Europe, it has increased in Sweden. Now Sweden has the EU's third highest unemployment. The other day, SCB released new nightmare figures. Over half a million people are unemployed. More people lack jobs today than during the pandemic.

Unemployment is now beginning to change shape and eating its way into new groups. More and more young people are starting their professional lives in unemployment. In September, Akademikernas akassa noted the highest unemployment among its members in 20 years.

This is not just statistics. Behind the figure of 9 percent unemployment are half a million human destinies. It is about people who cannot afford to pay their bills, parents who cannot afford to let their children play sports, and ordinary people who cannot afford to pick up their medicines.

Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson do not seem to understand how hard unemployment hits – especially against those people who want a job to go to, who want to do right by themselves and who want to feel the security of their own income.

The government also does not seem to understand how expensive unemployment becomes for Sweden. When the government presented its first budget this mandate period, they believed we would have an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent this year. Now it is 9 percent. Year after year, the government has misjudged the economic cycle and underestimated the situation on the labor market, a consistent underestimation that has cost Sweden dearly.

SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, has calculated that the tax revenues to Sweden's municipalities and regions would have been 27 billion kronor higher this year if the tax base had followed the historical trend. Next year, Sweden will borrow 167 billion kronor. These are the largest deficits in Sweden since the 90s. If you cannot manage the jobs, you cannot manage the public finances either. The Finance Minister does not seem to quite understand this.

We Social Democrats know what social problem mass unemployment is, and in our budget motion, we propose measures to get people into work.

No young person should start their professional life in unemployment. Therefore, we propose, among other things, investments in youth, with a job contract for young people and a driving license lift so that young people can more easily get that first job. We want to support newly graduated students, among other things through a trainee program. We want to take more initiatives together with the business sector. Just this week, we have seen how many municipalities around Sweden are working with SAO-jobs in a successful way to get more young people into the labor market early but also to counter the gangs.

We need more job-related education, more practical education, and smarter labor market policy. Not least, measures are needed to strengthen the Swedish language and break the exclusion from the labor market.

Madam Speaker! A major contributing reason why growth has not taken off is that the government has let ordinary people and Swedish welfare take the economic hit from the cost crisis, with the effect that household consumption has weighed down GDP. The government has failed to get Sweden moving again.

It is therefore a bit strange, Mr. Speaker, that high-income earners once again become the big winners in SD's budget 2026. Once again, there is room to lower the tax for those who already have the most, but there is no room to increase the child allowance. There is no room to remove the unfair karenz deduction, and there is no room to make medicine cheaper. It says a lot about the SD government's political and economic priorities.

Elderly people with weak finances have to choose between medicine and food today. Young people graduating from university have to wait to be able to get their first job. Single parents are forced to turn over every krona to make ends meet in everyday life.

In our budget alternative, we prioritize the finances of ordinary people. We propose a fair tax cut for ordinary people, which provides as much as the government's proposal. We do not, however, think it is the time for an additional tax cut for those who earn over 67,000 kronor a month. That money can go to more important things.

They can proceed to increase the child and study grants by 200 kronor. That would give a family with two children 5,000 kronor more next year. Just as a parenthesis, I can mention that the last time the child grant was increased was in 2018 – which, by coincidence, was by a Social Democratic government. Since then, the costs for families with children have skyrocketed, but Sweden is now the only country in the Nordic region that has not increased the child grant during the cost crisis.

We want to increase the housing allowance for the most vulnerable families with children. The government recently worsened this significantly, which is completely incomprehensible in this very serious cost situation. We want to make medicines cheaper. In our budget alternative, we prioritize that Swedish pensioners should be able to afford to pick up their medicine.

We propose that the unfair quarantine deduction should be abolished. Those who have to do the work at work should no longer be punished unreasonably harshly financially and lose thousands of kronor because they are forced to stay home when they are sick. There are alternatives in the economic policy that make a difference for ordinary people. Nine out of ten Swedes benefit from the Social Democratic budget proposal.

Mr. Speaker! Throughout this entire parliamentary term, the government has put municipalities and regions in a state of some kind of exception. This means longer waiting times for patients, messier classrooms in schools, and that nursing assistants are forced to run faster in elderly care.

In schools and preschools, tax money continues to leak out into profit instead of going towards the students' education. Most recently, the other day, we were once again described how school money has gone to porn club visits and Islamist activities. It is completely unreasonable! One would think that this chamber could at least agree that school money should go to the students in the school.

We Social Democrats have, budget after budget, prioritized more money for healthcare and schools. We also want to introduce a completely new principle for the financing of welfare – a floor – by indexing the general state grants so that municipalities and regions get long-term conditions to plan their operations and so that the Swedish people actually get the welfare they deserve.

In this budget, we further propose a billion-kronor investment to increase teacher density. Our proposals could have meant one additional teacher in every classroom in grade 1. In this budget, we propose a language boost in preschool and smaller children's groups. In this budget, we propose that we should say no to the government's cut of 600 million kronor to maternity and women's healthcare.

We are also making a billion-kronor investment in elderly care. More colleagues means better working conditions for those who work, but it also provides more time for all those who need help.

Mr. Speaker! With this government, Sweden unfortunately has fewer companies, more unemployed, and more people on benefits. The SD government's work line lacks jobs. The SD government's growth policy lacks growth. No matter how you spin it, these have been lost years for Sweden.

Our economic policy has ensured that Sweden has been able to emerge strongly even when times have been tough and difficult. I am thinking of the pandemic, when Sweden was an example of how to quickly get out of a very deep recession that hit the entire world. The difference this time is that Sweden is coming out worse from this recession. It has taken longer in Sweden to lift the recession, and our recession became deeper than the development in the rest of Europe. This must be true upon some reflection – because then one cannot have done everything right in the economic policy.

Over four years, it can be seen that the Swedish economy during Ulf Kristersson's mandate period will remain below potential GDP. Sweden is underperforming. Over four years, the Swedish economy has grown worse than the rest of Europe and has lost over 400 billion kronor in lost growth. These are enormous sums that have disappeared. This means fewer jobs, less money for welfare, and that it is harder for ordinary people to pay their bills.

Mr. Speaker! I mean that this misguided policy will go down in history as a period when Sweden failed in its economic policy and in providing companies and industry with the conditions and the long-term perspective they demand.

There is a measure that actually the entire Swedish business community is demanding, and that is a cross-party agreement on energy policy. It is, however, evident that the Sweden Democrats have not allowed the government to reach an agreement, and Ulf Kristersson has laid down.

The other day I read that the Prime Minister called an energy agreement "snow moss" (snömos). Taste that: snow moss. Then one hasn't quite understood their role as Prime Minister in the industrial country of Sweden. So little Swedish growth and Swedish industrial investments seem to mean to the Prime Minister.

I mean that the government lacks a plan for what Sweden shall live off of in the future. This is particularly serious in the time we live in, when the conditions for security, prosperity, and growth are shifting rapidly. Geopolitical tensions are growing, protectionism is increasing, and the industrial map is being redrawn. This has a major impact, and it places demands on Sweden. It requires new solutions. Then we must be at the forefront of technological development. That also benefits ordinary people. But unfortunately, Sweden is also underperforming on this point.

Sweden needs a growth policy based on our strengths and on the insight that a productive business sector and an ambitious welfare policy are interconnected. We want to see a Swedish growth pact, where politics and the business sector join forces and point the way.

Long-term and structural growth reforms are needed. This also permeates our budget proposal. We propose a billion-kronor investment in a Swedish growth pact. We want to strengthen Industriklivet, we want to drive more investments to Sweden through green credits, and we want to strengthen export promotion and invest in the maintenance of roads and railways. We want to get housing construction started, get more people into work, and introduce a high-cost protection for sick pay for small and medium-sized enterprises.

When the right-wing parties have abdicated from growth policy and lack answers on what we shall live off in the future, we take the lead and show that Sweden can be a country that leads the development forward.

Mr. Speaker! On September 13 next year, the Swedish people will have the opportunity to have their say on economic policy. Then there will be the chance to vote for a policy that truly gets growth started and that stands on the side of ordinary people.

I therefore move for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservations and proposal for the 2026 budget.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have stated in their budget that they are investing heavily in growth. That may, in itself, be questioned, I think, but one thing that definitely affects growth is our currency. The Liberals have for a long time pushed for Sweden to take the next step into the EU's economic core. This is something Mikael Damberg and I have spoken about a few times.

Now the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Centre Party have also opened up to investigate the issue. This means that a broad basis is beginning to emerge in the Riksdag to at least find out what is best for Sweden's economy, jobs and competitiveness moving forward.

In an uneasy world, it is not unimportant which economic community we belong to. It is about security, investments in Sweden – which Mikael Damberg says he wants to safeguard – and predictability for Swedish companies, which is also a very important part of their conditions for growth.

My question to Member Damberg is whether the Social Democrats are prepared to participate in a new inquiry into the euro, or if the Member believes that Sweden should, in the long term, stand aside from the EU's economic core? For once, I might be able to get a clear answer from Member Damberg.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Cecilia Rönn, for another question about the euro! It is not the first time we have discussed it in these contexts. I can understand that the question is asked, as it seems to be very difficult to get hearing for these thoughts in the Tidö cooperation.

I noted that the Sweden Democrats at their national days were clear that there shall be no opening regarding the euro. The question of how one wants to proceed with the euro will therefore come to us instead of to your partners. It is a rather interesting reflection.

I belong to a party that was in favor of the euro, but we also respected the referendum. We welcome all material that sheds light on the issue in new ways. I understand that there are investigations underway. Lars Calmfors has led a major work with many professors. It will provide arguments both for and against and in-depth knowledge about the euro and Sweden's relationship with Europe.

The concrete answer to the question here and now is that we see other things as incredibly much more important for Sweden's growth, namely a cyclical policy that supports households, a growth policy that is long-term and provides stable conditions for investments, the energy agreement that the business sector demands, educational initiatives that enable people to take the jobs that are emerging and investments – not least in the maintenance of railways.

It is also about a growth pact where we actually work together to drive technological development in important areas and ensure that, not least the large industrial establishments that could come to Sweden, stay in Sweden and do not end up in other countries because the government hesitates about where Sweden is headed in climate policy.

There is a huge amount to do to drive growth and get more people into work. Euron is an important issue, but it does not stand at the top of my agenda over issues that drive growth in Sweden today.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would take the opportunity to ask the member about another matter, namely the school. The government, with the Liberals at the helm, is investing heavily in the school in the budget. Damberg described that he also would have wanted to do so if he had been given the chance. But the fact remains: the school funding differs by up to 70,000 kronor per pupil depending on which municipality one lives in.

The government is making major investments to address this as well as possible. Among other things, the government has announced the introduction of regulated teaching time so that teachers have time to be teachers and get a better working environment. Many other things are also being done to rectify the problems in Swedish schools. But it is the municipalization of the school that has led to what we see today: a postcode lottery with large differences in resources, unclear responsibility, and an equality that is being eroded. The school is, ultimately, a municipal responsibility. The very largest proportion of the school's budget is allocated in the municipalities.

Teachers and principals testify to a pressured work environment and poorer conditions for teaching. The risk of reading difficulties we have in Sweden today speaks for itself.

We can patch and repair with more state regulations, but we should fix the underlying problem and nationalize the school again. This drives the Liberals forward because we want to secure equality, create clarity, and take responsibility so that knowledge is always put in the forefront regardless of where one lives.

My question to the member is: Is it not time for the Social Democrats to acknowledge that the municipalization was a very bad idea for Swedish schools and, in the long run, for Sweden and Sweden's competitiveness and growth? Can they imagine being part of the work for a state-run, equal school where all students get the same chance?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state that the state has not really taken responsibility for the school during the cost crisis. That is why many municipalities have been left with large savings and difficult considerations. It has not been proven that the Liberals, through the state, have protected the school during the cost crisis. But that is another discussion.

I believe it is important to provide the municipalities with long-term conditions. I believe that the state should take greater responsibility for equality in Sweden. I believe that we should have a baseline for the funding of the welfare system, so that the municipalities can plan.

Targeted initiatives in schools are also required for increased equality. In our budget, we propose a billion-kronor investment for the youngest children so that they receive time and support from teachers and educators to learn to read and write early on. This can create more security and focus in the classrooms. I believe that such measures are important.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals have a problem here. We see that the market school is tearing apart the Swedish school system and that billions are leaking out of the school instead of ending up in the classroom. The Liberals have no chance of pushing through their policy with the cooperation being conducted today, because this group will not stop the profits in welfare. It will just be "snow mush" – to borrow a word from the Prime Minister – when the Liberals say they want to stop the profits in the school. The Tidö group will not do it.

If you want to do something about the systemic errors in Swedish school – let us do it! Let us stop the profits in the school and ensure that the money ends up with the teachers and the students! It would do very much for equality and for the long-term financing of Swedish school.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! There is a tonality in the member's speech that is both touching and upsetting.

What is touching is the clear will to change society so that those who, for various reasons, are unable to manage on their own receive support and help. As a Christian Democrat, I usually say that it is about making life a little easier to live for others.

What is upsetting is that the member apparently thinks that growth ended when the new government came, that unemployment arose in September 2022, and that explosions, shootings, and all that is something that has come with the new government. The Sweden we took over left a great deal to be desired, and we have had to rectify that. These were just a few examples that I think can serve as a relief when the voters are to judge whether the Social Democrats really have the ability to deliver the society Mikael Damberg describes.

What unites the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats, however, is our focus on achieving a functioning and good health and medical care. Against that background, I would like to ask a question to Mikael Damberg. Why do you reject the incentive funds for performance-based measures, which the government proposes in the budget? I would like to receive an explanation for that.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by answering the specific question. We convert them into even larger staffing investments, because that is the policy required to shorten queues and ensure that healthcare can meet the challenges it faces. We are therefore putting more money into what is the purpose of the stimulus funds. Previous evaluations have shown that they provide rather short-term results, and the risk is that they will not reach all those regions that have major challenges and need to do more to shorten queues and work long-term with health and medical care. We top up these funds with even more staffing funds because we know that it is the major limitation for healthcare to be able to develop in the future.

I can also state that there are a number of large regions around Sweden where we see a rather positive development. Both Västra Götaland and the Stockholm region have decreasing queues, even though the government has not managed to keep healthcare running with state grants through the cost crisis. It has been tough years, but it looks as if some of the large regions are still managing to work through this with their own resources and get the queues down.

I believe that one must realize that Sweden looks very different and that the challenges are great in some parts of the country. There, one must see that some of the performance-based systems have not really worked and be prepared to try different paths forward. But I still appreciate the tone of the question, because it is important.

It is easy for us to say politically: What did you do? What did we do? I have looked at the growth from Fredrik Reinfeldt's days until now and at the different parliamentary terms. Despite the pandemic during our years in government – it was very challenging, not least for the economy – the Swedish economy performed above potential GDP. That is not the case now. Sweden is underperforming significantly and is among the worst in all of Europe. This must be able to be evaluated politically.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish health and medical care maintains high medical quality. Regardless of what one compares it with, we are at the top internationally. I hope that all politicians are very proud of the staff.

At the same time, we know that there are patients who have waited illegally long to receive the care they are entitled to according to the care guarantee we have. This government has made a number of performance-based investments. That it would not work does not actually match reality. The reality is that this government during this year – and the whole year has not even passed yet – has invested in three different variants: cataracts, hip joints, and anterior cruciate ligament. It concerns performance-based funds to increase the number of operations. We already see now that the care queues for exactly these three have decreased. It is therefore not true that this does not work.

The government has now allocated a total of 6.6 billion to shorten the healthcare queues. These are concrete investments. We are appointing a national coordinator for this.

When we took power in September 2022, 163,000 people had waited illegally long. With rolling figures, we have now calculated an average. As of today, it is just over 150,000 people who have waited for too long. It is still too many, but the healthcare queues are being shortened in this moment – the development is moving in the right direction.

We have begun to turn the development around, and I hope that we receive renewed confidence in the election in September so that we can continue this work. Under the Social Democrats, the healthcare queues are lengthened, but when the Christian Democrats sit in the Ministry of Health, they are shortened – once again.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We had a large healthcare debt, not least after the pandemic. The staff had to work incredibly hard during the pandemic, and politicians from all sides said that the healthcare workers should be applauded. Therefore, the betrayal of the healthcare system became even greater when the government chose not to compensate the regions for the enormous cost increases that arose during the pandemic. We got austerity programs in practically every healthcare region for a number of years when the cost crisis hit Sweden hardest.

I think it was an incorrect prioritization. I do not understand the logic that it would have driven inflation that one retained healthcare personnel and ensured that healthcare could perform during the cost crisis. I am not of that opinion.

One must make other priorities in the economic policy so that it hangs together. One must finance more of one's measures so that one can manage it. I am critical of the fact that the government handled this poorly.

However, I think it is good that we have a discussion about the challenges in healthcare. The queues are definitely one of these challenges. I am glad that two of the largest regions in Sweden – Västra Götaland and the Stockholm region, which are governed by Social Democratic regional politicians – are currently seeing quite significant reductions in the queues. This is because this has been prioritized. It will also continue to be prioritized. It is the healthcare staff who must work in a new way, take new shifts, redo the scheduling, and perhaps reorganize the operations.

Again: These questions are important both for us and, as I understand it, for the Christian Democrats, but the healthcare regions need long-term assurances regarding the funding. I believe one must realize that healthcare looks very different across the country. There are healthcare regions that currently do not have a development where the queues are being shortened quickly. Instead, they can hardly afford to pay the wages.

If we do not see this challenge in the healthcare system today, I do not believe that we at the national level will be able to develop healthcare with quality, have good conditions for the staff and have an equal healthcare for all people in our entire country.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There are, of course, a couple of things that can be stated now that all parties have presented their economic policy – their budget policy. The first and most important, I think at least, is that there is only one realistic, government-capable government alternative: the Tidö parties.

We have demonstrated two things. We have been able to agree on a common line in economic policy, and we have been able to gather support from a majority in the chamber for that line.

Let us remember how it looked during the last parliamentary term, completely regardless of the issue politics and completely regardless of whether one thinks tax increases are good or bad. Magdalena Andersson and Mikael Damberg did not manage to gather a majority for their economic policy. They therefore did not manage to get support for their budget bills here in the Swedish Riksdag.

Now it is time for debate, and later this afternoon the House will vote on this matter. We already know that we will win the vote, because we have already ensured in advance to secure a majority in this House.

Opposing this is an opposition that has failed in these two things. One has, therefore, not succeeded in reaching an agreement on a common line, which I, for my part, have some understanding for. It would be an impossible task; it is far too fragmented. Historically, one has also not succeeded in gathering a majority for such a – hypothetical – common line. It is quite central, if you ask me, especially if we are to talk about governing capability.

In addition to the Tidö parties' line being common, it is also very clear. The product that is on the table now is a household budget and a cyclical budget.

We inherited a historically high – double-digit – inflation from the time when the Social Democrats occupied the Ministry of Finance. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that time. We had to devote practically half of this mandate period to fighting inflation. We won the battle against inflation, and therefore we can stand here today and talk about a budget for households and for the economy.

Mr. Speaker! This will be the third time we lower the income taxes for wage earners and pensioners. It is about 400 kronor net per month for an ordinary wage earner and, of course, twice as much if there are two working adults in a household.

We are starting a reduction of the electricity tax by 10 öre per kilowatt-hour. It may not sound like that much, but for an average villa household, the electricity bill will be 2,000 kronor lower in a year. That is a good start. In my world, there is a continuation of that start, but that obviously depends on the Swedish people not voting in that tax-hiking gang in the election next year.

We will halve the VAT on food and groceries. It will reduce expenses by at least 600–700 kronor per month for an average family with children. We will also strengthen the maximum fee, which will lead to lower preschool fees.

We have previously lowered the tax on fuels. Diesel went from costing 28 kronor per liter under the Social Democrats' rule, which was the most expensive in the entire world at that time, to being 10–11 kronor cheaper today. At every individual refueling, it amounts to around 600 kronor that one gets to keep in one's own wallet.

Now we have received word from the opposition: It will become more expensive to fuel the car if they get to decide. The car shall once again become a class issue – something for those who are somewhat better off and not, as it is today, a question of freedom. For my part, I find it quite difficult to understand how any human being living outside the Stockholm subway network would want to vote for such a policy.

Mr. Speaker! All the things we have done in our economic policy during the mandate period – namely lowered income tax, lowered electricity tax, lowered fuel taxes, lowered food VAT, lowered preschool fees and so on – collectively lead to a reinforcement of just over 5,000 kronor per month for a fairly average family with two children. It is the Tidö parties' household budget.

What is it standing against then? Well, it is not entirely obvious because the opposition is not united for a penny but scatters in all possible directions. But a couple of things can be stated. They want to raise the tax for the one who works. If the opposition gets to decide, the one who goes to work every day will have to keep a smaller portion of their salary.

One also wants to increase international aid. That is to say, one should take more money from hard-working Swedes and give it to more or less corrupt regimes on the other side of the globe. I think this is wrong and deeply immoral.

Furthermore, one wants to return to an irresponsible stance when it comes to migration policy. One is therefore complaining that unemployment is high at the same time as one wants to return to an irresponsible line in migration policy – this despite the fact that more than half of the unemployment is imported. The very reason why Sweden today has a high unemployment is that one has previously pursued an irresponsible immigration policy. How does this add up? It does not add up. If one returns to the irresponsible immigration policy, unemployment will obviously increase even more.

They also want to raise the tax on savings. Ordinary people who save monthly and set aside a portion of their salary to build up a financial buffer will be penalized by taxation.

The aviation tax must be returned. The property tax must be reintroduced. It is therefore seen as something ugly to own one's own home, which is something that the vast majority of people want. Wanting to own one's own home is seen as something wrong. The interest deduction must be abolished. Furthermore, they want to introduce a new tax on mortgage loans. Good luck, I say to the person who wants to live in a condominium in, for example, Stockholm.

They also want to stop the expansion of nuclear power, a source of power that is stable, reliable, and fossil-free, and which produces power both when it blows—like when it is calm—and when the sun shines—like when it is pouring rain—a source of power that is a guarantee for stable instead of volatile electricity prices and which is demanded by industry, the business sector, and households. But this source of power, they want to put a stop to just because. They have no particularly concrete arguments but seem to go more on feeling—without the slightest respect for what the consequences will be for companies and ordinary people. I think that is deeply irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall follow up on Oscar Sjöstedt's reasoning regarding unemployment. It is true that we have 100,000 more unemployed in Sweden now than when the government took office, and the other day nightmare figures arrived from SCB that over half a million people are unemployed. The fact is that more people lack work now than during the height of the pandemic, which is quite remarkable given the situation.

In my speech, I tried to say that it is a failure that unemployment in Sweden has increased during recent years, while it has decreased in large parts of Europe, and that this relative situation is difficult. I mean that it is something of a crisis situation on the Swedish labor market and that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government are doing far too little, not least in this budget, to handle it. They have, so to speak, handled many labor market ministers but very little labor market policy.

That is why I was positively surprised when I heard Oscar Sjöstedt's colleague Magnus Persson, the Sweden Democrats' spokesperson on labor market policy, confirm the other day that the liberal Minister for Employment does not have control over unemployment. Persson said that Britz is doing a poor job and that it would have been better with someone else in this position. It was still a bit of straight talk from the Sweden Democrats.

My question to Oscar Sjöstedt is therefore: Do you share your colleague's view? Do you also lack confidence in the Minister for Employment?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The problem probably does not lie with a single person. I believe that whoever had sat in that position would have had great problems.

We can agree that unemployment is too high and agree that it is a major problem. But I do not know if we agree on what the problem is caused by. As I touched upon in my speech, more than half of the unemployment is imported, that is to say, it is caused by the migration policy the Social Democrats pursued for eight years and before that Fredrik Reinfeldt for an equally long time – possibly it goes even further back. I mean that this is a fact. Is there any quick fix for this problem? No, and I do not believe that one solves it by replacing the Minister for Employment with someone else.

