Response to interpellation 2022/23:274 on the situation for pensioners born in 1957

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Janine Alm Ericson has asked me whether I consider the tax treatment of persons born in 1957 to be reasonable and, if not, what I intend to do about this. The question is posed against the background that the age limit for receiving the increased basic deduction was raised on 1 January 2023 so that it covers persons who have reached the age of 66 at the beginning of the tax year.

I regret that those born in 1957 have been affected by the new rules in this way and had to wait an extra year for the tax reduction that the increased basic deduction entails. It is unfortunate that persons born in 1957 during 2023 are treated as pensioners in some parts of our systems but not in others.

The raising of the retirement age to 66 should have been handled in a different way. The previous government, which included both the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, initiated this process in the autumn of 2020 and then proposed that the age limit should be raised in a way that left the 57-year-olds caught in the middle. The Riksdag decision was made in May 2022. The previous government should have noticed and more clearly informed that this would occur so that persons affected by the rules could have planned for their pension with sufficient foresight.

In the Tidö Agreement, the coalition parties establish that proposals on how the pensioners' finances can be strengthened shall be developed and that the tax on both earned income and pensions shall be lowered during the mandate period. This has, among other things, occurred by strengthening the job tax deduction for the elderly, which also benefits persons born in 1957 as it is sufficient to have turned 65 at the beginning of the year to receive a share of it.

The government is pursuing a restrained economic policy so as not to risk contributing to even higher inflation. We are, however, monitoring the situation closely and are not closing the door on further measures to support the affected households. The government will return to how the pensioners' economic situation shall be improved.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elisabeth Svantesson, for the answer! Finally, I might also say.

Just as the Minister for Finance says, the tax situation for persons born in 1957 should have been handled differently. On this, we are in complete agreement. But that is where my and Elisabeth Svantesson's agreement unfortunately ends, as an entire birth cohort has had to take a heavy economic blow because the government has failed to manage this in a way that is right and proper.

For me, it is obvious that when something has gone so wrong, it is the task of politics to rectify it, not to shrug its shoulders a bit resignedly and say that this was a bit unfortunate and then stand completely helpless and more or less pretend as if it were raining. That is how I interpret the Finance Minister's answer.

It is not enough to regret that it has gone wrong. I am convinced that every single one of the over 100,000 people who have been affected knows very well that it is wrong. They also know what consequences it has had. On average, it is about 2,000 kronor a month, and those are thousands of kronor that mean a lot for very many.

The simplest thing would have been to adjust this in the budget that the Finance Minister presented in the autumn. At that point, the tax tables had not yet been locked, and everything would have been significantly simpler. What is being requested now by those born in 1957 and by everyone else who cares that there should be equality before the law is that something must be done to compensate those who are now exposed to this tax injustice. I am unfortunately convinced that a few words of regret from the Finance Minister hardly count as a fair compensation.

Elisabeth Svantesson sits in the government and has been responsible for the economic policy since last year. Personally, I feel that it is time for the Minister for Finance to stop acting as if the Moderates are still in opposition with the primary task of blaming everything that is wrong on someone else. There have been many occasions for the Minister for Finance to sort this out, but the will is obviously still lacking.

The answer that Elisabeth Svantesson has given today leaves much to be desired. It sounds good that the government will in the future come forward with proposals to strengthen pensioners' finances, but that is not what we are talking about in this chamber today. What both I and those who were born in 1957 want is that the birth year shall be compensated for the unreasonable tax situation they have been placed in.

In conclusion, I would like to ask something. The Minister for Finance raised the issue of inflation in his response. Does the Minister mean that it is inflation that is the reason why the government does not tackle tax injustice? It seems very strange considering that the government lowered the tax for Sweden's high-income earners at the turn of the year. Is it the case that inflation is a problem when this tax injustice is to be corrected, but not when the wealthy are to receive a tax cut?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Finance is quite right in his response to Janine Alm Ericson that the previous government, in which both the Social Democrats and the Green Party were included, initiated the process that led to the decision on the increased retirement age.