I understand that Mikael Damberg must paint the situation as pitch black; that is somewhat the opposition's task. But I do not believe it is as pitch black as he wants to make it out to be. Growth and unemployment are linked. When we took over, we inherited a growth in Europe's absolute bottom tier, but the new forecasts from, for example, the government and the EU Commission show that Sweden's growth is in Europe's absolute top tier. Okay, the government is biased, so we can ignore that. But the EU Commission has no reason to be biased towards Sweden and paint an overly positive picture just for the sake of it. With higher growth, unemployment will obviously dip. So, everything is not pitch black.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Growth and unemployment are obviously linked. But one must also be honest enough to say that one cannot look at individual quarters or even individual years but must look at slightly longer periods. We have therefore asked the Riksdag's investigation service to look at how growth has developed during your four years compared to the four and eight years prior. Under the Social Democratic government, growth exceeded the potential GDP, even though we managed a pandemic. Now Sweden is underperforming, both against ourselves and against Europe. Sweden has had lower growth than the rest of Europe and a higher, rising unemployment. This must be able to be discussed, because it is the outcome of the policy during your four years that will be evaluated, and it has not been good.

It is still good that Oscar Sjöstedt does not do as his colleague does and try to blame the unemployment on the Liberals, because that does not feel serious. Everyone knows that it is not the Liberals who decide in this government constellation, but that it is the Sverigedemokraterna and Oscar Sjöstedt. It is therefore you who have responsibility for the conducted economic policy that has led to weak growth and high unemployment during these years.

You are also worsening the welfare. Oscar Sjöstedt says that I am painting a pitch-black picture. Do you not receive emails from citizens who are a bit panicked about the deterioration of the welfare that the Sweden Democrats and the government are making in the middle of a recession? During the last election campaign, you promised not to worsen the welfare.

It is the Sweden Democrats who have decided that the government shall make it more expensive for pensioners to collect medicine, and it is the Sweden Democrats who have decided that the quarantine deduction shall not be abolished, despite the fact that you have the opportunity to push that issue forward, which you promised during the election campaign.

Thank you for the answer, Oscar Sjöstedt! It is not the Liberals' fault. It is the Sweden Democrats who have also borne the responsibility for the economic policy during these four years. It was important to get that said.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! You blame the only party in the majority that does not sit in the government. You blame the only party that for decades has warned about what the irresponsible immigration policy can lead to. Can it lead to segregation? Answer yes. Can it lead to high unemployment? Answer yes. You blame the only party that for decades has been right on issue after issue while all other parties, unfortunately, have been completely wrong, including Mikael Damberg's Socialdemokraterna. It is only reasonable.

We have strengthened the [social security net/safety net] twice during the parliamentary term. During one parliamentary term, we have done what the Social Democrats were unable to do during eight years.

It was the second time it was said that it was a pandemic and that we still had growth, and that is why I want to address it. I sat in the Committee on Finance at that time as well, Mr. Speaker. We had an extremely cooperative committee during that time. We put party-political prestige – or call it what you will – completely aside.

I do not remember how many there were, but I believe we landed on something in the magnitude of 25 extra supplementary budgets before the pandemic was over, with massive fiscal stimuli to households, businesses, civil society and, of course, the public sector. We did that in order to somehow keep all of this under control.

In some sense it was obviously artificial respiration, but perhaps it was the right artificial respiration. That does not mean it was wrong. But this is about the idea that it was the Social Democrats' merit that it went well during the pandemic.

It was due to the fact that we had a very cooperative finance committee. I do not remember exactly if it was 20 or 25 extra supplementary budgets with large appropriations to maintain growth during that period. It has nothing to do with the Social Democrats. We have taken the bill.

Not a bit in the form of higher inflation. If you print a lot of money and spread it out, the money becomes less valuable, and then we get high inflation. That does not mean that what we did was wrong, but I stand behind what we did. But one cannot say that what the Finance Committee decided during the entire pandemic was the Social Democrats' merit.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I noted in the previous exchange that there were very many things being blamed back and forth on all possible different groups, governments, and everything. But I did not hear a single solution regarding how we are to get down unemployment. I will return to that in my speech.

Mr. Speaker! My question to Oscar Sjöstedt from Sverigedemokraterna is how he views the inequalities in welfare in Sweden. There is much higher mortality in sparsely populated rural municipalities. There, the mortality in treatable diseases is twice as high as in large cities. There is a much higher dropout rate of students before upper secondary school in the countryside than in the cities, and this applies particularly to boys. It is the closing of service offices and deteriorated infrastructure.

I hope that Oscar Sjöstedt is aware that just as this is happening, the government is coming forward with a small, discreet proposal to change the tax equalization. They are to, as it is called, change the compensation for additional costs for general administration. This means that small rural municipalities that are struggling will lose funds with a stroke of a pen.

Orsa loses 12 million, Vansbro loses 12 million, Robertsfors loses 12 million, Nordmaling loses 12 million, Högsby loses 9 million and Dals-Ed loses 8 million. The list can be made longer.

Why does SD, which apparently is going all-in on this government, want to contribute to worsening welfare in the countryside in Sweden in favor of the cities in this situation, when the welfare gaps between city and country have grown so significantly?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A parliamentary committee looked at this for quite a long time. It is a rather complex system and rather complex issues. I do not know how long it sat, but it sat for a year in any case.

It was a parliamentary committee with representatives from all the parties in the Riksdag. Sverigedemokraterna had two members in that committee. I have very great confidence in both of them. I know both of them well. We landed on something in the committee, and that is what we stand behind. What we landed on is absolutely not what Martin Ådahl is standing here and talking about – one can look at that.

When it comes to smaller municipalities, I myself sit in the municipal council in one of Sweden's smallest municipalities. I know how strained the economic situation can be. If I am a bit parochial and look at my own municipality, I can see that there is a small plus there. If you look at other smaller municipalities, you see that there is a plus there as well. The Sweden Democrats then, so to speak, stood behind the conclusions in the parliamentary committee's work.

There has been talk about Statens servicecenter. We had national days in Örebro this past weekend. I am recovering from that. Jokes aside: I saw from the window towards the square in Örebro that Statens servicecenter was there. Örebro is perhaps not directly what I primarily associate with rural areas. It is still a city, but they are present there too. I don't know if it is completely decisive in that specific part, but it was just a small detail in the context.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! One is welcome to joke about one's assemblies, local meetings, or whatever they are, but this is quite serious.

I have a small piece of information for Oscar Sjöstedt. Örebro is not Swedish countryside, with all due respect.

(OSCAR SJÖSTEDT (SD): That was the point.)

That was the point. Then we shall go into where the service centers have been shut down. It is in quite a few of the locations that I just spoke about.

Seriously speaking: It does not seem like the Sweden Democrats have a grip on their rural policy. These are the changes in relation to the investigation proposal that has been presented to me. I will read it out again. It was 12 million for Nordmaling and Robertsfors and 9 million for Högsby. That is the change in relation to the proposal that your government now wants to implement.

I just wonder: Do you have any grasp at all of what you are doing for the countryside and the welfare there? It is one thing to talk and joke. But this is about schools, care, and the everyday lives of households. These are people who are already struggling. They fear that the care, the school, and the welfare they receive is worse than it is in the cities and that the gap is growing.

I believe that everyone, even those who live in the cities, thinks it is completely unacceptable. SD stands there and talks and jokes about the countryside, but this is reality. Keep track of the proposals!

I actually want a statement: Do the Sweden Democrats stand behind the powerful deteriorations that the government has made in relation to the investigation's proposals and which are completely devastating for a long list of municipalities, where people are extremely worried right now? The investigation itself did not go far enough, I want to emphasize, to strengthen the welfare and services in the countryside, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are there again. As soon as Martin Ådahl steps forward and takes the rostrum, it completely loses its mind. Then all reason and sense disappears.

I received a question in the first exchange of remarks. I answered that question. Then Martin Ådahl completely loses it. It always ends up like that. I think it is unfortunate.

Otherwise, the debates are quite rewarding and fun, but it always spirals out of control. Every time Martin Ådahl takes the rostrum, it happens in that way. It is no logic or reason, it just breaks down!

I answered the question. The Sweden Democrats stand behind the parliamentary committee's conclusions. We did so then. We were, of course, represented in the committee. All parliamentary parties were represented in the committee we are speaking about.

We stood behind it then – and I believe it was unanimous, a consensus – and we stand behind it now. I have already answered that! Apologies that I became angry, but it was actually quite justified.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! There were interesting exchanges here. The Sweden Democrats told the Social Democrats that they were the party that has been most correct. I would like to claim that it is my party that has been most correct, but we can talk about that another time.

We have together during the mandate period implemented important reforms to repair Sweden and get growth started again. We have, among other things, jointly ensured that we will now get new nuclear power in Sweden. We are investing heavily in education and reforming the school system, just as the member has said before. We are also lowering the tax so that it pays to work.

There is a question that is important for both Sweden's growth and security. I heard earlier that even Mikael Damberg was curious about the Sweden Democrats' view. I intend to take the opportunity to ask a question to Oscar Sjöstedt.

The Liberals have long pushed for Sweden to join the euro cooperation. Now the Moderates, Christian Democrats and the Center Party have opened up for the issue to be investigated, and that means there is a growing awareness that Sweden should take a clear step into the EU's economic core. It is not just about economy, but it is also about security, about Sweden's role in Europe and about stable conditions for Swedish jobs and companies.

My questions to Oscar Sjöstedt are therefore: Do you see that there may still be certain advantages to Sweden being part of the EU's economic core, regardless of whether it concerns security, growth, or competitiveness? Are you prepared to at least contribute to a new investigation to find out both the advantages and disadvantages of potentially introducing the euro?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

I am going to do something as unusual as referring to Mikael Damberg, because I actually thought he expressed it quite well. He said something along the lines that the Sverigedemokraterna are putting a stop to a Swedish entry into the euro cooperation. I am one hundred percent in agreement with him in that assessment.

The answer is therefore no. We will not contribute to the abolition of our own currency, our own monetary policy, and our own exchange rate policy. It simply will not happen.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Oscar Sjöstedt, for a clear answer! I appreciate it.

But the question was not whether Sweden should change currency, the question was whether the Sweden Democrats could consider investigating the issue to look at the advantages and disadvantages. It is then not just about the economic aspects but also about our security and the risks of having a small and volatile currency in the uncertain world we have now.

Even though much has happened since the euro was created, Sweden is simultaneously affected a great deal by what happens in Europe. Our krona is already today dependent on what happens with the euro and the dollar, despite the fact that we have an independent monetary policy. We have received a weaker krona, more expensive imports, and poorer purchasing power for Swedish wage earners and pensioners.

When we held the referendum in 2003, the euro stood at 8.60, and as the member knows, it has been up to 12 kronor during this mandate period. It is a very big difference.

Is it really a victory for Swedish households and companies to stand aside with a small, shaky currency, or is it perhaps time to investigate whether we can stand stronger in the euro together with our important trading partners? We should perhaps at least investigate the issue to see what is best for Sweden.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think this is something that is relevant, and I do not think it is interesting.

The advantages, to the extent that they exist, are well known, and the disadvantages are definitely well known. This is about divesting oneself of one's own currency and one's own independent monetary policy.

It is also about entering into this banking union, which one does automatically, and in practice take Swedish tax money and guarantee mainly Southern European banks. Not because I have anything against Southern Europe in general, but their banks are definitely not as well-capitalized as our Swedish or Nordic banks. Swedish taxpayers would therefore need to guarantee banks in other countries, which might collapse because they are not sufficiently well-capitalized.

This is like playing Russian roulette with the Swedish taxpayers' money. I don't buy that. In my view, there are absolute advantages, and they are well known. The disadvantages are definitely well known. In my world, it is not on the map at all to go even an inch in this direction.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am very clear that we will not accept any deterioration in the pension, said Jimmie Åkesson before the election. Now, construction workers and nursing assistants will have their pensions significantly lowered. It is being scaled down, and the agreed insurances that those who have a slightly better salary have been able to obtain will not apply.

I therefore want to ask a question to Oscar Sjöstedt. We have a situation with half a million unemployed. Why was it then more important to lower the tax by 4,000 a month for the one who earns as much as Jimmie Åkesson – 120,000 a month I believe it is – than to keep the promise to the wage earners regarding the unemployment insurance?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have had this debate and these exchanges of remarks before.

We have, therefore, strengthened the unemployment insurance at two different occasions. We have raised the ceiling at two occasions, and with the latest reform we also ensure that more people are covered by the unemployment insurance. It is therefore more and not fewer. The qualification for the unemployment insurance becomes slightly easier in different ways, so it is more individuals, more people, who will be able to end up behind the protection that the unemployment insurance, after all, constitutes.

This is not a weakening, but it is clearly a strengthening. On two occasions during the parliamentary term, we have therefore strengthened the akassan.

With whom does Ida Gabrielsson want to do what she wants to do with the cash? Does Ida Gabrielsson want to do what she wants to do with the cash with Martin Ådahl? Good luck!

The marginal tax rate was also raised. I have no problem at all taking that discussion, and I otherwise think it was a good question – thanks for that!

Sweden has very high marginal taxes internationally. The marginal tax was approximately 55 percent when we took office. I like the principle of half remaining, that is, that the state or the public should not take more than half of your salary. We have now lowered the marginal tax a little bit, from 55 percent to about 52 percent, but 52 percent is still more than half in my world. In the name of honesty, the marginal tax should therefore be lowered a little bit more.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Politics is about priorities and cooperation. For Member Oscar Sjöstedt to feel secure, I can say that I do not get nearly as upset by Martin Ådahl as the Member seems to be. It will work itself out.

The question from my side was: Is it reasonable that people, in a situation with mass unemployment and where long-term unemployment is increasing, should receive much less in their wallets after 100 days? We are talking about thousands of kronor. Is it a reasonable priority to make instead of refraining from giving a tax relief to the person who earns 120,000 a month? What has happened is that a letter carrier receives less in tax relief over an entire year than what party leader Åkesson from Sverigedemokraterna receives in a month. Is that the right priority? Is it keeping the election promise to the wage earners?

One wonders if it is just talk. Now the Sweden Democrats are voting no to the Left Party's proposal to strengthen the sickness insurance. You raise the tax so that the person who is ill and has sickness benefit or the person who is unemployed gets the highest tax. They pay the most tax with the Sweden Democrats' policy. More and more – more than before – are excluded from the sickness insurance.

When you said that you would stand on these people's side and give them secure guarantees so that wage earners and ordinary people would avoid feeling anxiety – did you not mean it seriously then? That question I pose to you, Oscar Sjöstedt, and not to Martin Ådahl.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It honors Ida Gabrielsson that she has a patience that far exceeds my own; that is absolutely the case.

Is it reasonable to have a tapering off in the housing allowance? The answer is yes. What is the alternative? Is the alternative not to have a tapering off in the housing allowance? Is it, therefore, in Ida Gabrielsson's world intended that the housing allowance and the unemployment insurance should be a long-term provision? And how long should it be in that case – until retirement or all the way until death?

In my world, unemployment insurance is a temporary transition insurance. One has a job, then for various reasons one has no job, and then one moves on to the next job. It is the gap in between that unemployment insurance is intended to fill. That is the view I have.

Is it then reasonable that there is a phase-out in it? Yes, obviously – it is quite clearly so in that way. What is the alternative, as said? That there is no phase-out? Then it is not a transition insurance but a long-term provision. In that case, one must take responsibility for it and also budget for it – if that is what one thinks, and it seems to be the case.

What is the alternative to having a phase-out? Well, it is to not have a phase-out. Then it will not be a transition insurance. Then it will be a long-term provision. How long should it be in that case? For the rest of one's life, I assume. So yes, it is reasonable to have a phase-out.

Then the marginal tax came in there again. It is just to be stated: I stand behind a principle that one usually calls "half remaining." The principle is that the state or the public sector should not take more than half in tax, and half is well at least 50 percent – so far I hope we are in agreement. If one has a marginal tax of 52 percent, which we have today, it is more than half. It should come down a little bit more.

It is clear that Ida Gabrielsson and Vänsterpartiet do not stand behind this principle, and that is completely okay. It is a principle; it is not a law in any way. Here, one can think what one wants. From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, however, we stand behind the principle. Therefore, it is reasonable that we have lowered the marginal taxes, and we should lower them a bit more.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There has been some discussion in the debate so far regarding unemployment in Sweden. Even Oscar Sjöstedt has said that it is a major problem. It is fortunate, nevertheless, that the Sweden Democrats see it.

However, Oscar Sjöstedt said nothing at all in his speech about what one wants to do about it. Unemployment was really not portrayed as the major social problem it is. To the extent that he commented on it, he said that it is imported. Unemployment in Sweden is, however, a significantly larger problem than just those who are foreign-born not having a job to go to.

Youth unemployment is rising. My son, who has just finished high school, has many friends who are applying for many jobs and are not getting anything. At the same time, companies are crying out for competence. What they primarily say they need is more competence. They want greater opportunities to hire more people, but they are difficult to find.

I would like to ask Oscar Sjöstedt: What is the Sweden Democrats' actual labor market policy? What does one actually want to do to lower unemployment in Sweden? Is it the case that one has no real proposals and just blames others, or is there perhaps something there even if we haven't heard it in this debate so far?

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think one should disparage or downplay this. It may have been interpreted as if I inserted very strong values here, but it is nonetheless a real fact that more than half of our unemployment consists of foreign-born individuals. Then one can add values to this in one direction or the other. Perhaps I did, and that was indeed the case, and rightly so. I do not, however, believe that one does anyone a favor by denying, disparaging, or rejecting this statistical fact. So this is how it is.

It is the policy we have had in Sweden, with a very irresponsible migration policy, that has led to the high unemployment. Had we not had that policy, unemployment would have been down at figures between 3 and 4 percent. We would not be standing here and having great concerns and painting the situation as pitch black if unemployment had been 3–4 percent, which it would have been with a more responsible immigration policy.

I believe, therefore, that one should be cautious. I do not believe that one does anyone a favor by trying to bury that question.

What we definitely should not do, if we start at that end, is to go back to the policy that caused the high unemployment, that is to say what Miljöpartiet wants. It would be catastrophic if Miljöpartiet, now that we have implemented our paradigm shift in migration policy, comes and is going to roll it back. Then we are back there again. That is definitely what one should not do.

So, they have created a lot of problems during eight years in government. Then we take over, and one wonders why we haven't cleaned up fast enough – so one absolutely can. The answer is that there is no quick fix here. Step by step, however, we have, among other things with this budget, made it more profitable to actually go to work. If you get to keep more of your own salary, it increases the drive to work. It reduces unemployment.

Then we must invest much more in, for example, the Swedish National Agency for Higher Vocational Education, which has quite good accuracy in its programs, and work slowly and strategically with these issues.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Lowering taxes for individuals does not create more jobs. There is as much research as there is that shows this is not a correlation that exists. It can also explain why this government's economic policy, which is entirely focused on lowering taxes for those who already have the most and are doing the best, does not work to take us out of this recession.

When it comes to the explanation that Swedish unemployment is due to people who have come to Sweden, I can inform Oscar Sjöstedt that very many people have also come to other European countries, both those who have sought asylum and those who have come for labor market reasons. In those countries, we do not see this high unemployment, which may lead us to conclude that other things are needed.

In Sweden, the recession has been more prolonged and persistent. People and companies are holding onto their money more here than in the rest of Europe.

I asked Oscar Sjöstedt what the Sverigedemokraterna's policy was for changing this. I must state that it was still very much about immigration but very little about the jobs policy. I therefore give Oscar Sjöstedt a chance: Does the Sverigedemokraterna have any jobs policy, and what does it consist of in that case?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now Janine Alm Ericson is also continuing on the migration-related track, so I cannot just let it go entirely.

Sweden has historically had a completely unique direction, a uniquely irresponsible direction, on migration policy. Primarily, it has been driven, I want to say, by Janine Alm Ericson's own party – the most destructive force in Swedish politics we have seen in precisely how long as it may be. It is not possible to let go of that track, as it is such a huge explanation for this.

People are coming from other parts of the world. They do not know the language, they do not have the same type of educational tradition as we have in Sweden, they have no networks and so on. It is clear that it is difficult. I also understand that it is difficult to break into a fairly highly qualified Swedish labor market. But that does not change the fact that it is so.

The claim that unemployment is not affected by whether income taxes are high or low is clearly wrong. It is very wrong. Of course it is affected by it. If it is more profitable to go to work, more people will also do so.

Much in national economic theory and research is about various types of incentive structures here and there. If the income tax were 100 percent, no one would have gone to work – not in white, in any case, possibly black – because then there is no incentive. If the tax is 100 percent and you do not get to keep anything, of course no one will go to work. This is therefore a completely incorrect statement.

We have, in several steps, made it more profitable to work. And there are jobs. There are plenty of jobs. There are masses of companies screaming for people. I do, however, believe in what we can call mismatching – on one hand there are the unemployed, and on the other hand there are a lot of vacancies. They simply do not meet.

If we are to work with this strategically and successively, which will take quite a long time, it is clear that more training must be provided according to the labor market's needs. Those people who belong to the unemployed must become employable, and that is not achieved in a day. It will take some time.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! On November 19, my father turned 70. He loves to sing. We have now rented a karaoke machine, and this weekend there will be a small gathering at the local community center – or the community hall, as it is called now – in Åmotsbruk.

Five years ago, during the ongoing pandemic, Dad got increasingly extreme back pain. Stubborn as he is, he did not want to seek medical care. His last sick day could be traced back to 1986 when my sister was born. It will pass, he said. But it didn't. He was examined for a herniated disc and started with exercises. Had his body finally given up after all those 12-hour shifts on the shop floor in concrete?

Mr. Speaker! It took far too long before it could be established that my father had developed an incurable cancer that breaks down the skeleton. I was on a speakerphone call with the hematologist when the diagnosis was confirmed. His doctor Judith told us about the prognosis, and the contact nurse Eva was available for the entire family.

New medicines could, however, push back the disease for a while, and after a tough treatment, he returned to his beloved work. The nerve pains remain, but thanks to Swedish healthcare, we can now celebrate his 70th birthday.

Our country is fantastic when it functions as it should. Safety and trust are worth everything when it really matters. We must nurture and strengthen what is good about Sweden. There is something worth fighting for, and yes, it is possible. Cuts are not predetermined but a result of political priorities. With different priorities than what the sitting government and Sverigedemokraterna have done during this parliamentary term, we could have protected healthcare.

The costs for the citizens' medicines are not something that just increases automatically; it is done after decisions are made in the chamber. All other Nordic countries have increased child benefits during the cost crisis, so it is clear that it is about priorities – and perhaps principles, as Oscar Sjöstedt highlighted earlier. What is most important? Is it families with children, a healthcare system that works, and medicines for pensioners? Or is it investments in the households that are in the absolute best position?

For Vänsterpartiet, the choice is simple, and it is also evident in our budget motion. The principle is to invest in those who have had it tough across the board and in families with children, not to lower the compensation further in the akassan. It is clear that it is a transition insurance, but now it is about further cuts in the akassan. On the contrary, people should have the opportunity to transition.

Sometimes you can think you are on a hidden camera when you listen to the Government Offices' and the Sverigedemokraternas budget press conferences. They call large and extensive cuts in healthcare investments. But if you want the money to go to healthcare, you put it on healthcare, not on tax deductions for multi-millionaires. It is actually not harder than that.

Everyone knows that Swedish healthcare is in crisis. The emergency rooms are full, and the waiting times are too long. Does one want to do something about it? It is possible, but then one must prioritize healthcare. That is what Vänsterpartiet proposes in the budget we are to vote on today.

Sweden's growth is at the bottom, and unemployment and emissions are at the top. It is clear that we could have done things differently, for example, chosen to strengthen ordinary households instead of spending most of the money on those who have an income over 67,000 kronor. In fact, it would have been best both for the Swedish economy and for the Swedish households to do the opposite. Growth would have increased, while families with children would have been able to afford both Christmas presents and a new winter jacket. That way, we would have pulled ourselves out of the recession.

Vänsterpartiet therefore makes other priorities based on other principles than the government. We abolish the karens deduction, make public transport cheaper and increase the child allowance by 400 kronor.

Sweden has been naive and for all too long had a "let it be" attitude towards poorly functioning markets. The food, electricity, and banking markets do not work. Instead of strengthening competition or pressing down prices, one let profits that drove inflation skin the households. The wage earners had to take the entire hit. It was not a common mutual responsibility in the crisis.

High interest rates on housing and shock-increased rents have made property owners and bank directors richer in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. It is too expensive to be Swedish. Prices must come down, and those who have taken the opportunity to make money during the crisis should contribute more. The measures we propose for increased competition in the food market and the banking market could lower the price of the grocery bag and the home. In Sweden, one should be able to live well and have money left over after food and rent. We shall fill ordinary people's wallets.

Mr. Speaker! Those who run for election on the promise to continue lowering taxes for the wealthiest while simultaneously claiming that one can save healthcare are lying. It does not add up. If we are to build a better Sweden, if the whole country is to function, some must contribute more than they do today. At the same time, we must stop wasting our tax funds. Market experiments in healthcare and schools have made welfare worse. It cannot be worth keeping a system that does not work just so large school corporations and healthcare companies can make money from Swedish welfare.

HVB-homes should not be run by criminals. We need to decriminalize welfare and ensure that every tax krona goes to what it is intended for. I hear here that one wants to fight gang crime and take the watches away from the gang criminals, but why has one simultaneously invited the state treasury? The state should take over from municipalities that do not manage themselves – I can agree regarding the school – but at the same time, Saudi companies should own a Swedish school. That is something that does not add up here. Something must be done about the underlying problems. One must protect the taxpayers' money if order is to be established and if one is to take back control over the Swedish welfare and the crime.

Mr. Speaker! I do not know what it is like for you, but I find the so-called political game very difficult. I almost feel sorry for some of today's press corps who have to sit and discuss what clothes we were wearing at the opening of the parliamentary session and try to understand what the ministers' latest Twitter posts are actually about. Any reality show should be more exciting.

But why are the substantive issues and the economic policy so rarely at the center of the debate? The past parliamentary term can best be summarized as a package well-wrapped in right-wing nationalist scapegoat politics. But when the layers are gone, nothing else remains but classic moderate economic policy. We thus have a government that in many ways wants to implement the same old right-wing policy, but because it is primarily the ever-dwindling moderate core voters who share that view, it must be hidden behind layers of authoritarian scapegoat politics. It is not the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas budget priorities that have put healthcare in crisis, contributed to record-high unemployment and worsened the insurance systems – no, it is the immigrants. The government uses citizens with a foreign background as a shield to avoid an accountability debate where they themselves, those who actually have the power, are scrutinized and evaluated.

Hand on your heart! Wasn't politics better before, before the PR agencies built the reform agenda? Now the political debate never reaches the core. The packages are so well-wrapped, the layers so many, and when one finally makes it into the box itself, it is surprisingly often empty. We see interviews at prime time where journalists question politicians about reform proposals they don't even believe in themselves. How are the voters then supposed to understand what we are actually doing? Everything is meta-debate, and political leaders have their own truths and the right to define for themselves what constitutes lowered revenues, increased emissions, or high unemployment.

It is too stupid. Sure – I can write this on Twitter and hope to get it included in the analysis of some podcast. But, Mr. Speaker, we must think anew. I am considering instead to put up an old-fashioned angry note outside Rosenbad. But then one might be accused of activism, so don't tell anyone.

Sweden needs a new government and a new direction. It is not enough to not be part of the Tidö government. We shall be something of our own, something better. That is how we can rebuild trust. Politics is fantastic. I think about it when I prepare for Christmas with my ten-year-old daughter. Politics can ensure that all families with children can afford to create Christmas memories together and that more people get to celebrate their father's 70th birthday.

We can make Sweden safer. We, who know that the tax deduction for care work creates a hole in the wallet and that welfare must come first, and who do not believe in a "us and them," have something else to offer, something much better than negative campaigns, opposing teams, or copying.

To be honest, who cares whether Romina Pourmokhtari actually cares deep down? It doesn't lead to any climate transition to determine what a minister's inner life looks like.

Let us go deeper and discuss how the state can take greater responsibility so that electricity becomes cheaper and the trains arrive on time. Vänsterpartiet has the proposals. We shall increase growth, create jobs and reduce emissions. If Sweden is to move in a new direction, those of us who want it must cooperate. Otherwise, it will just be talk. If the reforms promised to the voters in the election campaign are also to be realized, we need a new majority government.

The Left Party has taken a side. We are going to lower housing costs, food prices, and electricity bills. With the Left Party's budget, everyone who earns under 50,000 will have reduced taxes; medicines will become cheaper, and the care deduction is abolished.

When it comes to half a million unemployed, one cannot shrug it off. What is needed is an economic policy that takes us out of the recession. Most people benefit from the Left Party's policy. Sweden shall be built strong again with investments in railways and new housing. It is not rocket science. It is common sense.

I move for the approval of the Left Party's reservations.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the budget for next year. As a Christian Democrat, I can state that we have negotiated a budget for hard-working families who each have their own, unique life puzzle to piece together.

Mr. Speaker! When this government took office, inflation was in the double digits. It made the Swedish people poorer. Purchasing power decreased, and prices became higher. Some goods and some purchases can be foregone. But food in the stomach, we must all have that. Therefore, not least the families with children have had it tough economically. That is why it is a really good and important measure to lower the food VAT from 12 to 6 percent. Experience shows that it results in lower food prices.

Now we are in the middle of something called Black Week. We have probably all read that some stores already last month began making price increases on certain goods. This week, we are to be enticed to buy those same goods at a special price. In order for this not to happen with the food VAT reduction that the government is proposing, a food price commission is being appointed, which is tasked with monitoring and analyzing the development of food prices. The first partial report from the commission shall be submitted one month before the food VAT reduction becomes a reality. It is a wise decision. Then we can also know that the reduction of the food VAT will benefit the consumers.

For a family with children, this is by no means an insignificant measure. The food basket becomes cheaper. It is estimated that they will have approximately 600 kronor more left in their wallet thanks to that measure.

To the families with children, we also have the news that the income tax and the electricity tax are being lowered, and so is the childcare fee. We are also raising the housing cost limits for families with children. It is a good measure. Not since 1997 has the upper limit for the housing allowance been adjusted. We know, however, that seven out of ten of the families with children who receive housing allowance also have a housing cost that lies above the old limit. They will now be able to receive up to 1,000 kronor more per month. This particularly benefits families with children with low incomes, not infrequently single women with children. Furthermore, it is not a temporary measure but a permanent one.

The lowered income taxes, the lowered food VAT, the lowered electricity tax, and the lowered preschool fees mean that a family consisting of a police officer, a nurse, and children aged three and five living in a regular villa will have more than 1,800 kronor more left in their wallet next year.

Then I haven't even mentioned what it means for many of the families I know. It is common, not least for those who perhaps do not live in Stockholm, that one is forced to have a car in order to be able to manage the logistics. Just that reduction that the government has contributed to regarding petrol and diesel makes an enormous difference for all these families with children where one drives the children back and forth in the evenings.

Mr. Speaker! Claims have circulated, and they still circulate, that the Swedish healthcare queues are longer than ever. That is not true. They are shorter today than when this government took office.

We must be able to trust the welfare system. That care is there when we have become ill and need help is central. When the Swedish people gave us government power, 163,000 patients had waited illegally long to receive care.

In every budget debate during this parliamentary term, I have highlighted the various measures that this government is taking to be able to shorten the healthcare queues. The nagging, as some may think it is, is justified by the fact that behind every single such figure there is a human being and relatives. There is a worry: How will this go? Will I get help in time? It can be about serious diagnoses, and one waits for news on whether the help will come or not.

When the Christian Democrats last governed the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, 2006–2014, we halved the healthcare queues. But it was also then, when our former party leader Göran Hägglund was Minister for Health and Social Affairs, that we realized we had to do something about the organization of healthcare. We concluded and saw that a measure that is needed, if we want to truly tackle the healthcare queues, is to nationalize healthcare.

Sweden actually has more doctors than the EU average, but they see fewer patients than their European colleagues. We spend more money on healthcare than the EU average, but at the same time, we have the lowest number of healthcare beds per capita. Place of residence and zip code are in many cases decisive for what type of care you receive and when you receive the care you need. That is how it is today. I believe it will remain so if we continue to defend a healthcare organization that actually has its roots in the mid-1800s.

Even though we Christian Democrats have pushed for that more money is needed to be able to shorten the healthcare queues, we have also pointed out that it is not enough. We must also do something about the management of the healthcare itself. For the time being, we do not have a majority for this in the Swedish Riksdag, but as they say, persistence usually wins.

Mr. Speaker! It is gratifying that we can nevertheless state that the government's work to shorten the healthcare queues is now yielding results. The targeted investments to cut the healthcare queues are yielding results. This year, an initiative was introduced to increase the number of operations and thereby shorten the queues regarding three commonly occurring operations: hip joint operations and operations for hernia and cataracts. Already now, in the month of November, we see that the queues for surgery have decreased by 10 percent for cataracts, by 45 percent for hip prostheses, and by 60 percent for hernia. Those who claim that the targeted investments are not yielding results therefore have something to prove.

When looking at the healthcare queues, one can always select a single month and build an entire case around it. But when it comes to the healthcare queues, there is a large seasonal variation, as it is called. We know that there are fewer planned operations during the summer. At that time, the queues usually grow. Then there is usually a larger number of operations during autumn and spring. If one looks at several years, one sees that the healthcare queues are usually at their shortest around the turn of the year or early spring. It is a natural seasonal variation.

One can also remove the individual months and seasonal variations and look at an average over twelve months. What does that look like? How has it changed over time? Such a comparison shows that the number of patients who have waited over 90 days has fallen since this government took office. In September 2022, just over 163,000 had waited too long, for more than 90 days. In September 2025, three years later, the same figure is just over 150,000 patients.

Something can be done about this. It is moving in the right direction. But we are not satisfied. 150,000 is still a very high figure. And I say it again: Behind every such figure hides a human being. We hope to continue to receive confidence to continue cutting these healthcare queues. It is completely central.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats asked in 2022 for the voters' trust to give Sweden a new start. I mean that we not only got that chance but also took it. We have step by step addressed the Sweden we took over, with double-digit inflation, escalating gang crime, and a failed and demand-free integration. Inflation is now down to a normal level. We have the lowest asylum migration since 1985, and that allows us to focus our attention on removing exclusion and parallel societies.

During this mandate period, thanks to the Christian Democrats, the flexibility of the parental leave has increased. Parents have been given more freedom of choice, which facilitates each individual's unique life puzzle. These are important changes, at least for us Christian Democrats, who believe that it is the parents at the kitchen table who best know how to arrange a functioning parental leave. The number of double days has doubled from 30 to 60. Mothers and fathers who have sole custody of their child can now transfer the parental leave to a close relative, for example the child's grandmother or grandfather, who gets to take care of their grandchild and at the same time help their own child to make the life puzzle work.

I have in previous debates pointed out the historical investments that this government has made in mental health, psychiatry, and suicide prevention. The government has now appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate suicide. The commission will have an extra focus on children and young people. This is the first time Sweden is getting a unified function that systematically investigates and analyzes the underlying causes of these bottomless tragedies. I have raised the government's investments in doing something about mental ill-health many times, not least because I truly believe that this is one of our greatest crises that we have to deal with as politicians.

I am further proud that this government is the first government to actively combat involuntary loneliness. Minister for Social Affairs Jakob Forssmed stated when he entered the ministry in 2022 that children's sedentary lifestyle and involuntary loneliness are the two greatest threats to public health. Research shows, in fact, that loneliness and isolation increase the risk of, among other things, cardiovascular diseases, depression, and dementia. Furthermore, it is associated with slower recovery after illness and longer periods of care. Now, this government's work has led to Sweden having a national strategy against loneliness with concrete goals, and funds are allocated annually. Civil society is also expected to be an active party.

Mr. Speaker! We now have the lowest tax burden in probably 50 years. Everyday life simply becomes a little easier for a working family with children when they have over 5,000 kronor more left in their wallet every month.

Then we have the fuels – gasoline and diesel. I will never forget how it sounded just about three years ago: Oh, what broken promises this government is guilty of! It will never happen! Then came the silence. It became increasingly compact. We have, in fact, shown that it does work. 500 kronor cheaper every time one fills a full tank – believe me, that makes a big difference.

We are now making the largest investment in modern times on roads and railways. Building regulations for houses and homes are being simplified. We do not only have more police on the streets – we also have more criminals behind bars.

We have moved from words to action, from promise to delivery. 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)

Mr. Speaker! I requested a reply from a representative for one of Sweden's governing parties regarding the issue that many municipalities are losing very large amounts with the government's proposal, which has been sent out for consultation. I just want to point out that the figures I previously mentioned are not something that any of us here in the Riksdag have come up with, but they come from the government's own tables. It is a long list. Ydre loses 6 million, Ljusnarsberg 7.7, Skinnskatteberg 7.5 and so on. More and more municipalities are now discovering that they are affected. There is great concern that the gaps will be reinforced because of this. As Hans Eklind has also pointed out, there are gaps when it comes to welfare, not least school and service.

I have a couple of questions. For the first: Is this something that the government has just sent out, or is it something that one actually stands behind? For the second, regarding the Sweden Democrats' strange reaction to this: Do you, the Sweden Democrats, actually support this proposal, which you have sent out for consultation, or is it just a free initiative from the government? Is it something that one is considering changing or withdrawing? This is, therefore, not the parliamentary investigation's proposal. These lists and this referral are the government's own proposal.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As for whether we have the Sweden Democrats with us, the member may well ask the Sweden Democrats about that. He has already had an exchange of remarks with Oscar Sjöstedt, and I thought it was quite clear what Oscar Sjöstedt gave notice about.

So, a referral has now been made. If I have understood correctly, this government has made a slightly different assessment because they want to provide some extra support to a number of rural municipalities. Some municipalities will receive an adjustment.

We will have to see where we land, bluntly put. I have not seen any bill yet. It will certainly come. I believe the idea is that it should at least arrive before the election. It is a huge matter that we are talking about, and this is an individual part of the whole.

Certain municipalities, not least in the inland of Norrland, will get it better. As I have understood it, it concerns those that have a population of under 10,000 inhabitants, have a geographical distance of over 700 meters between those who live there, and so on. It is about the government's view that it is difficult to influence the cost side in this type of municipality. Therefore, an adjustment has been made.

As for whether this will pass or not, I am not responsible for the answer. That is certainly true for Martin Ådahl as well, and the simple reason is that the proposal has only been referred. How the final bill will look, we do not know. When the bill arrives, it is reasonable that we take the debate directly and hold each other accountable for both one and the other. But for the time being, we do not have a bill. I have sat with this government for so many years now that I know that people work on the bills until the very moment they are presented. Exactly how this bill will look when it finally sees the light of day is known by neither Martin Ådahl nor I.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Hans Eklind for the answer. It seems that Hans Eklind has actually read this referral and has a better grasp of its content.

I believe there are many municipalities out there listening to this now. It is heartening that one can sense a small glimmer of hope that the government will back down from the proposal, which entails million-dollar losses for these municipalities and affects school, care, and service. The answer certainly inspires hope that it will not end up like this.

What then is the problem with the government's management? Well, we have a situation where the gaps are growing between city and country. The reasonable thing is then that the tax equalization strengthens sparsely populated and small municipalities. It is about the distribution between the cities, which have completely different conditions, and the sparsely populated rural municipalities. But the government chooses instead to redistribute by taking from one sparsely populated municipality and giving to the other. That is what we have objected to.

Of course, the inland municipalities in northern Sweden, for example Jämtland, which Hans Eklind speaks about, should receive reinforced resources. But it is completely unreasonable to take these resources from their neighboring municipalities and from other sparsely populated municipalities. It is not a tax equalization worth the name.

But now I have some hope that our plea will be heeded and that it is not taken away from these vulnerable rural municipalities. I hope that instead we receive a tax equalization worth the name – for the sake of the countryside and its welfare.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The member can rest assured that the government's line that all of Sweden shall live equally still applies. There, the equalization system is indisputably an important component, even though the municipalities have their own right of taxation and so on.

The conditions for conducting municipal activities look fantastically different across the country. For that reason, this government has invested very much in what I call the heartland, the countryside, so that it shall be possible to both live and operate there. Companies shall be able to participate. One shall have rural-oriented healthcare and so on.

In line with the initiatives that this government is making regarding helping those municipalities that have it a bit harder, I believe that we will see a final product that Martin Ådahl can rest easy with. It will be good for all municipalities – to the extent that it is possible, because I don't think I have ever met a municipal politician who does not think that their own municipality, in particular, is disadvantaged. But that is, in some way, in the nature of the matter.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say something briefly about the situation in Ukraine, whose civilian population is being terror-bombed every day. Seven people were killed in Kyiv just the other day. The civilian population is being terror-bombed by the war criminal Vladimir Putin, whom Donald Trump unfortunately now seems to want to serve what he asks for, over the heads of Ukraine and Europe. This we in Europe must resist with all our might. We do not want any capitulation, and no peace on Putin's terms.

The only way to do this is for us in Europe to step forward where the USA steps back. Ukraine now needs, starting in March next year, somewhere between 800 and 1,000 billion kronor. Here we must lead the Nordic and European countries and send much more money. We have proposed at least 1 percent per year during the years when the war rages. Even more advanced weapons are needed.

I urge the Swedish government to act while there is time. Ukraine's heroes deserve it.

Let me talk about another hero. His name is Peter and he lives in Munkfors. I met him quite recently, and he said: "Everyone complains about the Afghans, but I'm going to tell you that they are the first ones to arrive in the morning and the last ones to leave in the evening. Before I had hired anyone from Afghanistan, I didn't know either what I should believe. But now I know, Martin."

Peter has given jobs to five hard-working former refugees. His small company has grown. It is such heroes we need now, when such cold winds blow over Sweden and we head towards a new wolf-winter of unemployment, bankruptcies, and continued weak growth. We need these heroes to make things grow – to grow with heart. These heroes let people grow instead of shrink. They create instead of shifting blame. They make us all a little bigger, not smaller.

We need more people like Peter in Munkfors, because right now Sweden needs jobs, jobs, jobs – many more jobs.

Sweden has half a million unemployed today. Many have noted this in the debate. But I also noted that both the current and the previous Finance Minister have held press conferences before the debate. They were very much about the wallet. That is good. The Centre Party also wants to protect the households' wallet in these tough times. We want lowered food VAT and lowered taxes, especially for those with low and medium incomes.

But nothing will affect the wallet as much as the mass unemployment we have. Just the fact that we have so much higher unemployment than the EU average costs Sweden 45 billion a year. That is, therefore, 10,000 for an average household. In addition to all the suffering and the social problems that unemployment creates, we are also wasting our resources. It is not acceptable.

The long-term unemployed are now over 200,000 people. It is the highest number ever. As the head of the National Institute of Economic Research stated, with such long-term unemployment, it becomes increasingly difficult to return. Every fourth or every fifth youth is unemployed and has never received a first steady job.

Unemployment among newly graduated academics with three, four, five, or six years of studies behind them is now the highest in 20 years, 11 percent. The gap between northern Sweden, which has a shortage of people, and southern Sweden, where there are jobs, is growing.

Society is being torn apart. Our vulnerable areas are becoming increasingly vulnerable. As many have mentioned here in the debate, there are many children who do not see their parents go to work. Youth are given no chance. Of course, it also hinders the fight against gang crime.

Since so much depends on the jobs crisis, I think that the Tidö government, just like the bourgeois governments of former times, should devote all its strength, all its energy and all its thoughts to corporate policy, growth policy, structural reforms and job creation. But hardly a word was said about this at the Finance Minister's press conference. I thought that perhaps some news would come. There is hardly even a bill from the Ministry of Employment. And the establishment jobs, which one would make into something big, became only 84!

Instead, we are told that the unemployed are lazy. I guess they have become very much lazier under the Tidö government because unemployment has risen so much.

We also note that the government is constantly trying to kick-start the economy with borrowed money. In the budget for 2023, it is 30 billion. In the budget for 2024, it is 40 billion, and for 2025, it is 60 billion. In the budget for 2026 – the mother of all borrowing budgets – it is 80 billion. It is lucky for Elisabeth Svantesson that Sweden still has low public debt. It will be 100 billion and more next year.

The biggest problem, however, is not that one borrows and borrows, but that it does not help. Every year it is the same routine: The Tidö government promises that next year things will turn around, as long as one spends even more money. And then nothing happens. Then one is back there again and promises that things will turn around next year, as long as one spends even more of the taxpayers' money. And then nothing happens.

The government has tried to blame the unemployment on the outside world. But in the outside world – in the EU and in the OECD – unemployment has remained stably lower. It has even fallen. Sweden stands out.

The government has tried to blame the unemployment on the immigrants. In particular, SD naturally does so, and it is SD that decides. But while immigration has fallen, unemployment has increased. Now it is domestically born academics who are affected.

In other countries with large immigration, there is low unemployment. Germany and Holland have half as high unemployment. France, of all countries, has significantly lower unemployment than Sweden.

The whole idea from SD and the government of spending billions on return migration grants, which neither experts nor municipalities want or believe in, is that people should leave instead of contributing. It is not only a rotten view of humanity that fits very poorly with our Swedish values, but it is also a really bad growth and business policy.

Now it is time to stop shifting the blame. It is time to do something. Also, stop believing that daddy and mommy state will solve everything themselves with new labor market programs and loan budgets!

Now I am looking at both the previous and the current Finance Minister. This has simply not worked. Now we must do what has succeeded before: We must build from the bottom up and reward the diligence of ordinary people. We must reward the small and growing companies, which account for nine out of ten new jobs in Sweden.

What have we actually received in terms of job creation with the Tidö government? It is tens of billions in increased taxes that the Finance Minister now wants to take back at the last minute, temporarily, right before the election.

But what have the job creators received from the Social Democrats? I note that one is now following the Center Party in removing the cost burden for sick pay for small companies, and then we have labor market training. But that is actually not quite enough either, I think.

It is therefore the Center Party's role to point out another solution in the jobs debate. We may be a wise social-liberal center party that stands up for schools, education, and good roads and railways – perhaps a bit more than many others do. But in the jobs issue, we are the ones who go the furthest. Hundreds of thousands of jobs and sustained growth can only be created by tens of thousands of small businesses that dare to grow and hire. Then the tax on hiring must be lowered and burdens and complications reduced, so that companies and growth can increase.

Every day, the Center Party will stand up for this simple principle. If jobs are to increase, the tax on jobs must go down. If jobs are to increase, we must invest much more in small businesses. If jobs are to increase, we must invest much more in education and school. There must be no half-measures when we have half a million unemployed.

Sweden still has very high employment taxes and employer contributions that act as a massive brake between those who are to enter jobs and the companies that are to pay for more employees.

Then we must powerfully lower the employer contribution. Start with the first ten employees in growing small businesses! Start with the long-term unemployed and the young! It is actually insane, Mr. Speaker, that small businesses pay 31.42 percent to employ the long-term unemployed and the young when we have half a million unemployed.

Of course we must reduce the red tape. It is tens of thousands of rules that, according to Tillväxtverket, cost 6 percent of Sweden's GDP. Of course we shall ensure that we lower the tax on ordinary people's wages – for single mothers and for those who are now struggling to move away from social benefits – so that it always and without exception pays to move from benefits to work.

Of course we should improve Swedish for immigrants. Of course we should invest in integration. There is no reason not to do so and to cut back on this, as this government has done. Of course we should have many more and better teachers across the country, reduce the dropout rates, and have better continuing education. Of course we should have a modern apprenticeship system. But at the bottom, everything starts with growing small businesses – a small company, a café, or a small manufacturing company with eight employees who can afford to hire the ninth. That is where it starts with these heroes.

Then one could say quite a lot about what is happening with climate policy and what it means for Swedish growth, for Swedish green industrialization, and for the emergence of cars that are cheaper for people. This is becoming more and more impossible. Fewer and fewer, compared to how it is in other countries, can switch to the cheap and the green. We must help people in a completely different way. For example, in our budget proposal, we have a proposal that one should be able to lease a new or used hybrid, gas, or electric car for 1,500 a month. We need to get biofuels that are cheap and not expensive by also freeing ourselves from the rogue states.

But once again we are struck by the hopelessness – when we in Sweden certainly can, if only we want to.

I have previously spoken about the growing gaps in Sweden and about the great difference between the countryside and the cities. I could also speak more about women's health and maternity care, which is now being affected across the entire country.