I actually share the Finance Minister's criticism of the previous government, which should have noticed and more clearly informed that this would occur, so that people affected by these rules could have planned better for their pension to the extent that they had this possibility. It is a criticism that Vänsterpartiet has put forward many times. Corresponding criticism I have never heard from any government party until now, when the affected pensioners have started to act. In that case, it fits well to voice criticism and blame the previous government, even though the process was initiated by the pension group that the current government parties also belong to.

The parties in the current government - Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna - voted together with Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet for the proposal and are therefore equally responsible for this injustice as the previous government. Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson was even among those who voted yes to introducing the tax injustice.

The Green Party has at least changed its mind and now proposes, together with the Left Party, that pensioners born in 1957 should have the same tax as other pensioners. The government, on the other hand, is just standing still.

When the decision was made on 31 May 2022, many of the 57:s had already retired, sold their companies, or reached an agreement with their employer regarding a retirement date. Thus, it can be said that it is a retroactive decision that the Riksdag took, where those who had already started receiving their pension suddenly saw their tax for 2023 increased.

We must also not forget all those who have no choice, because the right to all other security systems ceases. It is about 100,000 people who pay up to 3,000 kronor more per month in tax compared to their calculation and whose budget does not hold.

Before the 2023 budget, the pension organizations SPF and PRO approached the government regarding transitional rules. The government responded that there was no reason to change the rules because the job tax deduction for the elderly will again be larger than the ordinary job tax deduction. The government and its coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna therefore argue that pensioners who lack jobs and sometimes also work capacity are compensated when they work and that nothing has therefore been done wrong.

Twice the current government has had the opportunity to rectify the tax injustice - in the regular budget process and in the autumn budget.

In his answer to the interpellation, the Minister for Finance this time also refers to the fight against inflation. I must ask why it is precisely the tax for pensioners born in 1957 that is to save the inflation target, while high-income earners are compensated with a lower tax of 1,400 kronor per month. And we Members of Parliament receive a higher fee with reference to inflation. It is a follow-up question that I hope the Minister for Finance can answer.

I also wonder why the Finance Minister ignores the fact that the unemployed and the sick have had no opportunity to choose their retirement age. Many in this group also have only a guarantee pension. And even though we in Vänsterpartiet pushed through an increase of the guarantee pension, it is still low. The 57th who has a guarantee pension or the lowest pension now pays 1,400–1,500 kronor more in tax per month than others with a low pension. These are people in low-wage occupations who have worn out their bodies, who have been on sick leave, and who now receive even less money.

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This is an issue that causes a great deal of debate. Looking back, it was almost a year ago that this Riksdag made a decision that resulted in this effect, that this specific group of pensioners would be taxed more highly than what was intended. This is also an error that I believe the government base and we in the coalition parties honestly want to rectify. But the economic situation prevailing in the country, and not least the inflation, makes it difficult. It is also about taking responsibility for the economic situation that we have inherited from other parties that have not been as responsible.

At the decision made a year ago, it was one party - my party - that voted no to this change. Vänsterpartiet abstained from voting in favor of its own motion. And it is clear that we in Sverigedemokraterna have wanted to change this from the very beginning. My colleague Oscar Sjöstedt has said this in, among other places, Svenska Dagbladet. It is also an issue that we will push forward during the autumn negotiations.

I still think that the high-toned tone heard from the other parties is a bit dishonest. Miljöpartiet was one of the parties that were part of the Pensions Group and which voted for the proposal a year ago. Now they want to change this. They want to correct the mistake. That is good. But I still think that when it comes to the decisions that are made in this chamber, one must also be aware of what consequences they can have and which groups can be affected.

Since I have this opportunity to ask questions to the Minister for Finance today, I would like to take the chance to ask the following question. If there is now a political will from the coalition parties to rectify this error, when can we at the earliest rectify it and also lower the tax for this group and compensate them for this error? I believe that these people want to hear that, and not least those who are standing and demonstrating at Mynttorget today. I also think that they are fulfilling their democratic duty by calmly and sensibly explaining that they are against this, that they want this to be rectified, and that they also want to conduct a dialogue with us elected representatives.