Mr. Speaker! The state of hopelessness, where one stands with arms crossed in politics and shifts the blame, is soon over. Soon we shall turn this around. Emissions shall go down and jobs shall increase. We shall lighten the burdens and remove the obstacles, so that people's freedom increases. It is not hopeless. Certainly we can in Sweden, if we want to.

I move for approval of all the Centre Party's reservations.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Ådahl, for your speech!

The Centre Party says that policy issues determine who one should cooperate with. I think that is an honest starting point. I also think it becomes very clear in the member's speech which issues the Centre Party and the member want to prioritize – lower taxes on work, lower taxes for companies, growth policy, investments in education, and so on.

But if one looks at the Center Party's budget motion and the review that Sveriges Television has made of how the parties actually vote here in the chamber, one sees something that feels quite obvious: that the Center Party votes most similarly to the Liberals, the Moderates, and the Christian Democrats. Furthermore, they vote more similarly to the Sweden Democrats than to the Social Democrats.

If one looks at the Center Party's budget motion, one can see that there might still be a small common thread between S, V and MP. But C is a rather odd bird in that company.

My question to Martin Ådahl is: If it is now the issue-based politics that is to decide, is it then not honest and better to actually tell the voters that one belongs in the bourgeois camp, so that one can achieve impact for one's politics?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not really know how I should answer Cecilia Rönn when it comes to which camp one belongs in, in what way, and what will happen next. I do not really know if the Liberals themselves know it right now, for the simple reason that it is not a bourgeois camp. One happens to find oneself in a conservative and nationalist camp led by the Sverigedemokraterna.

I will bring up Sveriges Television's investigation. What did not emerge from it is that the Social Democrats vote with the Sweden Democrats more often than with the Left Party with their way of counting. But that is because it is a completely insane way of counting.

What we are discussing today, the entire budget with 80 billion in reform proposals and all that, is a single proposal. Then one has a lot of different smaller votes. Let us just take the opportunity to inform those who happen to be watching this debate that it was a strange way of calculating. It also gives these strange results, which do not match reality.

But there was a very interesting question from Cecilia Rönn. What is our policy most similar to? I will say: It is undoubtedly what we had in common, Member of Parliament Cecilia Rönn, that is to say the January Agreement. It was about large tax cuts for small businesses in order to, as has been mentioned earlier, cope with the pandemic and still have Sweden grow. And unemployment went down. So that was instead of the increases that Cecilia Rönn has been a part of, for example the increase of the employer contribution, during her time with the Tidö Government. I understand that it was not the intention. But our policy is most similar to the constellation that we were last jointly part of and that you jumped out of.

I hope that the constellation might one day in the future be able to do good things for Sweden again, or that another constellation with wise centrist parties can turn around the extremely serious situation regarding unemployment, growth, inequalities, and soaring climate emissions.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Member Ådahl!

I think the member knows, just as everyone else does, that Sweden's current government consists of three bourgeois parties – the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats – and that we have a constructive, good, and important cooperation with the Sweden Democrats. This means that we form a majority and get through important policies to solve Sweden's problems, and there, growth and unemployment are the highest focus for us.

I would have absolutely thought it would be very good if the Center Party could also join us and cooperate constructively to get good politics through. I think that in many respects the Center Party has a sensible policy for small businesses, to get growth started, and for wage earners. You say that you stand on the side of the companies, Martin Ådahl, and you speak about the importance of jobs and entrepreneurship and about the conditions in the countryside. But if you at the same time lock yourselves into the side that is dominated by the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party, how are you going to get through a policy that seriously strengthens the companies?

I think that Martin Ådahl and Centerpartiet must have analyzed all the budget motions anyway and seen that there are very large differences. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want to raise taxes on corporate income. They do not want to reform the 3:12 rules, and they make things difficult for many of the companies that C says it protects. My question is therefore again: If you mean it seriously when you say you stand on the side of companies, Martin Ådahl, shouldn't you choose cooperation with the political parties that, like Centerpartiet, actually stand up for entrepreneurship, jobs, and growth? Or are you going to risk being completely irrelevant during yet another parliamentary term?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! The question is who is most irrelevant. But I will answer as objectively as possible to the very important question from Member Cecilia Rönn.

If we start from the substantive policy: The absolute last thing I would choose is the policy that, despite very large loan budgets – the largest ever – has resulted in a very sharply rising unemployment, up to 9 percent, and which has caused Sweden to deviate from the rest of the world through an enormously weak growth development, record bankruptcies, and a falling rate of new entrepreneurship.

I would not choose the policy that, even with the new budget, causes emissions to soar by 4 billion tons and means that Sweden loses its green brand in the world. I would also not choose the policy where taxes for small businesses have been raised by over 10 billion only to then lower them temporarily, for a short while, around the election.

On a policy level, I would therefore not choose the Tidö government. Who would want that policy? The voters do not want it, and we do not want it. 97 percent of companies say that the complications and the regulatory burden have increased with the current government.

I would instead choose what we had before: a wise middle-ground cooperation with everyone who wants to participate, as far as it is possible, where one tackles the problems and gets growth started so that jobs increase while emissions are reduced. That is what I would choose, and that cooperation will also stand open to the Liberals even if they are part of another constellation, which is governed by a party with different goals than those we actually have in common.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think that one should use a lot of positive reinforcement. That is my conviction, so: Unlike Oscar Sjöstedt and others, who become concerned, I become happy when Martin Ådahl from Centerpartiet comes up to the rostrum. Such commitment to combating unemployment!

I also have great respect for Martin's commitment to Ukraine and for the equal value of people. Just as Member Ådahl says, it didn't matter if my colleagues were named Fatima or Kenny when I worked as a treatment assistant. It didn't matter for my father, who has had exactly such a small business as Martin speaks of, whether his employees were named Sonja or Rashim. It is together that we can turn around the development we have now, and it is together that we can turn around the unemployment.

Martin Ådahl knows that I think very highly of him, which of course is a completely different matter than the budget proposals we have to debate here today. But what is a bit worse in the budget is perhaps the deteriorations of the cash register and the health insurance. Is there any kind of insight that has landed so that we can invest in the parts we have in common when it comes to entrepreneurship and growth? We have collaborated a lot on infrastructure investments but also on what was raised here and which I think is incredibly important, namely the countryside and how we shall ensure that people across Sweden receive the funds required.

I did not perceive that the part about reduced compensations was raised particularly much, and my hope is that they perhaps stand at the bottom of the list.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Naturally, one should sometimes emphasize what one has in common, especially when it concerns fundamental principles of humanism and seeing people as assets instead of burdens – seeing the opportunities that people can come into work and contribute to our country instead of just seeing these people as something negative that should be removed.

All of that is something that naturally many of us agree with – actually even some parties in the current government, I believe, even though they have fallen under another party's agenda and dictates – and we must be able to unite around this in a completely different way.

If we are then to be able to reverse the development – if we are to get the jobs back, if the companies are to be able to grow and if Sweden is to once again be able to become the example in the world that we have been when it comes to green growth – it is however not, which I am sorry to inform the members of Vänsterpartiet, the path of subsidies that applies. Instead, we must ensure that small businesses are given the opportunity to grow, just as we did with the January cooperation. They must be given lower taxes for hiring so that more can enter the labor market.

Then we shall also not extend the unemployment insurance periods. The unemployment insurance should be strong at the beginning, but the periods should not be long. People must, above all, have the opportunity to get new jobs. That is where the Center Party's focus lies, and that is where it has always lain, that is, on getting the engine of the Swedish economy started through small and growing companies. There we will not yield an inch.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! One can still hope that it will be resolved, I think. But we shall take it later; we should perhaps not negotiate here in the chamber.

I have great respect for the fact that the Centre Party, and particularly Member Ådahl, looks at research and science. Economists from right to left have said that there has previously been a kind of incentive structure for jobs in the insurance systems, but that today, just as Member Ådahl pointed out, it is completely different measures than reduced benefits that could lead to more jobs. That is perhaps something that can be discussed.

Vänsterpartiet has previously proposed that the sick pay cost should be removed for smaller companies. At that time, we were alone in that, but now there are more of us. I will take it back in the next budget motion – or it will be a joint proposition, I realized, so it will be included in that.

I believe it is important to reflect on the big issues. Getting smaller companies started so that they can hire more people can absolutely be seen as measures aimed at the long-term unemployed, but I think this is also about the big discussions we have had – for example, about perhaps not borrowing for running costs but, in that case, for investments in railways, infrastructure, and other things that provide additional jobs in smaller companies.

My question remains. Which issues could Member Ådahl imagine prioritizing highest in her budget? None of the discussions here earlier were particularly much about the a-kassa, but they were more about the countryside and growth – and there I completely agree.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! The fact remains: Vänsterpartiet seems much more preoccupied with Centerpartiet than Centerpartiet is with Vänsterpartiets proposals – unfortunately. I also notice a desire from the member from Vänsterpartiet to, for lack of anything else, negotiate with us here in the rostrum. But we have negotiated before and reached agreements that have led to major and important changes for Sweden. We know how we do it, and we do not do it with Vänsterpartiet.

Enough about what was raised in the speaker's chair. We do not intend to give in an inch when it comes to our corporate policy, our work line, our belief in people's own initiative, our belief in justice in the country and our belief in lowering emissions.

I also want to say something briefly about the sick pay costs that the member from Vänsterpartiet mentioned. You were not the first with this proposal. We lowered them for small businesses so that they could hire people with a history of sick leave without feeling anxious. In that way, more people could enter the workforce. We passed it during the Alliance government with Fredrik Reinfeldt and Anders Borg. We pushed it through, but the Tidö government removed it, which has contributed to rising costs for companies and increasing unemployment.

We do not intend to give in an inch on this either. We will come back with a proposal on that, and we believe that many – not just Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna – will join in that it was wrong to remove it.

It was very positive comments, Mr. Speaker, from members who in many issues stand very far from us both economically and in other ways.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! We in the Liberals have put school first in every budget we have negotiated in this government. It has provided more money for teachers, learning materials, and safety. But despite that, Sweden is in a learning crisis. One in four 15-year-olds cannot read properly. It is a tragedy for every individual child who dreams of something greater, and it is a threat to Sweden as a knowledge and industrial nation. Our strength is built on a well-educated population. At the same time, insecurity is increasing. Teachers face a daily reality of disruption, brawls, and violence. According to the Swedish National Council against Crime, school is the most common crime scene for young people.

That we have ended up here is not due to a single government or reform. It is a witch's brew of different things. The municipalization of the 1990s turned the school into a postcode lottery, where resources can differ by tens of thousands of kronor per pupil per year. Deregulations have increased teaching time but have almost erased planning time and weakened the teachers' authority. Pedagogical ideas have created expectations for students to take greater responsibility for their own learning than is reasonable. Governments and municipalities of different colors have not taken responsibility but have left teachers and students to their fate.

Mr. Speaker! Now the Liberals will settle this. With Sweden's school party in government, teachers and students have a strong voice that puts knowledge, study, and safety at the top of the agenda. We are implementing a system shift in the school for the children's best interests. We regulate the teaching time so that teachers get time to be just teachers. It is a historic reform for the working environment in the school and so that children get the start in life they deserve.

We have ensured that there are more schoolbooks and fewer screens. We are making primary school completely mobile-free, and we are putting a stop to the screen pandemic in the classroom. We are also introducing new curricula with a focus on subject knowledge, basic skills, and reading methods based on science. And we are presenting the largest school budget in modern times. All of this is possible because Liberalerna take responsibility in the government.

But our work has only just begun. We are not satisfied until every student passes school, the teaching profession is once again one of the most attractive professions, and every classroom is characterized by order, study, and respect. We want children to enter the classroom and feel that they are getting to broaden their horizons, are being challenged, learn more, and reach as far as they can. It should be a school that everyone leaves with fulfilled knowledge requirements but also with a belief in their own ability.

Mr. Speaker! A well-educated population is also the key to Sweden's future growth. The Productivity Commission points this out clearly. Now the forecasts look brighter. Growth is on the way up. It shows that the government has handled the difficult years in a wise manner – first with an inflation-fighting policy and now with an expansive budget to take us out of the recession.

We must, however, manage to do two things at the same time. We must take responsibility here and now and build for the long term. In that regard, education is crucial. Therefore, the Liberals in the government are also investing in adult education in this budget, and we have also done so in previous budgets. It is about two liberal basic ideas: to always believe in every person's potential to become employable and be able to transition even in the middle of life, and to give companies the competence they need to be able to grow.

In the previous budget, we also made a major investment in research and innovation so that universities, research institutes and companies can be at the forefront and make Sweden a leading knowledge and technology nation.

Mr. Speaker! We are doing more for the companies in this budget. We Liberals know that it is the companies that are the backbone of our society. They create the jobs, the incomes, and the tax revenues, which finance our common welfare. Therefore, the policy must provide the best possible conditions for companies to start, grow, and dare to invest.

This government shows that we take that responsibility. We are re-establishing a stable and reliable infrastructure with historical investments, especially regarding the neglected maintenance of roads and railways. It is a task that will be long-term, because it has been neglected for very many years.

We have begun repairing the broken electricity system. We do this through better permit processes and clarity that stable fossil-free electricity is the foundation for our prosperity. We have decided on funding so that new nuclear power can be built in Sweden, hopefully in Ringhals in my hometown Varberg. We also give the green light to offshore wind power and invest billions via Klimatklivet and Industriklivet to support companies' green transition. And we continue to electrify the transport sector.

For me, the message is clear: Growth and reduced emissions must go hand in hand. We are reducing red tape for companies. In a previous budget, we lowered the costs of hiring through an expanded growth support, and in this budget, we are lowering the employer contribution for young people. We are improving the 3:12 rules, which means lower taxes for many companies and less bureaucracy for those who use the 3:12 rules.

We have a clear liberal compass forward. In the next mandate period, we want to continue improving conditions through, for example, lowered corporate tax, preferably permanent reductions of the employer contribution for young people and continued expanded growth support. And we obviously want Sweden to introduce the euro.

Mr. Speaker! For Sweden to grow out of the recession, people must also feel confidence in the future. They must be able to believe that tomorrow can be brighter than yesterday. Therefore, we continue to lower taxes on work and pensions in this budget, and we have also done so in previous budgets. We are also finally lowering the electricity tax, and we are making things easier for households through a temporary reduction of the food VAT.

From 2026, the final part of a tax-free basic deduction in ISK for up to 300,000 kronor will be introduced, something that the Liberalerna have been pushing to get through. Every person should be able to build up their own savings, a so-called fuck off-capital, to be able to leave an unwanted situation, dare to speak up at a bad job, leave a destructive relationship, or take a risk and start something new. Whatever one wants to do, it is savings freedom in practice.

We also strengthen those who have it toughest. We increase the housing allowance by up to 1,000 SEK per month from a level that has not been adjusted since 1997. We close the tax gap for those with sickness and activity compensation. The so-called "funkisskatt" is abolished. Lower tax on work is good, but those who lack work capacity should not be punished with higher tax. If one looks at the government's budget, it is clear that during this mandate period, it is people with the lowest income who receive the highest percentage changes – for we can do both.

In the previous budget, the Liberals pushed through a larger increase of the assistance allowance. We agreed that the allowance should be indexed. We are pushing for this to be implemented as soon as possible so that the allowance is not eroded year after year. We will continue to fight so that people with disabilities can live free, independent lives. LSS, which the Liberals pushed through, is one of Sweden's largest freedom reforms, and it must be protected.

Some parties have previously here in the speaker's chair made it appear as if one is not thinking of weak and vulnerable people if one lowers the tax on income and companies. But it is the tax revenues that are what is important, not the levels. If the levels are too high, the tax revenues fall – the so-called Laffer curve. Then there will be less welfare and poorer conditions for having a safety net for those who fall. Therefore, parties were needed that understand both of these parts.

Mikael Damberg of the Social Democrats said in an exchange of remarks that L does not influence the government. It is still a bit funny. But it is also logical that S wants to make it appear as if the Liberals do not influence, because it is the Liberals with our 16 mandates in the Riksdag who stand in the way of the Social Democrats taking government power. I understand that this is difficult for the Social Democrats' 107 members. In the classroom it does not hold up, but in this chamber, 16 members beat 107 every day during this mandate period. That is what we are proud of.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals stand for a balance that no other party does. We stand on the side of the companies. We know that their success finances our welfare. We stand for a reasonable tax burden, because we know that it must pay to educate oneself and work. What is important is the tax revenue, not the tax levels.

We stand for a climate transition based on fossil-free electricity, innovation and technical solutions. We know that people want to take responsibility, and we can combine increased prosperity with reduced emissions.

We believe in the individual's power to shape their own life, regardless of economic background. Therefore, it is right that school and higher education are tuition-free, and they must also be compensatory. We know that it is to care to set requirements.

We also know that everyone has the right to a good life regardless of circumstances, and therefore we defend, among other things, LSS.

We want to give people who have moved here a chance to create a good life in Sweden. We believe that the vast majority want to do right by themselves, work, educate themselves and contribute. But we cannot turn a blind eye to problems such as honor oppression, gang crime and parallel societies that stifle freedom. Where freedom has been pushed back, it must be reclaimed. In Sweden, the same laws and the same freedoms and rights must apply to everyone.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals are and have long been both heart and brain. We have led the way in decisive issues, such as universal and equal suffrage, parental leave, the LSS reform, EU membership, nuclear power, and Nato. Now we are also pointing out the next step. We want to introduce the euro and will continue to work for it. We want to nationalize the school again, because that is how we truly ensure that the school becomes equal and compensatory and gives all children the chance and the start they need in life. We want to legislate on fixed family doctors so that one can have continuity in their care contact and the best possible care when it is needed. We know that Sweden becomes its best self when entrepreneurs can flourish, when companies are allowed to grow, when children get to go to a really good school, when there is a strong safety net if one falls, and when we can sell our innovations to the rest of the world and be a part of the EU's internal economic core. That is what the Liberals want to build in this budget and in upcoming budgets.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We know that Sweden and the world face great challenges: a climate crisis that, despite the right wing's and the Tidö government's excuses, is coming ever closer, and a war in Europe with Putin who wants to expand his power at the cost of reduced freedom and democracy. All around the world, wars and conflicts are raging, fueled by geopolitical tensions, climate change, and skyrocketing inequality.

Here at home, a recession has taken hold. We have a finance minister and a government that do everything to make it look like it is someone else's fault. Previously it was the inflation, which Putin caused with his full-scale invasion of Ukraine but which the government somehow tries to blame Miljöpartiet for. Now, instead, it is Trump's tariffs that are claimed to be the problem. The tariffs are admittedly troublesome and absolutely not desirable. But that the Swedish economy is limping is not just the fault of the tariffs and the global uncertainty.

What is holding back the economy is also the insecure households and the lack of demand. The government has pursued a completely backward policy, where they have chosen to lower taxes for high-income earners instead of prioritizing strengthening households with small economic margins. The recipe in a recession is to do exactly the opposite. Money in the pockets of households with small economic margins is both more effective for turning the economy around and more just than tax cuts for the rich.

But the Finance Minister continues to shift the blame, even though it is obvious that it is her economic policy that has not had an effect on the problems the government says it wants to solve. If they really had wanted to tackle Sweden's economic problems, such as declining competitiveness and increasing unemployment, they would have done things fundamentally differently.

In the Green Party's budget motion, there are many proposals that the government can let itself be inspired by. The first thing I want to talk about is the green transition.

To strengthen our competitiveness and that which builds prosperity, we must ensure that the green transition does not come to a complete standstill. We must, here in this chamber, continue to show the Swedish business community and investors that it is in the transition that the strength of the future lies. It is good policy, but it is also absolutely necessary.

If the world does not manage to transition, a completely new reality with unimaginable scenarios awaits. It is not only the economy that will suffer, but everything and everyone. I know it is a cliché to say, but it is nonetheless true that there simply are no companies on a dead planet.

After the Green Party's years in government, Sweden was at the forefront. We lowered emissions, we increased the pace of the transition, and we created conditions so that everyone could be included. Through Industriklivet, large emitters could test new manufacturing methods with reduced emissions. Steel without coal went from being a nice headline to becoming a reality. We could show that the transition is not only necessary and possible but also profitable and competitive. Now that journey needs to continue and not stop.

Swedish industry has historically been completely central to the construction of society and will play a decisive role for the future. Here, the role of politics must be to facilitate the transition instead of sowing doubt and creating obstacles, as this government unfortunately does.

The green transition is a win-win for everyone involved. Swedish companies are still at the forefront. They provide jobs and strengthen the Swedish economy. But as this government acts, we lose momentum. It is sad that a government led by Moderaterna, at least on paper, instead questions the need for climate transition and portrays Miljöpartiet as a greater threat than the climate changes themselves. It is a rhetoric that is unworthy and a policy that jeopardizes both the Swedish economy and the climate transition.

We in Miljöpartiet have until now said that we want to continue the green transition, but now it is starting to be time to say that we want to restart it in order to give companies confidence in the future and people hope. We want to see new testbeds and measures that lower emissions in the near term.

Industriklivet and Klimatklivet are given tools, which the government admittedly has in its budget, but to an all too small extent. The money is not enough, and it is the result of a political prioritization made by a government that simply cares too little about the climate and about jobs and companies.

We in Miljöpartiet have a green investment plan for Sweden where we invest heavily in the industry's transition and simultaneously make large climate investments that build Sweden strong. It contains increased climate and industrial steps, a massive expansion of railways and public transport throughout Sweden, and investments in electrifying the vehicle fleet and transitioning to a completely renewable electricity production.

We also want everyone who is dependent on the car to be able to transition with an electric car bonus and a leasing check so that everyone can afford to replace their fossil fuel car with a car that runs on electricity.

Mr. Speaker! A strong economy is not built by residents who live in economic vulnerability and who every day are uncertain whether they will have food on the table at the end of the month. The government's budget does not help these people but rather starves them.

Instead of proposing caps on benefits, the government should focus on companies' opportunities to hire and people's ability to manage their finances for the entire month. The government's poverty reform will not lead to more jobs, but only to more children having even darker prospects for the future. We want instead to strengthen families' finances, increase the child allowance by 350 kronor per month, and increase the housing allowance for families with small financial margins.

We want to roll back the deterioration of the high-cost protection for medicines that the Tidö government has implemented, which hits hard against households that need both food and medicine. They say that we are raising taxes a lot, but the fact is that a family with two children where the parents have salaries of approximately 35,000 kronor a month get more money in their pockets with our policy than with the Tidö parties'. Furthermore, they get a better school for their children and a time at the health center when they need it. This applies to everyone.

For several years, we in this chamber have been met with alarm reports from both school and healthcare and elderly care. Too few resources and temporary investments have damaged the welfare system. If Sweden is to function, we need to have a welfare system that can be relied upon, for everyone and in all of Sweden.

The austerity measures that healthcare and schools have undergone in recent years have now left the operations depleted. The care queues are lingering long, the country's social services are overstretched, and children and young people are left without support and help in school while gang crime pushes further and further down into the ages. We simply cannot have that. It is high time to restore the social contract and strengthen the welfare in all of Sweden.

Healthcare has suffered from a lack of resources for a long time. Patients, relatives, and staff are hit hard when resources are too small and the needs are constantly growing. Instead of tackling the problem, the government has, over the past three years, refused both to provide the money needed and to make the systemic changes that are required.

Instead of, as the government, hoping for the best, we move forward in our budget with targeted and broad investments in healthcare across the entire country. One of the biggest problems today is the lack of accessibility. One does not succeed in getting in contact with a doctor in a reasonable time, and one waits too long for surgery. We meet this with a primary care reform while simultaneously meeting the great needs that exist in psychiatry.

We have a government that claims to be for equality but is cutting back on women's healthcare. It is truly bad. We want the targeted investments to remain. Everyone who needs care and support should receive it. Anything else is unacceptable in a welfare state like Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! This government wants to put children in prison. We in Miljöpartiet want children to be given different upbringing conditions. School is the primary vaccine against exclusion and crime. A good school with more present adults can give children a secure start in life and a place to grow, regardless of home conditions and the parents' life situation, but it requires that we give the school the right conditions.

We do this by casting out the profit interest from the classrooms and instead bringing in more teachers, strengthening student health, and allocating the resources required so that every child can succeed in school. This requires targeted resources, something that we prioritize. Unfortunately, this does not apply to the government.