When one looks at the budget proposals ahead of the government bill, there is actually only one party from the opposition that has a serious proposal, and that is the Social Democrats, given the country's economic situation. The other parties in the opposition have a budget proposal where it is hardly possible to calculate what consequences it would have for the country. We know that if their budget were to pass here, it would mean an interest rate hike from the Riksbank which would have enormous consequences for ordinary people, not least considering the housing situation and the housing crisis that we have all around the country.

I therefore do not think it is honest to say that from the Miljöpartiets side, in that case, one promises to rectify this when they also have a budget proposal that lacks sense and balance and does not take responsibility for the country.

Back to my question to the Minister for Finance: When can we correct this error and compensate this group?

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with the Pensions Group. Since the new pension system was introduced many years ago, we have had a pensions group where we make agreements on how the pensions shall be managed. I want to emphasize the value and the importance of the Pensions Group functioning and continuing to do so in the future as well.

The decision to raise the retirement age concerned an issue that had just been negotiated in the Pensions Group.

When it comes to people's rights and the possibility of decent pensions, it is important that we as politicians set rules that are easy and clear, so that one knows what possibilities one has to retire, when one can do it, and what conditions one receives.

During the latest government period, that is during the last eight years with a Social Democratic government, there have also been a number of changes to strengthen the situation for pensioners. It began with the replacement rate in the housing supplement being raised in 2015. The ceiling on the replacement rate in the housing supplement was raised further in 2018. The guarantee pension was raised in 2020. The ceiling in the housing supplement was raised further in 2020. The pension supplement was introduced in September 2020 and meant an increase of at most 600 kronor in pension every month. The housing supplement was raised further in 2022, and in 2022 we introduced a security pension. The list can be made even longer, but this is a snapshot of what has been done to strengthen pensions and the rights of pensioners.

We must continue to do that, but at those times when something goes wrong and it is shown in hindsight that it should not be as it is, politics must have the strength to stand up and say: No, this we probably need to correct. Unlike the Sverigedemokraterna member Perez, I do not think it is dishonest if one changes their opinion. In my world, it is exactly the opposite. If it is the case that something has gone wrong – that something has become in a way it should not – politics must, of course, say: This we must correct.

When it comes to the 57s specifically, there is something that is wrong. The Riksdag made a decision in May 2022 which meant that there are people who had the opportunity to retire in February of the same year and who did not know about or understood the consequences or what pension they would receive on 1 January 2023. Now, more and more of the Riksdag's parties realize that something must be done - that it is not enough to complain but that we must also sit down and reason and try to rectify this.

I note that there are quite a few parties participating in this discussion today. Soon, the Finance Minister will stand there alone – all by himself, even in the government. The Christian Democrats' member in the Finance Committee, Hans Eklind, appeared as recently as yesterday in the TV4 news and said in bombastic language that he will fight for this until his last drop of blood. Soon, the Finance Minister will stand there alone. Even the Sweden Democrats – who decide which issues pass this chamber and ensure that the possibility exists, who sit in negotiations and make it so that the government even exists, and who have the power to change this – say that they want to do it.

I want to tell the Minister for Finance that we Social Democrats are ready to take responsibility. We are ready to make a deal. Take the initiative, and we will come to the negotiating table!

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I also truly regret that the 57s have been caught in the crossfire, but I have a question for Janine Alm Ericson. I also turn against what I agree with truly are chest tones. Even Miljöpartiet were involved in deciding this.

You did not include this in your budget proposal last autumn, Janine Alm Ericson. Now you want to change it, when the fiscal year has already begun. How are you going to do that? How are you going to change this? Will you do it through one-off amounts, or how will you resolve the situation?

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was as if by a magic spell that the tax for the very richest was lowered when the government took office. Worse it has been for the pensioners who were born in 1957. Likewise, it was easy to raise the fees for the politicians.