A good school is not always enough. At the same time as we make major investments in schools, we need to strengthen social services, which are responsible for preventive work across the entire country. No children should fall into the clutches of gang criminals and commit crimes. We must get the children off the streets long before that, not lock them up when society has failed them. To invest in our children and young people is to invest in our future.

When we talk about violence on the streets, we must also talk about violence in the home. This week is Orange Week, a week where men's violence against women is highlighted around the world and where we as a society must much more clearly prioritize stopping the physical, psychological, and economic violence that every day limits the lives of women and girls.

In our budget motion, we have initiatives for protected housing and women's and girls' shelters, and we have a proposal regarding relocation funds in cases of domestic violence. The person who leaves a violent relationship shall receive support to build a new life, and society shall be there to help her.

We live in an uncertain world with many crises that need to be managed in parallel. The climate crisis is escalating while welfare is being brought to its knees and inequality is spiraling. Instead of addressing the high unemployment and the stagnation for Swedish companies, the government continues with its set economic policy for increased gaps.

Now, one has also gone all-in on the Sweden Democrats' repatriation project, which means that Sweden will have even more difficulty with the supply of skills, something that not even moderate municipal politicians seem willing to step up for.

It sounds in the debate as if it is only the criminals that the government wants to get at, but in reality, that is not the case. We often read in the media about decent people who have lived large parts of their lives in Sweden and who have jobs, friends, and their entire lives here, but who now risk being thrown out. That does not make Sweden any better economically or safer. It is simply a xenophobic policy that brings nothing positive with it. It surprises me that the Moderaterna agree to such obvious attacks on what can build Sweden's economy strong, now and in the long run.

To summarize: If the government really had wanted to do something about the recession, they would have done completely different things than lowering taxes for the rich. I have expressed surprise that the Moderaterna have laid flat for the Sverigedemokraterna when it comes to the green transition, but there is one thing that does not surprise me, namely that the right lowers taxes. They will, in fact, always lower taxes for the rich more than they invest in those who are vulnerable and in our common good, but it is not all larger private fortunes that make Sweden stronger.

A strong Sweden requires a society that holds together, and we can only build that together – for each other and with each other. Sweden does not become a better country in any way by some getting more in their wallets while others do not have a job to go to or a good school to put their children in. I have said it before, and I say it again: A society that gives up on being good for everyone is soon not good for anyone.

Despite it may sound good, the Tidö government has given up on the climate, welfare, and faith in humanity, but we have not. We know that a better society is possible, and we know that we can build it together. Sweden deserves better!

I vote in favor of the Green Party's budget motion and thus reservations 4 and 8.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Is there reason to feel confidence and faith in the future when one looks out over the world and sees all the troubled areas and ongoing wars and hears the high tone that leaders in the world's countries have towards one another, when we are also in a prolonged recession? I mean that there are reasons to feel faith in the future.

Mr. Speaker! Our four parties, the Tidö parties, took over a Sweden with an inflation of 10 percent, a Sweden that ranked 22nd on the EU's growth list, a Sweden where shootings hit records, where children were subjected to humiliation and where children murdered children. The voters gave us a mandate to reverse that development.

As we now enter the final year of the mandate period, high inflation has been fought thanks to our party's responsibility in the first two budgets, where we were not expansive despite a poor economic climate. And as we now enter the final year of the mandate period, real wages are rising again, and interest rates have been lowered. The fluctuations, Mr. Speaker, have decreased year by year since we took office. When one now fills a full tank of diesel, it is approximately 500 kronor cheaper. And, not least, next year Sweden is expected to have the sixth highest growth in the EU.

I mean that there are reasons to have faith in the future, because we are on the right track now. But we are not there yet.

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that it matters who is in power. The Government and the Sweden Democrats agree on the direction for Sweden. We agree on what needs to be done, and we are doing it. Our parties also have a majority here in the Swedish Riksdag, a majority for the proposals that I presented when I handed over the budget here a few weeks ago and for which the Riksdag today will make decisions on the frameworks. Our cooperation, our cohesion, and our parliamentary majority have served Sweden well.

We have had three turbulent and shaky years in the global environment and in the world economy, and one does not have to look far to see that the opposite is actually quite troublesome. I have fine colleagues whom I often meet in Brussels, my finance minister colleagues in Europe and the EU. But I always see and almost always meet a new face. Germany has its third finance minister, and I am now working with the fourth finance minister from France. He is a very pleasant and good person. But all this, Mr. Speaker, is of course challenging in times of anxiety and instability.

It also reminds a great deal of the previous parliamentary term here in Sweden. Governments fell. Prime Ministers fell. In any case, they resigned, if we are not to take it literally. It was political turmoil with attempts at cooperation, not for Sweden's best, but to retain power at any cost. But that was then, and now is now.

In a difficult time, the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the Liberals and we Moderates now take responsibility for Sweden. We take responsibility for what the other parties before us left behind, and we now turn the development step by step.

Mr. Speaker! The world is, as I said, uneasy, and the uncertainty is still there. When important trading partners such as Germany have zero growth for several years, it is clear that it also affects us. We realize that we cannot get any major tailwind from the rest of the world.

The key to breaking the recession that is now prolonged is to strengthen domestic demand. This budget will also do that. It may be good to know that the budget we present, with 80 billion in investments and reform space, will contribute to precisely growth. That is the assessment made by the Swedish government and the Ministry of Finance, but also by the Commission.

What is it then, for this budget that the Riksdag is to make a decision on today? It is a budget for hard-working people who go to work every day and who do what they are supposed to do. They do their duty. Some love their job. Others go there with a bit of a knot in their stomach, but they do their job. They are involved and contribute. And they also expect us to shape a policy where they can get what they need: a fair society, where those who work also receive pay for their effort.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, also provides money and more in the wallet for hard-working people. It does so through lowered taxes. It does so through lowered food VAT. It does so for parents who have children in preschool through lowered preschool fees. Altogether, a family with children can expect to have approximately 5,000 kronor more each month next year compared to when we took office because we are lowering the tax.

Mr. Speaker! It is of course not just about breaking the recession. Another incredibly important part of all this is that more parents should be able to say yes to their children instead of having to say no when the children ask if they can go to the cinema or have an extra taco night in the week. The hard-working parents, the students, the one who opens the shop in the morning or the preschool teacher who closes at 6 p.m. – we have all those hard-working people in mind.

Mr. Speaker! Another important matter for our four parties is to give the economy the conditions to grow. There are things that Sweden, which is a trade-dependent country, cannot influence – for example, the growth in Germany. But there is much we can do in the short and long term.

We are improving the conditions for companies and entrepreneurs step by step. More people shall be able to hire more. We are lowering the costs of hiring young people. We are lowering the tax for many of those who run small companies. We are reducing the administrative burden. All of this affects growth.

We are now also introducing a subsidy reform that concerns both morality and structure, a fair subsidy system that ensures it always pays off for families with many children to actually take a job and work. We do it for the children's sake, but we also do it for the sake of all other taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker! When people grow, then Sweden grows. That is our goal even when it comes to growth. I have spoken about growth ever since I got this job. Many of you have heard me several times. You may think that you have heard me too many times; that may be so. But there is so much more to do here. I am glad that so many parties are now speaking about growth, but it also matters what policy one then pursues.

We know and understand that it is only a growing economy that can bear and pay for the defense of the future, the preschool of the future, the police salaries of the future, and the nursing assistant salaries of the future. Therefore, we are working on a broad front with precisely increased growth. The large infrastructure investments are enormously important, as is the investment in the energy system. What we do step by step – now I only said a few things, because time is running out – affects growth in both the short and long term.

But something has happened, Mr. Speaker, since I was last here and laid the budget on the floor of the Riksdag. It is that four other parties have submitted their shadow budgets.

What can one say? I have read their motions and have sat here now and listened for a couple of hours. I do not hear many visions or proposals that will make Sweden better, that the world's best country will become even better. Instead, I hear very many who speak about how bad Sweden is, and that surprises me.

Those of you who know me know that I like to say it as it is – to point out problems and solve them. But this gloom-mongering that I hear right now does not benefit Sweden. Furthermore, it is not true. Sweden has so many strong sides and is such an example right now for many.

When I meet my colleagues, as I have said, many wonder how on earth we can have such a low national debt. They wonder how we manage our capital market, which functions so well. I then have to tell them about ISK, and I have received a picture of my Polish colleague who is so happy that they have now introduced ISK in Poland. It is good for the Poles, who get a return on their savings, and it is good for Polish companies, which actually get access to capital. We are participating and contributing together.

Is Sweden perfect? Absolutely not – then none of us would be here. But Sweden is good, and we make it even better.

I must also mention the Social Democrats. You aren't even trying. I have managed to see many Social Democrats running around and filming in the corridors of the Riksdag and talking about the care deduction instead of actually funding things in the budget.

When one reads the budget, one sees that there is a budget gap of 50 billion over three years. You can laugh if you want, Mikael Damberg, but it is true. You want to increase aid, for example, but it is not included. It is a rather large cost, so to speak. You want more labor market training and vocational training but think that it should still be financed exactly according to the framework.

Those were, of course, just a few examples. Regarding all the taxes that are to be raised, I think the Social Democrats say that they do not intend to go to the election on raised taxes, but they have very many raised taxes in their budget motion, Mr. Speaker. That is both sloppy and irresponsible.

Now I only mentioned the Social Democrats, but there are four parties, and the only thing they agree on in a difficult time is to raise aid and increase immigration. But that is something one does not want to speak loudly about. It is roughly the same as social democrats not wanting to talk about raised taxes.

My time has almost run out – in the speaker's chair, of course, not anywhere else. Every day when I go to work, I have a guiding star, and that is that I think Sweden should be better tomorrow in comparison to today. I believe that is everyone's guiding star. I am not alone in that. I see that we have such good conditions now moving forward. We have world-class public finances and very low public debt. We have a stable political majority – both regarding the Tidö Agreement and in other broad and important issues – which has broad support together.

Sweden has many very good days ahead. We do everything we can so that more people – mothers and fathers, students and seniors – can feel confidence in the future. We take responsibility. We do it with joy, and we do not actually blame others. We take responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Finance has spoken a lot about hard-working families and individuals, but the truth is that there are more than 100,000 fewer hard-working individuals now than when the Minister for Finance took office. This is not something pessimistic, as it was described as, but it is simply statistics. While the rest of the world has had stable or falling unemployment, we have had an increasing one.

I actually do not understand why the Minister for Finance, in this crisis situation for the Swedish labor market, devotes so much of his press conferences and his presentations to talking about the opposition and not about solutions for unemployment. Instead, we get different forms of SD rhetoric about it being immigration's fault, but as we have mentioned here several times, other countries have had immigration but still managed to have low unemployment.

A little less than a year before the election, we still do not see that the forecasts for unemployment are heading down. My simple question to the Minister for Finance is: When the Center Party puts forward so many powerful proposals so that small businesses can get the jobs back and so that we can strengthen education, why does this government, which talks so much about growth and unemployment, not put forward concrete proposals? It is you who are responsible. Where is the content?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, for the question! It is a very relevant issue that I devote a lot of time to. It is definitely with the unemployed in focus that we set this budget, for example. We know that the recession is for the most part due to low domestic demand – all analysts say so. After we saw an upturn just before Trump took office, very many have become cautious. Breaking the recession also means that demand and many jobs will return – but Martin Ådahl is touching on a different area. It is also about the long-term unemployed.

I believe that Martin Ådahl's party is one of the few in here that in no way makes a connection between the fact that very many people are coming from other countries at the same time and that this can complicate integration, especially if one does not have such good integration policy.

What we are doing is introducing a subsidy reform. Activity requirements are almost one of the most important things there. When you are an immigrant woman or a Swedish-born man who is at home year after year and no one asks for you or sets any requirements – so you do not need to be active – then you are passivized.

For so many years, people have been hidden and forgotten in the statistics of different governments. I do not intend to continue with that. That is why we have a subsidy reform with activity requirements, that is why we are lowering the tax on work, and that is why we are lowering the employer contributions for young people, among other things. One could make the list much longer.

I do not know if Martin Ådahl does not know what we have in our budgets or if he does not want to see, but many of the things we do are actually what will lead to both increased demand and more people in work.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I note once again that everything is about immigration. I have strongly pushed for the government to have a much more powerful integration policy with practical job-Swedish. We are very much in favor of the activity requirements, and we are grateful that the government is reintroducing the job incentive in the social assistance which was to be removed for a while.

I have no problems with all of that. I completely share the goal. The only thing we do not understand is why you have raised the taxes for small businesses – and are only withdrawing them temporarily now – and that you otherwise have no major measures that would allow us to reverse the development.

Where have all the principles and ideas that the liberal forces, the small business forces, and so-called bourgeois governments in Sweden once stood for gone? Look at the result!

The Minister for Finance said, perhaps in a Freudian way, that time is running out. Yes, it is! This was the last budget. Unemployment has only risen and risen, and growth has not arrived. This distinguishes Sweden from the rest of the world. Only Sweden has this Swedish Tidö unemployment. There is no other country in the world that has that development and this special Tidö recession.

Time is up. It is time to choose new partners. It is time to choose a new policy. It is time to rethink. This was a dead end. Let us go back to a real growth and jobs policy and find new company for the Finance Minister and for Swedish economic policy.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Is growth support bourgeois policy? Are better 3:12 rules and lower taxes for small companies bourgeois policy? Are lower fuel prices bourgeois policy? It is obviously not, according to the Centre Party. Is a lower employer contribution for young people bourgeois policy? The list can be long.

We must also remember that Sweden and many other countries in Europe are in an incredibly difficult time. Unemployment is high. We are now hitting the bottom of the recession. It will turn around, unless major, revolutionary things happen around the world.

Mr. Speaker! Martin Ådahl spoke about reducing unemployment, but I can say that not a single person who has been unemployed in recent years has been helped by the chaos that Martin Ådahl personally created in Arbetsförmedlingen. They wonder: Where is Arbetsförmedlingen? When can I meet some employment officers? Now there is a sign in many places where it says "Closed by Martin Ådahl and Centerpartiet".

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I listened to the Minister for Finance's speech. I understand that she would like to tell us how the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties have done everything right during these years. It is, however, a bit harder to understand why the results have then remained out of reach. If everything has been done right, why are we then standing and treading water economically in Sweden?

The Minister for Finance made a rhetorical comparison. She has met European colleagues who wonder how we can have such strong public finances. But one does not have strong public finances if one runs a deficit every year. A deficit of 167 billion is expected again. For the fourth time, Sweden will have a situation where unemployment has surged and deficits have increased under a right-wing government. That is not how you build strong public finances over time.

One should perhaps reflect a bit on whether it was right not to support ordinary families in a clearer way during the recession. Now it turns out that nine out of ten people in Sweden would have more money in their pockets with the Social Democratic budget than with the government's budget for next year. It matters if one wants to get out of the recession.

The comparison with Europe is greater than that. How can it be that Sweden has had lower growth than our European neighbors? Why have we had a weaker development compared to both Europe and Sweden's own historical development of GDP and growth? That is the question the Finance Minister should ask himself. How can the Finance Minister be satisfied with a development where Sweden has underperformed and we now have 100,000 more unemployed in our country?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! I am not satisfied. That is exactly what I said in my speech. But I see that what we are doing works. Mikael Damberg does not agree. I can explain what I mean.

The countries that are now in the EU have different starting points. Sweden is very export-dependent and dependent on what happens in the rest of the world. Swedish households are very interest-rate sensitive – Mikael Damberg knows that very well, I hope. That is why it was important to fight inflation. We did that with two restrained budgets, despite a poor economic climate.

Now Mikael Damberg is pretending that one should be expansive in a high economy. It is you Social Democrats as well in the budget – but we forget that. Here and now, one needs to get demand moving among Swedish households. That is exactly what we do with this budget. None of us know exactly how every Swedish household will react, but I want to do everything I can so that they get confidence in the future and hope.

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit difficult to take Mikael Damberg at his word. Our four budgets with lowered fuel prices and taxes and other measures have made a big difference in a difficult time. But in the budget that the Social Democrats have presented and which the Riksdag is to vote on today, there is a hole of 50 billion – in terms of irresponsibility or negligence. That should be known. One should also know that everything one does needs to be financed. If we were to finance 50 billion in budget holes, it would involve a tax increase for hard-working people of 2,000 kronor a month. I think it is unserious politics.

When I was in opposition, I was very careful to present policies that were feasible. Our budgets won quite often. It was good for many Swedes. But the Social Democrats' carelessness and irresponsibility, together with their three friends, creates no stability, no growth, and actually not even any faith in the future, I believe.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It feels as if the Finance Minister and the Moderaterna are becoming more desperate as the election approaches. They are inventing a fantasy budget for 2028 and trying to manufacture a deficit.

We can look at the deficits that the Finance Minister is responsible for during next year? It concerns 167 billion in tax cuts on borrowed money. Our budget is stronger than the government's budget next year.

The core of the matter is that the Minister for Finance does not understand that her own economic policy during these years has put Sweden in a position where the recession has lasted longer than it needed to and that the risk of unemployment was constantly underestimated. Growth issues were not taken seriously.

The distribution profile one has had in its budgets when one has repeatedly lowered taxes for people with high incomes has not driven up consumption in Sweden. The Finance Minister said it herself last year; she did not know what to do with the 3,000 kronor she was to receive in tax cuts. But a single mother or a pensioner who has difficulty paying for medicine knows that their money goes toward consumption. That would have made a bigger difference. That is why it is important to say that our budget for next year makes things better for nine out of ten Swedes.

If consumption is to be seriously stimulated, one must support the household economies of ordinary people and not continue to lower taxes for people who earn over 67,000 kronor a month. It is a flawed prioritization in a situation where Sweden must get out of the recession. Sweden must start working again.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One can say one thing and do another. That is often the case with some of the parties that are currently in opposition. I take responsibility for the situation that is now. I do that by strengthening the households' economy. For three years in a row, we have strengthened the households' economy. It is the workers' turn; I have said that many times. Guarantee pensioners, students and others have received increased benefits in connection with the indexing to meet inflation.

It is a bit strange when there is only talk about the Socialdemokraternas proposal on child allowance. In some way, that is where the great dividing line lies, from Mikael Damberg's perspective. I think that one can absolutely propose it, but it is not self-evident that the members of the Riksdag and those who have children of that age will be helped by it either. That is one way to work. We have instead chosen to lower the tax.

Mikael Damberg knows, and I hope that you here in the chamber know, that we give most to those who earn the least. That is the distribution profile we have. Then Mikael Damberg, Ida Gabrielsson and others can say something else as many times as they want. It will not become any truer because of it.

Mr. Speaker! I cannot and will not let go of carelessness. One cannot claim to be fit to govern or claim to stand on the side of hard-working people when one, fundamentally, when given power, always raises taxes. The budget that the Social Democrats have presented leads to higher taxes on labor and companies. There is no way around it.

Finally, there will be an interesting discussion about the deficit. As far as I know, no parties here have presented a surplus for four years in a row in a recession. It wouldn't be the textbook example, as Magdalena Andersson would say. But you have still done so, partially, in this budget, which was very surprising.

As a consumer information, I can mention that some of the deficits we have are due to large support to Ukraine and investments in defense. I know that we agree on that.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We know that the whole world is facing a transition. In other European countries, they compete to attract investments in the climate-smart technologies of the future, but our government instead engages in a policy and rhetoric that runs counter to the green transition. The government sends signals to the rest of the world that Sweden is not actually so interested in transitioning the industry. This naturally harms the willingness to invest and affects the jobs of the future.

Since we have debated many times, I know that the Finance Minister actually sees the climate changes and knows that they are real, even if I did not hear so much about this in her speech. I would like to ask why our Moderate Finance Minister lets the Sweden Democrats set the course for the future of the green transition.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

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

Many judges consider that Sweden is currently one of the countries in Europe that is generally most attractive for investments. This concerns both green investments and other investments. We are on our way to becoming a safe haven when there are many and large uncertainties all around. It is about political and economic stability and about world-class state finances, but it is also about us leading innovation leagues and having many clusters with very forward-thinking and enormously skilled entrepreneurs and business owners.

We shall continue to attract investments and make Sweden even more open to them. This applies to both green investments and others. I believe that the member regarding green investments meant certain specific investments. She is welcome to explain, but I believe we understand each other. It is quite obvious that Sweden shall continue to be such a country. Sweden is that and shall become even more so.

I don't really see the contradiction here. Is it that Janine Alm Ericson means that we should spend more money on Industriklivet and Klimatklivet? Is this the solution? It is about quite a lot of money. I would like to understand.

We facilitate investments through experts' tax, R&D deductions and much more that the previous government did not do. Fundamentally, Sweden is a country to invest in, and many do so as well.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer.

The green transition is somewhat of a concept. It is about us investing in future technologies, which lower emissions and can still provide the economic development that we see as necessary. We agree that we must move forward to lower unemployment and achieve better competitiveness for Sweden. That was what I meant.

Unfortunately, there is much that speaks against Sweden wanting to continue to be at the forefront here. We see that many Sweden Democrats – primarily – express themselves very negatively. They do not even believe that climate change exists. They do not believe that we will have a full-scale climate crisis upon us if we do not take measures against this. I unfortunately see no Moderates who object, especially not the Finance Minister.

Furthermore, we have now had crises for the large transition companies that we do have in Sweden. This government has had a very weak support. The Moderates want, for example, to abolish the green credit guarantees, which naturally would not improve these companies' opportunities to transition. The levels of Industriklivet can always be discussed, but here I am talking about the bigger picture. I really hope that the Finance Minister can provide an answer that sounds a bit more reassuring than that she doesn't quite know what I mean by the green transition.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand what the member means by the green transition. I would like to broaden the concept when it comes to support, but we will let it go. I understand what the member means.

Sweden shall be – and is – a country that many more want to invest in, both within the green transition and within other sectors. It can involve investments in the service sector from other countries. It can involve very many different types of companies that are to come here. We shall facilitate that, and we do so all the time.

The green transition is strong in Sweden, and it will continue to be so. We must, however, remember that it is not only Sweden that is currently grappling with this. Money has not been free in recent years. The investments have become much more expensive than was expected. There has been a huge amount of private capital, sometimes even state capital, but it has not been enough. It has been about both demand and costs. It has been very expensive to build factories and make new investments, which was not expected five or ten years ago. This, therefore, has its natural explanations.

In the budget we laid on the table of the Riksdag a few weeks ago, one can see that the government is doing a lot to continue supporting the transition and the companies that want to invest here. When it comes to nuclear power, one of the main reasons is, of course, that we shall continue to have clean electricity, but it is also about enabling the transition.

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to the government, the Sweden Democrats, and the Minister for Finance, one hears a lot of talk about concern for how we, who are now in opposition, will be able to govern together. I can agree with Elisabeth Svantesson that this is obviously a prerequisite for being able to govern a country, but fundamentally it is about more. It is about what one does together for Sweden, especially once one has managed to do it. This must be more interesting than how an opposition grouping is going to manage to pull it together.

It is obviously true that one will have to choose based on principles. We have heard that the Center Party believes that the government and the Sweden Democrats have a right-wing nationalist and authoritarian agenda. Then one has to decide whether it is worse with increased child allowances and strengthened social safety nets. I assume that the Center Party will announce this before the election.

If one focuses on the principles you are working from now, Elisabeth Svantesson, is it not time to consider whether it is right to, in all instances, prioritize the principle that those who have the most should get even more? Healthcare and welfare have received 10 billion less during the period. Unemployment has skyrocketed. Growth is at rock bottom. Ordinary families with children cannot afford to buy both Christmas presents and Christmas food. Is it not time to re-evaluate that principle?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If Nooshi Dadgostar were to become Finance Minister, I believe it would cause problems for Sweden. I also believe that you on the other side, Ida Gabrielsson, would have difficulty agreeing on a wise policy that increases growth in the long run and ensures that our children and grandchildren get an even stronger school, that our elderly get better housing, and so on. It concerns me, but we will let it go.

What do our four parties do together for people? We are now lowering the food VAT and the preschool fee. We will introduce a dental care subsidy for seniors. We have also increased the housing allowance – the ceiling there had not been raised since 1997. That is something the Vänsterpartiet has not done.