It was mentioned earlier in the debate that the guaranteed pensions have been increased, and we must thank the Left Party for that. It was something we demanded, and it happened because the Left Party pushed the issue so hard. I would like to take this opportunity to say that.

Vänsterpartiet was against the increase of the retirement age, and we think it is extremely careless to act in a way that this age group is now affected in this manner and is being penalised by taxation. The government has had several chances to rectify this; they have had both an autumn budget and a spring amendment budget. Still, they do not act in any way. Vänsterpartiet has also submitted proposals on this during the general motion period but has not received any support.

Elisabeth Svantesson has mentioned in the debate that it would be unfortunate to fuel inflation and that one therefore cannot address these problems. But then one can ask why the government in other cases acts to fuel inflation - for example, the Konjunkturinstitutet has stated that the government's electricity support fuels inflation. Vänsterpartiet's proposal on Swedish prices would instead lower inflation by 1-2 percent. We have also had proposals to pressure the food giants to lower food prices, but even there the government has done very little. They have had coffee with the food giants, but not much more.

Why does the government want to evade responsibility and blame inflation? It is you who hold the cards, Elisabeth Svantesson. I really want an answer to that question.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the interpellor for an important question. I know that the answer came a bit too late, but it is good that we have the discussion now and that many members are participating. I know that there are also many listeners in the gallery who are very engaged and also affected by this handling.

Let me just start by saying that I truly regret that this situation has arisen and that we are where we are. It is an unreasonable handling. In the interpellation, I was asked if I considered this treatment to be reasonable. No, who can think that this has been reasonable? On the contrary, it has been an unreasonable handling of the issue for a long time. For the government and for me, there is no doubt that the change should have been introduced in a much better way. It is obvious to everyone.

I think one should be honest that this is a very complex issue. I believe that is why no parties had any other proposals in the autumn, that is, in the budget for this year. The pension system is a complex issue, because it concerns taxation, years, and other benefits. Overall, the pension system is complex, and I believe that is why no other party had any other proposal in the autumn handling of this year's budget.

One must also be honest and say that it is not possible to change this year's tax table. Everyone in this chamber knows that. When one reads the Green Party's motion, one can therefore conclude that it really is nothing more than a napkin sketch. In opposition, one can present proposals that work; I just want to say that. I have sat in opposition for four years and had a great influence in the chamber - and even had state budgets passed. But this question is difficult and complex, and if the interpellor seriously really wants to rectify the problems, it is good if the interpellor also says exactly how it should be done.

What then is my and the government's answer in all of this? Are we just trying to blame the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, who, after all, were the ones who started the process? No. I am in the government now, and the government consists of 24 ministers. We take responsibility. What do we do then? I know that many want an exact statement today, and we will not give that. But this issue is being seriously analyzed by us, and we are reviewing it from different sides and different perspectives. We have not let it go.

Several of the previous participants in the debate have also touched upon this. My colleague from the coalition party, David Perez, has touched upon how this can be done. It is a question that is being analyzed and reviewed. But let me say that it is not an easy question. It is complex, and however one feels the answer lands - perhaps it feels dull - I just want to say it as it is: Right now, we are analyzing the question. We have not dropped it, and we will come back to it in different ways.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is unfortunate to have to state that the Minister for Finance does not seem to want to rectify this injustice even though it is actually possible. It can be said that it is an unreasonable handling, and that is good. It is, however, obviously not so unreasonable that the Minister for Finance is going to do anything about it, if that is how we are to interpret the answer – even though at the end of the Minister's contribution something actually came that one might perhaps perceive as a softening.

As we can observe during this debate in the chamber, it is not only the Minister for Finance who should be held responsible for this. The Christian Democrats, the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats are also responsible for the economic policy being pursued. I have, like several others, noted that both the Sweden Democrats and the Christian Democrats have now been out saying that they will fight for this to be changed, and then it will be up to them to prove it. It is possible to say it in the chamber and stand and demand things, but I have not yet heard a peep about this being something that they have pushed in any negotiations.