The list of what we do for people with tight finances and for hard-working people, who have had to take a backseat for a time with high inflation, can be very long. This does real good, and we are in complete agreement. We even sit together and can look each other in the eye. We know that what we do actually makes a difference.

I can mention, for example, the fuel prices. You might think I am nagging, but if one truly knows how tight many people have it, one also knows that the fact that it is 500 kronor cheaper to fuel the car matters for those who are dependent on their car.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! We hear many times that one has inherited a crisis and that this wonderful cooperation could not have achieved the restructuring because it was so bad as it was. I agree that it is very bad for a country if the government cannot pass its budget, but here it does not add up because it was your budget that passed at the end of the last mandate period. The Moderates have thus had a long time to influence the economic development in Sweden.

Now we have one of the lowest growth rates in Europe and 100,000 more unemployed. Despite having achieved this by not acting in a recession, not investing, and not ensuring that ordinary families get more money in their pockets, one is lowering the compensation for those whom one has placed in unemployment.

Of course there are good things, and these are also for Vänsterpartiet. We have proposed a tax cut for everyone who earns under 50,000. But your strong principle of constantly favoring and redistributing to the small group that earns over 67,000 kronor a month has reduced growth and caused healthcare to not be able to be safeguarded and protected. 10 billion less goes in real terms to staff and patients in the welfare system. Is it worth it? Would it not be right to reassess this principle and ensure that there are more jobs, more money in the wallet, and a strong welfare?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not have that principle. The governing principle is that there is high taxation on work in Sweden and that it can be lowered so that more people who work and toil can keep a little more. Ida Gabrielsson perhaps remembers that we refrained from raising the threshold and ensured that everyone received a tax cut. But it will not matter what I say, because Ida Gabrielsson and some others have decided how things are.

But let me tell you how it is: When Vänsterpartiet gets the chance to govern, for example in Stockholm, they hurry to raise taxes. You have to raise taxes if you have a problem and want to finance something. That means that hard-working low-income earners in this and other regions have actually had less money in their pockets because Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, and Miljöpartiet have raised taxes. It is still important to tell how things are. There is a difference between having more or less in your pocket.

In conclusion, I have an interesting piece of information. I am sometimes asked what Spain and Poland are doing since they have such good growth. I wish I could answer that it is solely due to their fantastic productivity and many hours worked, but a major reason is that they have different support, including from the EU's corona fund and social fund. That is okay, because there are poor areas there. But remember that Sweden will have high growth in the coming years due to a good budget and very good Swedish companies.

(Applause)

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden still faces economic challenges, but clear progress is also being made. Household finances remain strained, something that is noticeable in everyday life and in private finances. After a period of high inflation, the Swedish economy has taken a hit, but signs of recovery are now visible. Inflation has eased, which can partly be linked to an economic policy aimed at stability, recovery, and strengthened confidence in the future. The development may not be as fast as many wish, and the improvement may not have reached all households yet. At the same time, indicators point to the economy moving in the right direction, even though Sweden is still in a recession.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have chosen to prioritize household finances, the recovery, and the work principle, an approach that is judged as necessary in the current economic situation. The budget that the Sweden Democrats and the government are now presenting is a cyclical-adjusted budget aimed at meeting the needs that exist in the economy.

In a recession, it is important to strengthen households' purchasing power. Therefore, measures have been implemented that make it more profitable to work and which lower taxes in several areas. For an average family, this will mean that the disposable income will increase by approximately 5,000 kronor per month during the mandate period.

At the same time, Sweden is affected by an uncertain world. The war in Ukraine, conflicts in the Middle East, and risks linked to world trade and relations with larger economies create uncertainty. Even if it looks somewhat brighter on some fronts, this still has direct and indirect consequences for the Swedish economy and the conditions moving forward.

Mr. Speaker! Now, the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are implementing a number of measures in the budget to further strengthen household finances and get the wheels turning. Of the approximately 80 billion kronor we are putting into the budget framework, 53 billion are net for tax cuts and 27 billion for expenditure increases. It is a mix of different tax cuts, and I will make a few points here.

We are implementing a reinforcement of the job tax credit, the increased basic deduction, and a tax reduction for sickness and activity compensation. This will result in an average annual tax reduction of approximately 3,800 kronor for those affected by the job tax credit, 2,300 kronor for those affected by the reinforced basic deduction, and 1,800 kronor for those receiving sickness and activity compensation – this is so that everyone who works or has worked can keep more of their salary, to reverse the development and to strengthen households and domestic consumption so that the economy can gain momentum and the recovery can begin.

In the longer term, it is crucial for prosperity and for sustainable public finances that more people work and that the total number of hours worked increases. In addition to a temporarily lowered employer contribution for young people, Sverigedemokraterna and the government also introduce tax exemption for a job premium. This shall increase the incentives and increase the economic gain for those who move from social assistance to work and self-sufficiency. This is an important task to break exclusion, get more people into work and increase the so-called respect distance, i.e., the difference between working or receiving social assistance.

Mr. Speaker! Normally, all types of compensation from the employer should be taxed, either as income or as a benefit. As part of the green transition, however, a temporary tax exemption was introduced on July 1, 2023, for charging an electric vehicle at the workplace. Sverigedemokraterna and the government now intend to make this tax exemption permanent to encourage travel to and from work to be made to a greater extent with electric vehicles and to continue the transition of the Swedish vehicle fleet, while simultaneously reducing the administrative burden for companies.

Another tax proposal in the budget concerns the so-called 3:12 rule framework. It is a framework that many have wanted to simplify for a long time but have not quite known how. Even though it is still relatively complicated, the Sverigedemokraterna and the government are making a change in the framework that is nevertheless a simplification. The proposal means, in summary, that approximately 60,000 business owners and entrepreneurs will receive lower taxes, while the administrative burden is judged to decrease by about one-third.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more Swedish-flagged vessels. Therefore, in the budget, we propose improved rules for tonnage taxation of Swedish-flagged vessels. The improvements mean that more vessels and companies will be able to be covered by the system. As a result of this, we already see an increased influx of vessels being flagged in here. This means increased tax revenues but also that Sweden, in the event of a crisis or unrest, will have disposal of Swedish-flagged vessels. This can have a decisive importance for us to be able to manage necessary transports of both goods and personnel during a crisis, which is important to strengthen and maintain Sweden's preparedness.

Mr. Speaker! Under the previous red-green government, a vehicle tax system had been introduced where a new motorhome could be subject to tax levels of up to 20,000 kronor per year. Then the tax risked being changed again, which could have resulted in taxes of up to 40,000 kronor per year for a motorhome.

This, the Sweden Democrats now, together with the government, cleared away the risk by simply exempting motorhomes from the so-called malus tax from February 1 of this year. From February 1 next year, the tax for caravans and light trailers will also be removed, so one can only congratulate all Swedish campers.

Mr. Speaker! Another election promise concerned fuel prices. Even though it took some time into the mandate period, we lowered the reduction obligation and the fuel tax on gasoline and diesel so that a refueling today is 500–700 kronor cheaper than it was before the 2022 election. That amounts to thousands of kronor in savings every year for families who are dependent on the car to make their daily lives work.

At the same time, we are now also lowering the tax on agricultural diesel so that we continue to have the EU's minimum levels for it during the next year. We believe it is reasonable that Swedish farmers and foresters have the same conditions as their Danish colleagues.

We are also lowering the energy tax on electricity. This is a precise and rapid measure to reduce costs for households and companies, while simultaneously encouraging a shift from fossil power sources to electrification.

On July 1st this year, we also lowered the alcohol tax for microbreweries in Sweden. There has always been room in the EU's alcohol tax directive for this, but it is only Spain and Sweden that have not utilized that opportunity.

We propose that from July 1 next year, we also lower the alcohol tax for Swedish small producers of cider, wine, and spirits in order to give them the same opportunities as the microbreweries to increase their profitability and scale up their production.

Mr. Speaker! On July 1 next year, we will also abolish the unjust so-called "dansband VAT" and lower the VAT rate on the entrance fee for dansband events to 6 percent, so that it corresponds to the same VAT as for events where one sits down and listens to the same music and as for other culture.

Last but not least, we are now temporarily halving the VAT rate on food and groceries from 12 to 6 percent. It is a measure to dampen the effects of the cost increases that both inflation and previously high interest rates have brought for Swedish households.

In summary, the budget is a budget for hard-working people, which puts more in the pockets of families and pensioners and which strengthens the work principle and breaks down exclusion, as well as invests in welfare and security. I therefore wish to support the Tax Committee's opinion SkU1y to the Finance Committee.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is not every time one hears a Sweden Democrat say something about reducing emissions and increasing electrification. I caught a small sentence about it in Eric Westroth's speech. It is still a small step forward.

Looking at the whole and zooming out, the Tidösamarbetet has totally crashed Sweden's climate policy. Sweden has gone from being top-ranked among countries in the world for its ambitious climate policy.

We have gone from saying that we would reach Swedish climate goals and have large companies that, with faith in the future, invested in the technology of the future. It was to be manufactured in Sweden and not just purchased from China. Now we are plummeting in the international climate rankings and missing all Swedish climate goals.

When things go badly for Swedish companies, we have rather heard cheering statements from Sverigedemokraterna. There have been statements from Sverigedemokraterna's business policy spokesperson that we in Sweden should not build battery cells, but prison cells.

Mr. Speaker! Prison cells do not create growth and competitiveness. If Sweden is to be a competitive export country even in the future, we must invest in the technology of the future. I wonder why the Sweden Democrats are so satisfied when it goes poorly for the investments of Swedish large companies.

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the question!

When it comes to environmental policy and the climate, one can still look back a bit at the previous parliamentary term, when Miljöpartiet, together with the other red parties, shut down fully functioning nuclear power. This has led to the amounts on electricity bills for ordinary households exploding. It has also made it significantly harder for those living in the countryside, and they want to worsen the travel deduction. Now it is 500 kronor cheaper to refuel.

We must, of course, let our climate ambitions go hand in hand with what is acceptable to the population. I note that Miljöpartiet, in its budget reservation, wants to raise the tax by more than 39 billion kronor. They want to introduce a bank tax and raise employer contributions for young people.

If Annika Hirvonen is so concerned about Swedish large companies and their competitiveness, why have the conditions for these companies to compete been worsened by giving them high electricity prices?

We see that this has also affected business establishments. They have not come to fruition because it has not been possible to guarantee electricity deliveries and power deliveries to the companies concerned. It reflects back a bit on Annika Hirvonen herself.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One is always happy when one gets to speak about the Green Party's environmental and climate policy. I note that SD did not want to speak about theirs. There are surely reasons for that.

Let us talk about the Green Party's climate policy. It is a policy that would lead to Swedish companies being able to get more electricity in the near term with new offshore wind power. Instead, the government is putting a wet blanket over it. Almost all projects were rejected. It would be ready to deliver new electricity in the near term, compared to the longed-for nuclear power that might come somewhere far in the future.

Sweden risks losing an incredible amount of competitiveness if the wind power-hostile policy continues. Miljöpartiet's climate policy would also have given Swedish large companies an opportunity to continue to be leaders in Europe. If we had not given in when other countries wanted to slow down the EU's climate policy, Volvo would have had an advantage.

Swedish companies are in the process of transitioning. The pace has slowed down due to the government's policy. What they are asking for are long-term and clear rules of the game and an offensive climate policy. It is being made more difficult now from the side of the Tidö parties for our business sector to continue in the direction it is heading.

It is bad for Sweden. It is bad for Swedish companies. It is bad for Swedish growth. I do not understand why the Sverigedemokraterna cheer when it happens. I wonder if it is the case that one is stuck in their culture war against the climate.

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again for the question, Annika Hirvonen!

We can look at our neighboring country Germany, which has gone even further in its green energy transition. We now see how German factories are closing down rather than expanding.

When it comes to wind power, we see that if it is not blowing, the energy is very expensive and there is no power. We need power when it is cold and not blowing. When it is blowing, there are practically negative prices on electricity.

Today, many wind turbines do not have a sufficiently high profitability. You want to build more wind power so that there is more power when it blows, even though we already have practically enough wind power. We export electricity, but we lack the power when it is not blowing. That is the major problem.

When it comes to fast electricity, I say again: If the functioning nuclear reactors had not been decommissioned prematurely, Sweden would today have had electricity so that we could have exported even to Germany, which has decommissioned its nuclear power plants. In the new supply from Finland that has been established, it will likely be nuclear power that is directed to northern Sweden in order to be able to cover the power shortage there.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has now been governed by an SD government for three and a half years. There are those who get a bit upset when one says that, because the Sweden Democrats would like to claim that they are not in the government.

But that is hair-splitting. There is not a single proposal that passes the Swedish Riksdag without the Sweden Democrats having approved it. There is not a single decision we make in this chamber that does not have a Sweden Democrat stamp on it.

In practice, this means that what we have to deal with today in the chamber of the Riksdag, the distribution of the state's expenditures for 2026, is the Sweden Democrats' budget proposal. It is the Sweden Democrats' policy that we are taking a stand on today. It is a policy where one gives to those who already are well off and lets those who stand a bit further down on society's ladder get a bit less.

At the same time, the Sweden Democrats try to give the impression that they are a party that stands on the side of ordinary people. But what they do not mention in the debate and what they try to blur and hide is that those who stand at the very top of society's ladder are also those who receive absolutely the most. It is clear that this holds true a bit upon reflection.

How do the Sweden Democrats and MP Westroth justify that those with the highest incomes should receive the largest tax cuts? Where lies the justification in that those with the greatest assets should get the best? And in what way is it fair that those who stand at the bottom of society's ladder are those who are to receive the least, both in percentage and in terms of kronor?

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Karlsson, for the question!

Actually, I should start by thanking Niklas Karlsson and the Socialdemokraterna for all the occasions they mention the Sverigedemokraterna in their budget motion by writing "SD-regeringen". When we were going to join the government cooperation, we were a bit worried that we would be forgotten and not get credit for what happens in the government. But obviously, the Sverigedemokraterna are mentioned a total of 40 times in the Socialdemokraterna's budget reservation, so I suppose we should start by thanking them for that.

It is true that we coordinate many issues; we do have the Tidö Agreement to adhere to. However, it is not all issues that are handled in the Tidö Agreement, but there are some where we are more free to pursue our own policy. This has also resulted in a couple of announcements here in the Riksdag. However, the consequence is that the proposals that the government knows it does not have a majority for never come here.

It is true that we have a budget cooperation and that the Sweden Democrats stand behind the budget. However, I do not recognize the description that it is those worst off who receive the least in the budget. In the 2026 budget bill, the lowest income decile is strengthened by 1.9 percent and the highest by just over 0.8. For the mandate period as a whole, the lowest income decile has been strengthened by just over 4.5 percent and the highest by only 1.5 percent.

I do not really recognize myself in the description, but we believe that it is those with the lowest incomes who receive the most development of their incomes in this budget.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Westroth does not need to be worried; the Sweden Democrats shall not be forgotten.

The Sweden Democrats must also not be allowed to get away with the policy that the government is now carrying out on the Sweden Democrats' mandate. The contrast becomes clear in the alternatives that the chamber of the Riksdag has to take a stand on. On one side, there is a Sweden Democrat budget, where one gives to those who already have, which is set against the other side, with a Social Democratic alternative, where the distributive policy profile is that one shall contribute according to ability. In the Social Democrats' budget, nine out of ten people in our country will fare better. It is the care for ordinary people that is in focus, not further large tax cuts for government members or members of Parliament.

If Member Westroth does not believe me, the Riksdag's investigation service has conducted investigations of this, where it clearly appears in black and white what policy the SD government is pursuing. It is those who stand at the top of the social ladder who are to receive the large tax cuts in terms of both kronor and percentages.

I believe that one could formulate the Sweden Democrat policy with the help of your government colleague, the Christian Democrats. There are appropriate quotes in the Bible, for example in the Gospel of Matthew. There it is written: "For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." It is the Matthew effect – or the SD effect.

(Applause)

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Karlsson, for the quote! I will take it to heart.

It is clear that one can see this in the short term and milk as much money as possible out of the system. We perhaps see it more as an investment – that people get to keep more in their pockets of what they earn.

I note that the Social Democrats, in their budget motion, have increased taxes on labor and increased taxes on ISK. They speak of a temporary bank tax, which in some way is to affect the banks and not those who have loans from the banks. They speak of a readiness tax. Where is it to be taken from, and how is it to be implemented? There is actually nothing written about that.

Now the question becomes rhetorical, but I wonder if Niklas Karlsson believes in the Laffer curve. It implies that if you do not get to keep as much of your salary, you will not also exert as much effort. The more you get to keep of what you earn, the more you will work. That is what I believe in.

If we do not reward education, diligence and risk-taking, I believe that in the long term we will erode Sweden's opportunities for growth and for a positive development.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have come to the rostrum to examine a bit about the Sweden Democrats' growth policy linked to the emissions reduction policy.

We in the Center Party note that emissions shall go down and that jobs shall increase. We do this partly because we believe in it; we believe that it is completely central that Sweden, as a wealthy Western country, can have a policy where we combine these two parts. But we also do it as a contrast to the pursued policy from the government and the Sweden Democrats.

Therefore, my first question to Eric Westroth is: Does he believe that it is possible to combine reduced emissions with increased growth?

What we have seen so far during the years when the Sweden Democrats have been part of the government base is that we have had a catastrophic development. We have had both increased climate emissions and a decline in Swedish growth. Sweden is losing its status as a climate role model, and we are losing international competitiveness.

I also want to ask a follow-up question to the first question regarding whether the Sweden Democrats believe it is possible to combine these two. The Sweden Democrats are quick to beat their chests because it has become cheaper to refuel at the pump. I wonder: What is cheaper gasoline worth when the jobs disappear and one has no income?

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We believe above all in technological development and that the market will come up with technical solutions to become more emission-friendly.

I also believe that this policy must keep pace with the voters. I do not believe that we can pour tax money into various hopeful enthusiasts who run companies in the belief that they will develop products that can then be sold.

I come from Gnosjö myself. When you run businesses in Gnosjö, you start on a small scale. You have a product that the market wants. You develop it, you invest, and you build up your industry, preferably with your own money.

When it comes to fuels and gasoline, we saw when the Center Party was part of the government base articles about how people could not afford to travel to work because of the high fuel prices. Then, as a cherry on top, the Center Party was supposed to participate in making a transport-neutral travel deduction that would incredibly much worsen the possibilities in the countryside to commute to work. It would become extremely much more expensive.

Furthermore, many who live in the countryside have villas and received incredibly high electricity bills last year. One contributing cause to that was that the Center Party had been involved in shutting down fully functioning nuclear power.

I would actually like to throw the question back to Anders Ådahl and hear how he views what the Centerpartiet did for the countryside and the emission reductions that occurred at the countryside's expense.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is not without reason that the answer we receive from the Sweden Democrats is somewhat baffling. On one hand, Member Westroth says: We place our trust in technological development. On the other hand, he says at the same time: No, we perhaps do not quite have faith that these companies can in some magical way be able to develop new technology and contribute to the energy transition and green transition. I do not understand at all how that logic holds together.

If we are to have a Sweden that holds together, we who live in cities need to realize that our municipalities far out need improved conditions. We need to invest in roads and in railways. We need to invest in our schools and create fair conditions. The municipal equalization system needs to be reviewed so that we can manage to create fairer opportunities for people in different parts of the country.

I didn't really get an answer to my question. How do the Sweden Democrats reason in a visionary sense? How are we in Sweden going to manage to achieve growth with more jobs while simultaneously focusing on individual issues like gasoline prices? It is to take a small individual measure but not see the big picture in politics.

I do not see the vision for the Swedish countryside and Swedish growth anywhere in the answers the members are giving. Please return to the main question!

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

Eric Westroth (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That one has confidence in the market and technological development is not so strange. Furthermore, I do not believe that tax revenue should be used as venture capital for large industrial investments. I believe that the market needs to solve this itself by having a business idea that is viable and that can be scaled up. And as said: What we do here in the Swedish Riksdag must go in step with the voters.

Now my question becomes rhetorical, but it will be interesting to see how the Center Party has intended to push through its proposals in its budget motion. There are not many issues where the Center Party and the other opposition parties agree on how to proceed. The Center Party wants to make a multitude of tax cuts that there is no agreement on in the other opposition parties' budgets.

The question remains, but how the Center Party will manage to assemble its government base and push forward the issues they intend to push is seen by those who have read the budgets as a mystery.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The task of politics is to provide answers to questions about how we give every human being the opportunity to give life to their innermost dreams and their innermost longings. In a time when old patterns are being broken and new ones are being created, this is particularly important.

The challenges are certainly great. Under the bourgeois government's rule, unemployment has been allowed to spiral to record-high levels. Sweden's growth has been among the worst in Europe. Healthcare is in crisis, our roads and railways are in poor condition, the need to manage the climate transition is acute, and inequality and exclusion are growing. The security policy situation in our immediate vicinity is uneasy.

But reality is obviously not in focus for the Sweden Democrats and the government. With zeal and commitment, they have implemented large tax cuts, primarily aimed at those with the highest incomes and greatest wealth. The government and the Sweden Democrats have also underfunded the public finances by over 350 billion kronor during the mandate period.

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate on how the state shall use its revenues for 2026 is the last for the parliamentary term. It is therefore also a closing account of the bourgeois government's and the Sweden Democrats' years in power.

The contrasts in Swedish politics become clear, especially in the difference between trying to solve every social problem with a tax cut and instead strengthening our common welfare and people's private finances.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have persistently dismissed all proposals to improve the school and for more teachers. They have dismissed proposals for more hands in healthcare and to strengthen healthcare. They have dismissed proposals to combat unemployment and stimulate Swedish growth.

The recruitment of new members into gangs has been allowed to proceed. The future of the construction industry and the industrial sector has been ignored, and there has been a failure to support all those people who are struggling to make ends meet. The crisis has been allowed to hit with full force, and it is those who set the clock every day, build our country, and carry welfare on their shoulders who have taken the biggest hit.

Mr. Speaker! Earlier in the debate, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Riedl, pointed out what the Swedish government took over and how it ruined it. One can also focus on what the Swedish government and the Sverigedemokraterna want to see. Who and what interests they represent becomes particularly clear when one looks at the distribution of the tax cuts. In the rhetoric, the political right speaks of tax cuts for ordinary people. In practice, it is crumbs that are offered to hide how those who stand at the top of the social ladder get the most.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have lowered the tax for themselves by over 30,000 kronor per year, while Sweden, as the only country in the Nordic region, has not increased the child allowance and has additionally cut the housing supplement for the most vulnerable families with children.

Welfare has paid the price for the cost crisis with eroded appropriations and budgets that do not add up, despite the many warnings from different parts of the country. At the same time, a choice has been made to inflation-protect the incomes of high-income earners. Tax cuts of over 100 billion have been prioritized over injecting resources into healthcare, school, and care. The tapering of the job tax credit and the increased basic deduction have been abolished, implying a tax cut exclusively for those who earn the most.

Mr. Speaker! Susanna Alakoskis' fantastic book Svinalängorna is in a way a rather small story but at the same time contains very much of Sweden's modern history. The novel is told through Leena's eyes, from childhood to early adolescence. Leena loves her parents and does everything to protect them – explains away bruises, sweeps away tracks and lies to adults. Alakoski's Svinalängorna becomes a mirror of societal problems we still grapple with.

Save the Children's latest report on child poverty shows that approximately 276,000 children, that is one in eight, live in economic vulnerability. Kronofogden and Bris show that every eleventh child grows up in a debt-ridden family – often with an increased risk of conflict and violence in the home.

Here, Mr. Speaker, the parallel to Leena's world becomes brutally clear, that is to say overcrowded apartments, constant money worries and children who notice that they are not like others.

Today the areas are called other things, but we see similar patterns, that is to say lower incomes, higher unemployment and a greater risk of economic vulnerability for children. The parallel to today's Sweden is uncomfortable but clear. Still, hundreds of thousands of children live in economic and social vulnerability. The pigsties give them a face and also make it difficult for the rest of us to say that we did not know.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces great challenges, and when we have previously faced great challenges that have stressed both our endurance and our cohesion, it has also been shown that it is in such times that it is decided what kind of society we want to be, whether we stand up for one another or whether we leave each one to their own fate.

A policy that creates hope and offers faith in the future must be rooted in reality and see people's everyday lives, constitute a clear idea of what kind of society we want to build, and offer a clear direction for how it shall be implemented. Smaller gaps in a society lead to better cohesion and higher growth. This reasoning is no longer just social democratic common sense, but many international institutions that previously professed market-liberal theories realize that such economic policy succeeds best.

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. Tax is the nursing assistant at the residential home, the breakfast at the preschool, and the midwife who delivers our children. Tax is hip replacements, national tests, and school transport. Tax is trains, buses, and public transport. So it hangs together: tax for joint financing of common welfare.

Mr. Speaker! We asked the Riksdag's investigation service to calculate the differences between the Social Democratic budget option and the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget. The fact is that nine out of ten Swedes benefit from a Social Democratic policy. We believe that Sweden will not be strengthened by those who already have the most getting even more at the expense of ordinary people. Therefore, we propose, for example, that the tapering of the job tax credit, which was abolished in connection with the decision on the state budget some years ago, be reintroduced, while those with normal incomes receive a tax cut.

We welcome a simpler and more easily understandable regulatory framework for shareholders in small companies, but we also see an increased risk that the proposal opens up for increased income conversion. Therefore, such a simplification should be implemented in a public-finance neutral manner.

A third level of taxation for those with the largest capital holdings in investment savings accounts (ISK) should be introduced because those with very large capital in these accounts benefit disproportionately much in the government's proposal.

A temporary tax on the banks' net interest, that is, the profit that arises when interest income exceeds interest costs, should be introduced. To contribute to the long-term sustainability of the defense expansion, we further propose an investigation of a readiness tax. We want to see stricter rules against aggressive tax planning and tax evasion, and we must ensure that tax money intended for children in school actually stays there – and does not disappear in dividends to shareholders.

Mr. Speaker! This very simple, beautiful, and perhaps gifted social democratic thought is based on the idea of giving every human being the opportunity to give life to their innermost dreams and longings. It requires a responsible economic policy, which gives people the conditions to make life better so that they do not have to give up large parts of their lives to take care of loved ones who need welfare services in a market where one cannot afford to buy the service.

The general welfare, our common concerns such as healthcare, school and care, as well as education, is central to people's opportunities in life. Life chances become smaller when they do not exist. It protects against dangers from outside, it creates freedom from distress and it increases security and thus the sense of freedom. So we give every human being the opportunity to give life to their innermost dreams and longings.

With this, I move that the Riksdag decides on a direction for the tax policy that corresponds with the Social Democrats' proposal that the Riksdag should approve the Social Democrats' reservations in the Finance Committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to request a reply to Niklas Karlsson's speech. He is usually good at requesting a reply to me, and we usually provide approximately the same answers to each other's replies. But I could not help myself.

I am a social worker by profession, and when I listened to the gripping depiction in the book Svinalängorna, I wondered how Niklas Karlsson can link it to tax cuts. There are so many other things in a person's life, for example, alcohol abuse, assault of women, and abuse of children. I do not see the crystal-clear connection to a bourgeois government. Doesn't the book take place during a time when the Moderaterna held government power?

This was a parenthesis, and my question is not about that.

Niklas Karlsson spoke warmly about the introduction of a so-called bank tax, or as it is stated in your tax motion: a tax on the banks' excess profits.

What is the purpose of the bank tax? Is it for the banks to reduce their net interest, as you write in the motion, or is it to bring in more tax revenue for the state? One cannot, after all, have both.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! That the Moderate MP Åberg does not understand the connection between taxation and the general welfare perhaps explains why the MP is Moderate. We believe that the general welfare gives people the opportunity to have a better life. One does not need to purchase services on a market where one is dependent on one's own financial position, what assets or what salary one has. It is for everyone, and it should be distributed according to need.

General welfare makes people free, and it breaks us free from uncertainties and insecurity. Therefore, we believe that we should have a fair tax levy, that one should contribute according to ability, and that welfare should be distributed according to need. That is where the analogy with Svinalängorna lies. If the member has not read the book, do so. Then you might get a better understanding of the connection between tax and welfare.

Regarding the issue of bank profits, one must be careful not to defend the banks. The banks have, in the cost crisis we have experienced over the last few years, taken the opportunity to increase the interest net and earn money, an enormous amount of money, on ordinary people's finances. We consider that unreasonable. The interest net that has arisen must be reduced.

The proposal is, therefore, primarily to ensure that the difference decreases. And if the interest net decreases, the banks do not need to be worried about paying so much in bank tax either.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The banks are not the least concerned. If Niklas Karlsson had reflected on how a profit-driven company works, he would not have made that statement. The interest net is, in fact, alongside the commission net, the banks' most important source of income.

That the banks would suddenly start tampering with the interest net because the Social Democrats have introduced a bank tax is highly unlikely. In that case, they will instead pass the fees on to the customers, actually to precisely all those whom Niklas Karlsson claims to protect, those who have received no inheritance and who must borrow money from the bank. It is often a lifelong commitment. These are people who want to fulfill their dream of owning their own home. Niklas Karlsson's proposal will make it much more difficult. I think that reasoning is completely wrong.

In the motion, it states that the Social Democrats' purpose, almost in communist spirit, is that the equalization should lead to everyone having equal outcomes. Social problems, such as violence against women and alcohol abuse, unfortunately do not disappear just because one raises taxes, Niklas Karlsson.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! This tearful entry regarding the care for people's housing dreams is not a defense of ordinary people. We see now in the chamber of the Riksdag how the Moderaterna in all respects take the side of the banks and not of ordinary wage earners. They defend the indecent profits that the banks make in a cost crisis, that they take the chance to skin mortgage holders with higher interest rates while at the same time they are not prepared to pay interest on the savings capital that the wage earners have deposited in the same bank. That is where the Socialdemokraterna will never end up.

Housing dreams should be realized. People's housing journeys and dreams of being able to buy their own home are based on the banks being prepared to lend at fair and reasonable interest rates. They do not do that today.

A construction of the bank tax that we are now proposing would reduce the net interest. If one does not defend our construction, one takes the side of the banks. There, the difference in the Swedish political debate is clear between right and left and between Moderates and Social Democrats.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Death and taxes are the only things we can be sure of; it is a phrase attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Daniel Defoe. The claim is true, regardless of who the author is. Despite life's constant changes, death and the state's need for revenue are the only constants.

The difference is that we can do something about the taxes, and that is what this debate is about. In broad strokes, it is about which parties want to lower taxes on work and entrepreneurship and which ones want not only to raise these taxes but also to introduce new taxes.

When the government's budget was presented, it received the title A budget for hard-working people. It is a very expressive title. It is high time that hard-working people, families and pensioners get more money to move with. The purpose of the budget is, among other things, that people should feel confidence in the future and dare to consume, get the economy moving and break the recession.

Some object that the expression hard-working creates contradictions. It does not. Sweden has been built strong and rich by hard-working people. Work, entrepreneurship, knowledge and innovations, not constantly raised taxes, have been and still are the way to wealth and prosperity. A country that does not safeguard the value of working risks problems with both the economy and a lack of cohesion.

We Moderates want it to pay more to work than to live on benefits. It is a question of justice. The one who sets the alarm and goes to work and toils should reasonably have more than the one who can work but chooses not to do so.

If there are no people working and paying tax, there will be no money for either benefits or everything else that is needed: school, healthcare, elderly care, a functioning justice system, defense and infrastructure. All welfare, all of the state's commitments, is based on as many people as possible going to work every day.

Making it more profitable to work is central to the government's tax policy. We are therefore now moving forward with another job tax credit. Sometimes one hears from the parties to the left that this would be an expression of a lack of political imagination. So be it – but the fact that we have fought step by step for nearly two decades so that people can keep more of their own wages has made an impact in the workers' wallets. Then it is up to their imagination, not the politicians', to decide how their own income is best utilized.

The tax cut resulting from the expanded job tax credit is primarily aimed at full-time workers with low and medium incomes, those who truly feel every krona when food has become more expensive and electricity costs have risen. The tax cuts next year mean a relief of 20,000 kronor per year for a family consisting of a police officer and a nurse. From 2023, it is about a total tax relief of a full 43,000 kronor per year.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates believe that it should also obviously be rewarding to have worked. Parallel to our move forward with an enhanced job tax credit, we also strengthen the increased basic deduction for persons who have reached the age of 66. People who have dedicated an entire working life to building Sweden with toil and diligence shall be rewarded for their contributions. It is a matter of justice.

Yet another election promise being fulfilled is the reduction of the special income tax, SINK. The government is introducing a two-step tax cut for the 90,000 Swedes residing abroad who pay tax according to SINK. This increases the neutrality between the SINK framework and the Income Tax Act for those living abroad who have not been benefited to the same extent by the tax reforms of recent years and who also do not use Swedish public services to the same extent.

Madam Speaker! The Government is also increasing the tax reduction for sickness and activity compensation in order to remove the difference that exists in taxation between such compensation and corresponding earned income. Other tax cuts being implemented are the reduction of the electricity tax and the halved food VAT. This will contribute to supporting the economy during the recovery.

Madam Speaker! We have the lowest tax burden in 50 years – the lowest since the time of Gunnar Sträng. During his entire time as Finance Minister 1955–1976, the tax burden increased, and then it continued to increase for another 25 years. Now it is back where he left it, and we can safely say that we have ended the Social Democratic tax-increase cycle.

In their tax motion, the Social Democrats demand a tax reform. Not without there being reasons for it – the tax system is in many ways a patchwork and would benefit from a structured review. Then one can ask why the Social Democrats did not initiate a tax reform when they held government power. The point regarding a tax reform was inscribed in the January Agreement.

But when one reads the Social Democrats' tax motion, one quickly realizes that one of the tax reforms initiated by the Social Democrats is the absolute last thing Sweden needs. Increased taxes and new taxes would obviously be the dominant elements: increased taxes on so-called high earned incomes, increased taxes on savings and capital income, readiness tax and mortgage tax, which Niklas Karlsson called a tax on the banks' excess profits – just to mention a few examples.

It is, after all, good that the Social Democrats are so clear. If the Social Democrats regain government power, Sweden will return to the top of the tax league as the country that taxes its inhabitants the most harshly. It is important consumer information.

Madam Speaker! A myth we need to puncture is that there would be a direct connection between high taxes and high quality in the public welfare. There is no such connection whatsoever.

Firstly, it is not at all the case that higher taxes always lead to higher tax revenues. Lower and well-designed taxes create incentives for extra effort and more hours worked, which leads to higher tax revenues. This can compensate for the loss that occurs due to lower tax rates.

Secondly: Among the municipalities that have the lowest municipal tax, there are almost always also those that, according to various evaluations, have the highest quality when it comes to school and care. It is therefore a direct inverse relationship. It is not so strange – if you have order and discipline in the finances, you also have order and discipline in your operations.

It is impossible to miss that the Social Democrats' tax motion breathes direct hostility towards everything related to business and entrepreneurship, both through the concrete proposals and through the language used. "Market failure" and "excess profits" are two words used to blacken selected industries.

What is excess profit? Let us just once and for all establish that such a thing does not exist. Sound companies should make a profit regardless of the industry. The profit will vary over time. The concept of "excess profit" has been created by Social Democratic politicians to cast suspicion on entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship.

It is the same thing with the concept of "market failure." It is a pejorative term used to smear often hard-working entrepreneurs within the welfare sector. There is a completely incorrect focus on forms of operation and the potential profits of private providers.

To begin with, we should be able to agree that it would be a much greater problem if these operations ran at a loss. It would entail cuts and, in the long run, could lead to bankruptcy, so that the operation would be shut down and the children would be left without school or preschool.

But above all, it is the wrong focus in the debate. What is important is that the activities delivered maintain high quality. Ensuring this through guidelines and controls is therefore what we must become better at, regardless of whether it concerns private or public providers.

Madam Speaker! When I look at the proposals that the government presents in this budget bill, I see a policy that is anchored in reality and that responds to the challenges Sweden faces.

The government's policy stands on the side of hard-working people – those who every day get up, go to work and contribute to our common prosperity. It is a policy that says yes to work, yes to entrepreneurship and yes to people's freedom to shape their own lives.

The government's budget makes Sweden more just, with better finances for people who work, strong cohesion and more resources for everything that is common.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was truly a stirring speech from Boriana Åberg about it paying to work and having worked. Sometimes, not least when one listens to Boriana Åberg, one can indeed think that this is one of the Moderaternas heart issues and that it truly concerns everyone – it should always pay to work.

But unfortunately, that is not the case for thousands of working people who will instead be deported from Sweden on a whim. The government itself estimated that 4,700 people and their families would be affected by the government's abolition this year of the possibility of continued work permits through the so-called track switching.

Track switching was an opportunity for those who came as asylum seekers and got a job to switch tracks from asylum seeker to labor migrant. These 4,700 people, one of whom is actually in the Riksdag now to visit us members of parliament, have during their time in Sweden paid tax, contributed to our common welfare and in many cases actually also worked in the welfare system, in the elderly care which, not least in northern Sweden, has an incredibly difficult time finding staff.

My question to Boriana Åberg is quite simply: Why did it not pay off for these people to work and to have worked in Sweden during practically their entire stay?

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen is absolutely right: I am passionate about work and for work to pay off, because I start from the individual. Every person's will and ability to create a good life through work shall be encouraged. One also helps with the common commitments by paying tax. Through the right incentives and drivers, which make it so that a small extra effort can yield results for oneself, we get better economic development and a richer society. It is something that we Moderates have always stood behind.

When it comes to the right incentives and drivers, I must say that Miljöpartiet has been driving the provision of the wrong incentives and wrong hopes to people. People have been lured here to Sweden with the promise of a better life. Many have received a better life, but not all.

People who are now not allowed to stay because they do not have their documents in order or for any other reason do not lose the opportunity to apply for a work permit again from their respective home countries.

My speaking time is over. I will return in the next reply.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was perhaps unfortunate that Boriana Åberg did not have time to complete her reasoning. I do not understand how the Moderaterna, who have always had the question of whether it pays to work in the center, have now decided to throw out thousands of people who have done nothing other than work, pay tax, and contribute to Sweden.

We can compare them with those who came to Sweden in 2015 by being born here, like my own son. They have not done many knots, and they have not yet paid in a single tax crown. At most, they have managed to collect a few hundred cones from the lawn and saved up for some Saturday sweets.

Those who arrived when they were already of working age have truly been an incredible economic plus for Sweden. They have worked from day one, without us first having to pay for childcare, education etcetera. Those people are now being thrown out.

It is total idiocy to say: Go back to Afghanistan! Seek your job in home care in Boden from Afghanistan! For the first, they live in incredible uncertainty and insecurity in the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. For the second, the elderly in elderly care suffer while waiting to get their staff back – if the staff can even come back given that the government has now raised the wage requirements so much that ordinary employees in elderly care actually have difficulty getting permission to work there, despite the fact that in large parts of Sweden there is a shortage of people who want and can take care of the elderly in a good and dignified way. For me, this does not align with the Moderaterna's enthusiasm for people who work.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the Green Party has a much greater responsibility for these people's suffering than the Moderates. With the Green Party's completely boundless migration policy, the borders were opened wide. Yes, it may have been the Social Democrats' as well – Stefan Löfven proclaimed: "My Europe does not build walls." Very many came who did not have the intention to work and behave correctly. It was the benefits in Sweden that attracted them.

Under a Social Democratic government, the requirement that one must have self-sufficiency through work in order to obtain citizenship was also abolished. It was abolished. That caused a terrible mess within migration, a mess that we are trying to get in order now.

We know that there are seven branches of the Syrian mafia that are established in Sweden. There is enormous crime. It is shootings and explosions carried out by gangs that have their origin somewhere else.

In the attempts to bring order and clarity, unfortunately, people who are behaving correctly are falling between the chairs. I also regret that.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden belongs to those OECD countries where economic inequality has increased the most since the mid-1980s.

The government has, however, continued to lower taxes for high-income earners by a total of 110 billion kronor during the mandate period, which means that the room to invest in welfare is decreasing.

With one year left until the election, we can state that the government is playing a cynical election game. After three years on a starvation diet with the Tidö parties, the government is now emptying the state treasury and letting the welfare system foot the bill. By refraining from investing for a long period, the government, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, has cemented the recession and placed us at the top of the EU when it comes to the share of unemployed.

The government proposes tax cuts of over 50 billion kronor in this budget. In the Left Party's budget alternative, there is a completely different direction. Instead of lowering taxes mostly for those with high incomes, we tax the banks' excess profits, raise capital taxes, and convert today's rot deduction into a green rot deduction to facilitate the green transition. We use the money to, among other things, strengthen welfare, allocate significant resources to climate investments, and strengthen household finances, including through increased child allowance. Thus, we build Sweden stronger while simultaneously narrowing the gaps. Thus, we promote the green transition while simultaneously lowering unemployment.

The government, on its part, is pursuing a policy that increases child poverty and the differences between those who have and those who do not. Save the Children's new child poverty report shows that child poverty increased between 2022 and 2023 after having decreased in previous years. Today, it is estimated that 276,000 children live in economic vulnerability in Sweden. It is not just a question of statistics, Save the Children points out – it is a question of children's right to be children. It is about them being able to play, learn, grow, and dream without being limited by empty refrigerators, cancelled leisure activities, or the feeling of not belonging.

Before the summer, the Salvation Army released a report showing that half of all families with children were worried about food costs when the children could not eat lunch at school. Every fifth child was at home all summer without summer holiday activities.

The government is proud that it is lowering the tax for those who work, but it lets those who are on sick leave or unemployed pay a higher tax. This summer, we could see that every third child of parents who are unemployed or on sick leave was at home all summer without planned activities.

This does not concern our governing right-wing majority. Tax cuts for high-income earners take precedence over investments in children and young people – investments that could prevent young people from being drawn into crime. The children's perspective is conspicuously absent.

As long as high-income earners get a better economy, the government is satisfied, even though a childhood without meaningful activities increases the risks of children ending up in isolation or, in the worst case, being drawn into destructive environments and crime. But the solution for the government is not to give all children a good upbringing, but to lower the age of criminal responsibility, introduce harsher punishments, and buy prison places abroad. It is not about preventing crime, but only about punishing.

In February this year, 29 percent of all single parents with low income reported that they had difficulty eating enough to feel full. This is a large increase since the same time last year. Half of all single parents with low income have, at one or more occasions, not been able to afford to buy nutritious food for themselves and their children.

An average family has received less in tax cuts over a year than the Prime Minister himself has received in a month.

When it comes to the long-term unemployed, the activity support has been reduced for approximately 86,000 people by up to 5,000 kronor per month. Furthermore, the unemployed pay a higher tax than those who work. The tax injustice is great in the bourgeois Sweden. But the government – something I must give it – has at least yielded to the demands from the funkis movement and Vänsterpartiet. Now, even those with sickness and activity compensation receive a lower tax. This concerns the so-called funkis tax.

Otherwise, the hallmark of this government is that those who have a high salary get a tax cut and those who have a low salary or compensation do not get a tax cut or get a very, very small tax cut.

The taxation of earned income currently contains more than ten different forms of tax reductions, including the travel deduction, the ROT deduction, and various forms of job tax credits. None of them have clearly demonstrable positive effects. The job tax credit alone represents a tax reduction of approximately 200 billion kronor per year. In this year's budget bill, the government and Sverigedemokraterna propose yet another job tax credit, the tenth in line, which weakens public finances by 13 billion.

Vänsterpartiet rejects the government's proposal for tax cuts for those who have higher incomes. For those with lower incomes, unemployment insurance or sickness benefit, we lower the tax.

Vänsterpartiet supports the temporary reduction of the food VAT, but it must not result in increased profits for the food giants. We have launched a price guarantee that puts a stop to the food giants' stealth price hikes and ensures that the VAT reduction actually makes a difference on the price tag and ensures that families with children can afford to eat their fill. But the government has not introduced any price guarantee. Now there is a risk that the government has only created an ICA subsidy with the VAT reduction.

Madam Speaker! Common funds should go towards things that have social utility. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes that today's rotavdrag be converted into a green rotavdrag. The new green rotavdrag would be granted for measures that reduce energy consumption in housing as well as stimulate the reuse and use of sustainable building materials.

A green rotavdrag contributes to lower energy consumption and a more circular economy in the construction and real estate sector. The green rotavdrag creates incentives for private property owners to renovate sustainably and climate-smart instead of replacing already fully functioning kitchens. The requirements for permitted measures shall be linked to environmental and climate benefits, which makes the deduction relevant for the whole society, not just for individual property owners.

Climate change is an acute threat to humanity's future possibilities for life. A green transition of the economy is needed, which must be implemented quickly. Within the framework of a coherent and well-thought-out environmental policy, a reform of environmental and climate taxes is required. This concerns, for example, aviation tax and a transport-neutral and distance-based travel deduction. Regarding the travel deduction, Vänsterpartiet says no to the government's proposal to raise the limit for travel, which increases commuters' fees by 4,000 kronor. It will therefore be 4,000 kronor more expensive for a commuter next year with the government's policy.

We need an action plan to phase out climate-damaging subsidies. Environmental and climate taxes are steering and an important part of the policy to achieve climate neutrality.

Madam Speaker! Last year, the big banks made a combined profit of 126 billion. A bank tax on the banks' excess profits would mean a significant improvement of the state finances. But that is not the most important thing. The most important thing is to press down the banks' profits so that ordinary people get a better interest rate. Vänsterpartiet wants to introduce a bank tax so that it does not pay for the banks to enrich themselves at the expense of borrowers by having a higher interest rate on lent money and a lower one on borrowed money compared to the policy rate.

Taxes should be a stable financing of public investments. In addition, they should equalize income, consumption, and savings between different income groups and be steering in climate and environmental policy.

There is a correlation between a relatively high tax take and high employment.

Sweden is one of the few OECD countries that has neither wealth tax, inheritance and gift tax, nor property tax linked to the value of the residence. The Swedish property taxes are well below the average in the OECD and EU. The absence of capital and property taxes has contributed strongly to the fact that, from an international perspective, Sweden has an extremely skewed distribution of wealth. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to review the property taxes and achieve a more just taxation where those who have much also contribute more to the general welfare.

Tax should be paid according to ability to pay, and welfare should be provided according to need. Sweden needs a new tax policy that prioritizes redistribution, climate, and welfare instead of favoring high-income earners and climate-damaging emissions. Sweden needs a tax policy that reduces inequalities in society, combats child poverty, and contributes to an equal society.

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

(Applause)

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! Members! I have gone through the Left Party's and the Centre Party's budget proposals and compared them with each other.

Your parties will form a government if the accident is averted. Within economic policy and tax policy, your parties differ very much. Your parties actually have completely different orientations.

You want to significantly increase the state grants to the municipalities and give more money to healthcare. They only want to invest in healthcare in rural areas. You want to significantly raise the child allowance. The Center Party wants something completely different. They want to significantly lower the employer contributions and the income taxes. They want to abolish the two-child supplement and want to halve the multi-child supplement from the third child onwards and lower the taxes on cigarettes. Had we had a debate in Gothenburg, I probably would have asked if the Center is possibly smoked. They also want a new model for the unemployment insurance fund and want to remove the tax reduction for the unemployment insurance fund. On this, they save almost 10 billion kronor.

You want to form a government with the Center Party. It seems as if you are dreaming yourselves back to the 1930s ideas of forming people's fronts with bourgeois parties. The question to you therefore becomes: Which of the Center Party's proposals can you accept in order to put together a government?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! That was an interesting question. We can start with the question of whether we would like to form a government with C. It is not that we want to form a government with C. We want to form a government that does not contain the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and perhaps not even the Liberals. We simply want to see a government that invests in this country in a different way.

An interesting question – for it perhaps was not said outright – is: How are you going to make it work when you think so differently?

I can state something regarding the government base. We have a party called Liberalerna, which says: We cannot support a government that SD is in; we cannot be part of a government that SD is in. Then we have another party called Sverigedemokraterna, which says: We cannot support a government that we ourselves are not in.