It is of course very welcome if a government party or the support party acts. I only hope that they also put sufficient force behind their demands, so that we actually see a change. Nothing has happened yet.

In order for us to safeguard the legitimacy of the pension system and the tax system, the 57s must be compensated because they pay more in tax than other pensioners. This unfair treatment must cease.

We also know that it is not possible to change the tax tables, just as the Finance Minister says – that is why it would have been easier to rectify this earlier. It is also another form of compensation that must be produced. One might think that this is someone else's responsibility, but it is the Finance Minister who has the entire Ministry of Finance behind her. She should be able to produce a method that works.

I want to emphasize what Niklas Karlsson said: If there is a proposal from the Minister for Finance, we are absolutely prepared to sit down and look at it. I am glad that the Social Democrats are as well.

These are people who have been treated in a completely unacceptable manner by the Swedish state. The problem does not disappear by not giving it any major interest. This is nothing that disappears, and the injustice does not cease. This is a group that will need to be compensated in one way or another. Instead of pushing the question away and thinking that others should come up with a model, the Finance Minister should sit down and work on something themselves.

I also want to take the opportunity to ask another question now that we are talking about that nothing was done before it was too late. Today we are debating the 57s, but we know that the same problem will arise for those born in 1959. I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister for Finance how she views the group born in 1959. If nothing is done now, it will be too late for them as well. Does the Minister for Finance intend to do anything? Does she intend to change anything before that group also goes into retirement, or is the strategy here as well to continue sticking one's head in the sand?

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet voted no to the proposal on increased pensions and has not voted for the penalty tax for the 57s. I am pleased that Miljöpartiet has shifted on the issue, and I honestly do not understand how Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna can criticize Miljöpartiet for taking the correct stance, which Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna should also do.

The Minister for Finance says that no party submitted this proposal in the autumn. I want to be clear that the penalty tax would have disappeared if the budget proposal from us in Vänsterpartiet had gained favor, because we had a completely different arrangement for the pensions.

We also had a mandate that the tax should be adjusted for the 57s. It was something that the Chamber voted no to; it was only Miljöpartiet that supported Vänsterpartiet in this. We have exactly the same proposal in our spring amendment budget, so I urge everyone – including the Finance Minister and her party – to vote for the spring budget from us in Vänsterpartiet, where there is a mandate to rectify this.

It is possible to do something. I would very much like to hear the Finance Minister say what she plans to do. What does the government plan to do about this completely horrible tax penalty on one age group, and another age group in a year's time? Why is the government not doing anything about it? Two times, one has had this opportunity, as I have said – the problem was known when the ordinary budget was adopted in the autumn, and something could have been done about it in the supplementary budget. I even got the impression that the government intended to do so, partly because several parties in the government base had responded to the 57s that this was unfair and that something had to be done about it.

Many of us had hopes that the government and the Sweden Democrats would do something in the autumn budget, but that did not happen. Fighting inflation is more important. Lower taxes for those who earn the most is more important. Increased salaries for members of parliament are also more important.

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the interpellator and the others for a good discussion and debate.

I just want to comment on a few things, first and foremost what one has been able to hear here about that fighting inflation is important. It is - fighting inflation is one of the things that this government and this government base have prioritized highest. That is why we have laid a budget that takes responsibility for Sweden in a very difficult situation.

Furthermore, it is about preventing an interest rate hike that will have an effect for this group of pensioners and for others in Sweden. I am talking about an interest rate hike on people's loans which entails a cost that far exceeds the 3,000 kronor that it has been said they do not receive compensation for.

Member of the Executive Board Karlsson says that it is dishonest for me to express myself in this way, but the fact is that he belongs to a party that has governed the country for eight years and which has handed over an economic situation that is far from simple to solve. I do know, however, that the Finance Minister is working hard to solve it. We have a record-weak krona and record-high inflation. These are not simple things to solve.