How have you in the Liberals thought about solving it, if you should happen to come in at the next election? How have you thought about solving this with that you do not support a government with the Sweden Democrats and that the Sweden Democrats do not support a government that they are not in? How are you going to put that together? That is my question.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the member does not even want to answer the question. My question was: What are you prepared to accept in order to be able to form a government?

What is the big difference is actually that the Tidö parties have succeeded in making a number of different, positive decisions for the country for four years.

The Prime Minister, however, has no answers to any questions. It is quite clear that it may be necessary to have four parties if any government other than the current one is to be formed, and therefore it is very interesting that two of those parties have completely different policies.

It is also interesting to hear about this regarding the reduction of the VAT on food. The member of Parliament reasons in a way that makes one wonder if the Left Party is even in favor of a reduction of the VAT on food. There are a number of different reservations, so even there I must ask a clear question: Is the Left Party in favor of the reduction of the VAT on food?

I also think the following is interesting. One might think that the Tidö parties have governed for 44 years, but we have not. We have governed for three years, and for eight years before that, there was a completely different political majority. Very many of the problems that you raise, Ilona Szatmári Waldau, already existed during your time. Therefore, my question is: What did you do to address this? The fact is that the book and film Svinalängorna actually take place in a time when this country was governed by the Social Democrats.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting with the reference to previous governments, as far as I can remember, the Liberals were part of the Social Democratic government base during the last mandate period. The Left Party was not. The Left Party did not negotiate with the government, but the Liberals did. If the Liberals want to speak poorly about the policy during the last mandate period, they should therefore look at their own party and not at the Left Party.

There were very many different threads here. I intend to start with this that C and V have different budgets. Yes, we do, because we are different parties. If we have the opportunity to form a government together after the election, we will negotiate on what shall be the government's policy. I cannot say now who will be forced to concede what, but it will be negotiations.

The only thing I can say is that Vänsterpartiet will not do as the Liberalerna did, who completely laid themselves flat for the Sverigedemokraterna. It is Sverigedemokraterna politics that the Liberalerna are now implementing. You are worsening the climate and worsening migration. These are issues that at one time were important for the Liberalerna. Go back to the Liberalerna's soul, Anders Ekegren! What do the Liberalerna want other than to support the Sverigedemokraterna and drive a Sverigedemokraterna politics?

I am at a loss for words when I hear a liberal standing here and being proud of having sold out their own politics – and their soul – to sit in a government with the support of the Sweden Democrats and implement the Sweden Democrats' politics. I'll stop there. I would have also spoken about VAT, but I'll stop there. I am, in fact, at a loss for words.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a country with great opportunities. We have an engaged civil society, entrepreneurs who create value, innovation and faith in the future, and many families who are striving. Despite the challenges we have behind us and those that still lie ahead of us, there is much that points in the right direction. We see that inflation has gone down, we see that the number of bankruptcies is decreasing, and we see a Swedish people who time and again rise up and show strength and perseverance.

It is in that spirit – with hope, responsibility and confidence – that we now present a budget that will strengthen Sweden and strengthen people in their everyday lives. We Christian Democrats know that Sweden grows when families are given better conditions, when companies can grow and when civil society is given space. That is when Sweden rises.

Madam Speaker! Food should never be a luxury. When inflation has eroded the purchasing power of wage earners, it is the families with children and the single pensioners who are hit hardest. Therefore, the government is now lowering the food VAT from 12 to 6 percent. It is a reform that puts people's basic needs first, not the state's. Milk on the table shall be prioritized.

We strengthen the families with children. It is in the family that our society is built. It is there that security, values, and faith in the future are shaped. When the economy is pressured, families need relief. Therefore, the limit for the housing allowance for families with children is being raised. And because no mother or father should have to choose between paying the rent and letting the children participate in leisure activities, we have introduced the leisure card, which gives many children the opportunity to use to engage in activities in their free time.

Work should pay off. The Christian Democrats rest on the conviction that every human being has an inviolable value and a unique ability. To work, contribute, and take responsibility should always be more profitable than standing on the sidelines. Therefore, we are lowering the tax on work – and on pension. Our elderly, who have carried us, built Sweden and laid the foundation for our welfare, should feel security even when times are tough.

Madam Speaker! A company is more than an economic unit; it is often a family's dream, a village's pride, or a visionary's life's work. A good business climate is therefore not just an economic goal but a matter of values. Sweden must continue to be a country where it is easy to start companies and make them grow, where effort pays off and where companies can find the labor with the qualifications that are needed. Without viable companies, there are no new jobs, no growth, and no faith in the future.

Madam Speaker! Man does not live by bread alone. A society is built on culture, joy, and community. Therefore, we are now lowering the VAT on dance events with dance bands, from 25 to 6 percent, so that dance band events receive the same tax rate as concerts do. This is about more than tax. It is about safeguarding folk culture, the Swedish dance band tradition, public health, and the meeting places where people find community, joy, and, yes, perhaps even love. Culture keeps the countryside alive and binds us together as a people.

Madam Speaker! Safety in the home is the foundation for safety in society. Therefore, the government is introducing a lower energy tax on electricity, and we are lowering the maximum fee for childcare charges. In this way, the everyday puzzle will fit together better for families, and they will have more left in their wallets. To protect households with small margins, a high-cost protection against high electricity and gas prices is also being introduced. It is responsible and right, even if we in southern Sweden are not satisfied that we still have higher costs for electricity than those who live in the rest of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democratic compass always points in the same direction: towards the human being, towards the family and towards a society where community is stronger than division. That is how we break the recession, that is how we build a sound economy and that is how we restore hope in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party has not aligned itself with block politics. Block politics does not reflect what the voters want.

Most voters in Sweden are in the middle – yes, it is actually true – but what is offered with the bloc politics is a bias either far to the left or far to the right. The media constantly block out the picture that there are only two alternatives, and the most aggressive digital warriors act like the media and polarize and simplify.

The losers are the voters who do not get the politics they demand. The voters are primarily located in the middle. This is shown by research from the election research program at the University of Gothenburg. The voters seek a politics that develops the country economically but also looks at injustices and levels the playing field.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party always starts from the human being. We shape our tax policy, for example, based on the insight that people who grow, gain freedom and take responsibility build our entire country from the bottom up. They also build society stronger than any authoritarian rule could ever come close to.

Entrepreneurship does not only create meaning for the individual but also gives our country the conditions to provide us with inclusive school, healthcare, and care. Low taxes, low thresholds to the labor market, and good conditions for particularly small-scale entrepreneurship create the conditions for our common welfare. Together, we become wealthier.

Madam Speaker! Our starting point is the human being – every human being as a unique person, as an opportunity, and as a vital part of our society. Every human being shapes society, not the other way around. It is our identity. It is about decentralization, decision-making capacity, responsibility, and entrepreneurship. It is the forest owner who best makes decisions regarding 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! People in groups often constitute different local communities. It can 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. A strong Sweden, a Sweden that holds together, can be seen as a web of local communities that grow from the bottom up into a country where every person counts. In the local community, we see each other. In Sweden, we see each other. That is C-party politics.

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? With emphasis, we reject all of the government's proposals that lead to weakening our society from below. Proposals to break down study associations, folk high schools, and cultural schools lead to increased segregation and increased unemployment.

With crumbling local communities, Sweden also falls apart, with increased crime and increased alienation as a consequence. And with increasing geographical differences in prosperity, tensions also increase and the opportunities for an equally rich life decrease, regardless of where one lives in our country.

Madam Speaker! Sweden today is a country facing decisive challenges. We agree on that. Not least, the economic challenges are emerging as significant in the era of global competition. Unemployment remains high, growth remains weak, and many of our companies are struggling to grow and hire. It is in this situation that the government presents its consumption and loan budget for 2026.

We in the Center Party see a need for both restraint regarding consumption-based expenditures and more radical and long-term reforms. Therefore, we have submitted a budget motion for 2026, which we see as not just an alternative but a completely different path forward. Our view on tax and job policy differs from the government's and, for all intents and purposes, the other opposition parties'. The government's budget bill for 2026 contains some tax cuts, including an enhanced job tax deduction and a raised basic deduction. Additionally, they propose temporarily lowered employer contributions for young people.

We are critical of the fact that the government is unable to shift the course toward growth with reduced emissions. We say that jobs should increase and emissions should decrease. The government overlooks what economists agree on.

Madam Speaker! We in the Center Party want to permanently – not just temporarily – lower the employer contributions in order to truly stimulate employment. We believe that it is precisely the fixed costs of labor that often prevent companies, especially small and medium-sized ones, from hiring more people.

We propose that the employer contributions be abolished for small businesses' first employees, for young people with entry-level wages, and for the long-term unemployed. It is not a temporary measure that changes the course; it must be a fundamental change, a permanent reform. Otherwise, we can be sure that no one truly dares to act on past politics.

Furthermore, we want to strengthen the job tax credit, especially for low- and middle-income earners. It is a targeted tax cut for those who work and have lower incomes, not a general discount that mostly benefits those with high incomes. This direction has a clear purpose. We want tax cuts to lead to more jobs, not just larger margins for those who already have work. Our conviction is that more people in work strengthens the welfare system, reduces dependency on benefits and generates long-term growth, not least through the tax revenues from the new jobs and the dynamic effects that come in the wake of low unemployment.

Madam Speaker! There is an almost ideological difference in how we view tax cuts and job creation. One could call it lasting versus temporary measures. But the difference perhaps becomes even greater when one looks at how the relationship between consumption and job creation appears. The Government mixes cuts for workers with consumption support and other targeted interventions. We in Centerpartiet focus primarily on reducing the cost of work for both companies and employees.

Critics could argue that permanently lowered employer contributions entail a burden on the state's finances in the long run, and that is a legitimate question. But we believe that it is a responsible risk, because more jobs mean more taxpayers. Higher employment leads to lower costs for unemployment benefits and other social safety nets. Growing companies provide growth and innovation, which strengthens Sweden's economy in the long term.

Madam Speaker! It is therefore not particularly reasonable to compare different costs directly. Investing for the future is essentially different compared to consuming today's tax revenues. Our vision – our path – is to invest for future prosperity.

Our job and tax policy is also clearly anchored in a more distributionally just vision. It is those who are furthest from the labor market or who have the lowest incomes who benefit to a greater extent from our reforms compared to the government's initiatives.

It is not just growth for growth's sake; it is a policy for inclusive and socially sustainable growth. When more people are involved in the common social project of building local communities, crime and exclusion will also decrease and the economy will be strengthened. Leaving people aside does not create a safe and prosperous society. Batons may be needed, but even more we need an inclusive policy and not least an inclusive economic policy.

At the same time, we link this to our green vision. Tax policy shall support investments in the climate transition by freeing up resources and creating conditions for companies to grow and invest in green businesses. The future business sector will, regardless of today's government policy, necessarily be green. Otherwise, we lose economic ground to other countries. Combating climate change does not hurt economically. That is a bad myth. It has been dismissed by leading economists for a long time. Combating climate change instead creates jobs and growth. To be at the forefront is to build tomorrow's prosperity. Investments we make in our economy now will be worth many times more if they are green and socially inclusive.

Madam Speaker! I hereby move for the approval of our reservations, that is to say, reservations 3 and 7.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker and members! You in the Center Party have clearly decided that you do not want to cooperate in any way with SD. We all know that. But the question is really what you want. The legendary center leader Gunnar Hedlund coined the classic expression: the Center Party has always wanted and will always want.

It is interesting for the voters to know what tax policy one gets if they vote for the Center Party. Today we actually received the answer during the earlier debate, where Martin Ådahl announced that Magdalena Andersson is in practice your prime ministerial candidate.

But the question is how the cooperation is to work. The Centre Party lies to the right of both the Moderates and the Liberals on economic issues. In your budget proposal, you want to implement large reductions of the employer contributions and the taxes, take large amounts of money from families with many children and drastically worsen the unemployment insurance. Additionally, you want to abolish Samhall without actually having any alternative for that group.

The question is: If you are going to form a government to the left anyway, which of these proposals are you prepared to give up in order to be able to join a new government?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

There is some kind of nearly relevant interest in the Center Party's choice of path. I ask to return to what I said at the beginning of my speech. We are not particularly fond of block politics, where a red and a blue team are pointed out. Our starting point is that there are eight parties in Sweden's Riksdag, all of which individually seek as much support as possible for their policies, and that one can then, once the voters have had their say, see what the result becomes and which constellations can take responsibility for the country. We think extremely little about whether there are prime ministerial candidates named Andersson, Kristersson, or Åkesson. They are the ones who represent the three large parties.

Journalists and some liberals are extremely fond of strengthening the image of a polarized political climate, where individual parties can sacrifice their entire policy just to be included in a group in government. The choice that the Liberals have made, to negotiate away their own policy and their entire liberal soul to get a few ministerial posts and then sink to perhaps 2 percent in opinion polls, is a choice that the Center Party will not make – the member Ekegren can be absolutely sure of that.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! But the question remains: What does the Centre Party want then? It is not particularly realistic or likely that you would simply be some free bird sitting in a corner thinking that you are ideologically more elevated than other parties. In that case, you would end up in a situation where you stand completely without influence and will not get any of your policies through.

It is well understood that you want to achieve impact for the politics you pursue. Not everything is actually wrong in your proposals. You present a number of proposals regarding lowered employer contributions and lowered taxes that I also think are good.

But it is not this team that you will end up in, and therefore it is still important to know. The member says that there are ideological differences. What are the ideological differences the member is thinking of?

The second, which is an important issue and the reason why we are lowering the tax not only for low-income earners, is that a tax reform was made in 1991, and a supporting thought then was half left over. One should have half left over, and that we in this government actually have not succeeded with completely. But we try to safeguard that thought. The question is what is the Center Party's view on the concept of half left over – that one should always have half left over of a wage increase.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I have here in the speaker's chair accounted for the Centre Party's tax parts of the budget motion. Just as Member Ekegren notes, the Centre Party is a party that sees that generally low tax levels, especially for those who have the tightest circumstances, are favorable for Sweden. It is favorable for our growth and thus also for the general prosperity in our nation – so that one has equally good access to school, healthcare, and care throughout the country and regardless of what background one comes from.

Ekegren was also touching upon ideological differences. It is such that among the political parties we have ideological differences; we start from different ideas. What Ekegren's party starts from now, I honestly do not know, but we have liberalism as the ideology in the Center Party. It stipulates, among other things, the equal value of people and that we should see people as an asset. Instead of kicking people out and paying hundreds of thousands of kronor for a single ticket, we want, for our growth and our prosperity, to ensure that people get into work, that we reduce the gap in the labor market and that we close the skills gap that exists between the able-bodied population and the skills that companies are seeking. There we have a Herculean task. It is a large gap that we must solve.

Our ideological starting point is that people are needed, for their own sake but also, in the long run, for the prosperity of society.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker, members of the House and guests! Today's tax round shows great differences between the majority and the opposition. Among all the parties in the government base, there is a will to gradually lower taxes. The four opposition parties are split in different directions. S, MP and V want to raise taxes. The fourth party, Centerpartiet, stands clearly to the right of all the government parties and wants to significantly lower income taxes and employer contributions.

How these four parties can form a government is probably understood by no one. If the unfortunate should happen that the red-greens get a majority in the Riksdag after the election, the risk is quite tangible that Magdalena Andersson also this time becomes Prime Minister for seven hours. V did indeed bring down the workers' government last time. The Centre says that it is the issue policy that shall determine their choice of Prime Minister. Then one thing is clear: the Centre has ended up in the wrong company.

The current government inherited a strong inflation and is governing in the shadow of a prolonged war in Ukraine. At the turn of the year, Donald Trump took office as president, and he is completely unpredictable. When some of us sitting in the EU Committee visited Svenskt Näringsliv a week ago, we received confirmation that Trump's moves on tariffs are hindering investments in Sweden in a tangible way and give Sweden poorer conditions for an economic recovery. Despite this, the government has significantly reduced inflation and is making exceptionally large investments in defense to meet the threat from Putin's Russia.

The Tidö parties' budget proposal leads to many improvements: tax cuts for more money in the wallet, reforms for strengthened competitiveness, the largest school budget in Swedish history, improved conditions for companies, and additional money for the justice system.

Madam Speaker! Sometimes, when listening to today's debate, one might wonder if it is a tax debate or if it is about all sorts of things. Well, that is how it is, but if one sticks to the tax area, one notices that the government is making quite a few changes.

The government lowers the food VAT, lowers the tax on work, pension, and sickness and activity allowance, and removes the notorious "funkisskatten" (disability tax). The government lowers SINK, the income tax for those residing abroad, lowers social security contributions for young people, lowers the electricity tax, and improves the rules for Swedish tonnage taxation, which will be a major boost for the shipping industry and reduce de-flagging.

Not least, the tax on ISK accounts is being lowered. The opposition parties have often complained about the ISK accounts, but as we heard from the Finance Minister earlier, they are seen in many places as an example for increasing capital formation in society. Among others, Poland has now followed in Sweden's footsteps.

All these measures stimulate the economy, and this is of course needed. The Tidö parties can agree on a budget proposal, but the four opposition parties are scattered in many directions and have no common denominator.

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! The Tidö Agreement was concluded at a castle. It shows. During this parliamentary term, those who already live with small economic margins have received less, while the well-off have received more.

The government has invested in lower taxes and subsidies for those who are already wealthy so that they can expand their balconies and get cheaper sirloin steak for Friday night cozy time. At the same time, they have denied Sweden's families with children an increased child allowance, and 100,000 more Swedes have fallen into unemployment. We have a cost crisis and a recession that hits hardest against those who are already struggling.

At the same time, the government is abandoning climate policy point by point. In recent weeks, we have heard that there are even parties in the government that completely want to throw away the Swedish climate goals, in the midst of a burning climate crisis.

Miljöpartiet thinks bigger about politics. We know that reality neither has its starting point in nor takes place in a dreamlike castle. Miljöpartiet wants to raise taxes on what is harmful to our planet and lower taxes on what benefits the climate transition, while at the same time we ensure a strong welfare where no one is left behind – a society where children do not go to bed hungry and where parents have a job to go to. We present a budget and a tax policy for a just climate transition.

Madam Speaker! Due to the government's policy, Sweden appears to be missing all climate goals. From having been a pioneer in the climate transition, we have, after only three years with the Tidö parties' policy, fallen significantly behind. This is nonchalant towards the Swedish people, where seven out of ten worry about how climate change will affect future generations.

Just as many think that the government should do more to both limit climate change and preserve and protect nature in Sweden. What does the government do then? They do even less. They pursue a policy that increases emissions. They did not even send a minister to the negotiations at the climate summit in Brazil.

This is careless regarding the Swedish people's concern, and frankly, it is embarrassing, especially since we know that it is possible to reach the climate goals – with green politics. It is not something that only we Miljöpartiet say, but it has actually also been calculated by the Ministry of Finance, where the Moderaternas Elisabeth Svantesson is head. After all parties presented their proposals for next year's budget, the Ministry of Finance calculated that only one party, Miljöpartiet, meets the climate goals with its politics. The climate goals are therefore not impossible to achieve, but it is the government's politics that causes us to miss them.

The government's climate-damaging policy is clearly visible in the tax policy. Air travel has a bit of a fast track when it comes to taxation. The government's decision to remove the aviation tax, which was intended to level the imbalance, is estimated to increase emissions from Swedish airports by just under 90,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. To put it into perspective, this is as much emissions as if we were to fly 100,000 round-trip flights to Mallorca. This is completely unreasonable in the midst of a climate crisis.

Miljöpartiet sees that we must reintroduce and double the aviation tax, and at the same time we must do something about those who indulge in flying private jets in the midst of the climate crisis. We think they should have a tax of 20,000 kronor per flight.

At the same time, we in Miljöpartiet make the alternatives better and cheaper. We are investing heavily in sustainable travel – trains that run on time and that serve more parts of Sweden's long country, as well as new railway lines.

We are also investing in making public transport cheaper, through a Sweden card where adults pay 499 kronor per month to travel on all public transport in all of Sweden. For children, students, and pensioners, the price will be half of that. This has been introduced in Germany, and it was a success. Now it is time for Sweden to get a Sweden card.

The electrification of the vehicle fleet, that is, that we switch from fossil fuels in cars to cars primarily running on electricity, has also been sidelined by the Tidö parties' policy. They abolished the bonus for new electric cars, and we saw an immediate effect on new car sales.

We in Miljöpartiet propose instead that we should ensure that it becomes cheaper to have cars that run on fossil-free energy, i.e., electric cars, and more expensive to buy new fossil cars. In 2025, it is actually time to electrify the vehicle fleet.

As part of achieving the climate goals and transitioning all different sectors in Sweden, we want a national emissions trading system, that is, in the long run move away from point taxes and increased carbon taxes on gasoline and diesel to instead have a trading system that successively reduces the room for emissions. But until we have been able to phase that in, we actually need to raise the price on carbon on gasoline. This government has heavily subsidized fossil fuels, which increases emissions. We propose – actually as the only party – a realistic climate policy, which means that we must ensure that emissions cost money. Our calculation is that that cost would land at 2.2 kronor per liter.

At the same time, climate policy must be fair. Not everyone has the possibility to replace their fossil fuel car with an electric car tomorrow. Therefore, we are also investing over 4 billion – which we then receive through an increased petrol tax – into a green dividend for low- and middle-income earners living in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas, where one is dependent on the car. For a single parent with two children, it amounts to 5,800 kronor.

With the Green Party, Sweden will get a fair climate transition where those who have the hardest time transitioning receive support and help. We are introducing leasing support so that more people can afford to lease an electric car. We are introducing the Sweden Card for those who travel by public transport and a reimbursement for those who have it the toughest.

Madam Speaker! That which affects the climate needs to cost, and that which is good for the climate we should favor economically. Therefore, we want to ensure that those who produce renewable electricity from solar cells on the roof shall get back the so-called 60-öre, i.e., the tax reduction for micro-production of renewable electricity, which the government removed. We also propose that the green deduction be raised again and that the so-called 500 kilowatt limit for self-consumption of electricity be abolished so that more roofs can be used to produce renewable electricity.

In the green transition, agriculture also needs to be included. We need to replace the deduction that goes to those who use diesel in agriculture with an agricultural deduction that goes to all farmers. In this way, we favor the transition away from fossil fuels and do not disadvantage those farmers who have actually made the switch.

At the same time as we move away from the fossil, we also need to move away from the throwaway society. This year, Sweden's overshoot day occurred, i.e., the day when our country had consumed its fair share of the earth's renewable resources for the year, already on April 3. Sweden is therefore living as if we had four earth globes. It is not sustainable.

Many Swedes do what they can to reverse the development even though the government has made it harder. More people buy secondhand clothes and used items instead of buying new ones. More people also try to get their clothes and items repaired. In the budget for 2023, the government removed the halved VAT on certain repairs, which is completely incomprehensible. I suppose I have to count that towards the culture war account against everything that is climate and environmental policy. We need to favor repairs, and we in Miljöpartiet stand firm on halved VAT on repairs of bicycles, household appliances, shoes, leather goods, clothes, and household linen.

Madam Speaker! The economic resources that the state receives should be used to make our society better and stronger. We propose an increased child allowance and reinforced housing allowance for families with children with small economic margins so that not a single child and not a single mother shall go hungry at the end of the month.

It is unfortunately full real and painful consequences that we have seen from the government's policy. Not everyone can even afford winter clothes for their children now that it has become cold. Child poverty has skyrocketed. At the last moment, the government is trying to cobble together some kind of temporary election pork-barrel policy to somehow appear to care about those who are worst off.

We in Miljöpartiet direct our efforts to precisely those who need it most for society to hold together. The economic gaps must be reduced. Instead of another job tax credit and tax credits for those who earn the most, we think we should invest in those who have it toughest.

Madam Speaker! The Emperor is naked, and the Green Party does not live in the fairy tale world of Tidö Palace. Our policy is not carved out in any palace, and it shows. With the Green Party's policy, we meet the climate goals while simultaneously ensuring that Sweden's citizens get a better and more bearable life, where there is constant hope for the future instead of worry about how to manage to feed the children when the bills are paid.

Our policy offers hope that Sweden can meet the climate goals, and we ensure that the state's resources are used effectively for the benefit of people and the planet. We think bigger about politics, outside the walls of the palaces.

I therefore wish to move for approval of the Green Party's reservations.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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