I have also heard that nothing has happened, but things are starting to happen. We are entering in order to negotiate and to resolve the situation for this group, and I know that the government base and the government parties want to do their best to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. It is, however, a complex issue, which we have heard from the Finance Minister here, and that must be respected. This is nothing that one solves easily.

Sure - you have this proposal in your budget bills, but what does it look like otherwise? One must see a budget as a whole and not just as small proposals.

I would like to thank the Minister for Finance for the debate. I look forward to the negotiations this autumn.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker and the Minister for Finance! I shall keep it quite brief. It is, of course, the case that the Minister for Finance and I represent two completely different parties and have completely different views on how society should develop - perhaps also on the value of people. From this, we fight for the voters' favor.

I would still like to say that in this specific issue, I am not looking to nail the Finance Minister or to point fingers. I could, of course, have sharpened many of my comments and remarks in today's debate, but I choose not to do so. This issue is so important and of such a character that the focus now must be on correcting the potential errors that have been committed.

I also know that we cannot change this year's tax table, but this cannot become an argument for us to sit still or for us not to discuss and look for opportunities to resolve this situation. It is also the case that those who pay tax today will declare their income in a year, and one can look at the possibility of resolving it then. The retroactivity in tax policy exists when it is in favor of the one who has paid tax, but not in the other direction.

Now there are at least opportunities to look for solutions. Therefore, I am not looking for any concrete promises from the Minister for Finance in today's debate other than that the Minister for Finance acknowledges the problems and says that she is prepared to try to solve them and that she would very much like to do so together with us. I would like the Minister for Finance to invite us to negotiations and enter into a discussion about how we can jointly rectify the possible mistakes that have been made.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: Now it is up to the Sverigedemokraterna, who decide every issue in Sweden's Riksdag, to prove themselves. They have made promises – now we shall see if they have the strength to fulfill them or if it is merely lip service.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state that I have not received any proposal on how Miljöpartiet should solve this when the parliamentary year has already begun. It is easy to take offense and complain publicly about the government in this case, but the problem goes much further back than that.

I nevertheless thank you for the interpellation. This is a very important matter, and I hope that we will eventually reach a solution.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Elisabeth Svantesson regrets the situation for people who were born in -57. It is a rather meager consolation for people who are penalised with an average of 26,100 kronor per year that the Finance Minister regrets the situation. It does not put much food on the table - or money for the rent, for that matter.

It is a bourgeois government we have, which safeguards low taxes and that people should not have to be punitively taxed. But how can we then have a government that does not act in this matter? I become very curious about that. In a difficult economic situation, such as the one we have now, the government does not want to do anything but merely regrets the situation and lets you continue to pay 26,100 kronor extra in tax this year.

The member who spoke before me here asked how this is to be resolved. The government could have acted before the turn of the year so that the punitive taxation would not have had to take place; then it could have been resolved in a normal way in the tax tables. But now you have chosen not to act, and then you as a government need to calculate how you will resolve this. It is not something that is the opposition's task. You sit in the government. You now need to resolve this so that the pensioners can afford food and afford to pay their rent. They should not have to end up with the enforcement authority because the government and the previous Social Democratic government have done a sloppy job. It is your responsibility. I would like to have an answer: How will you resolve this?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I will soon return to the interpellant's question, but I just want to say something that might be good to know for everyone listening and watching this.

In a situation where we have the highest inflation in three decades, 30 years, and at the same time a weak recession, it is several parties here in the chamber - not just the government base - who know that fighting inflation is important. It can also be good to know that both the Left Party's and the Green Party's budgets, where they want to borrow up approximately 200 billion per party, over the coming years would drive inflation insanely high and erode significant purchasing power for both 57s and all other age groups. I just want this said as a basis.

Back to the interpellation, which is both important in itself and important to have a discussion about: I believe we are all generally in agreement that this is a major mistake that has occurred and that it is an unreasonable handling. There are many in this chamber who bear a responsibility for it. I actually dislike pointing at the previous government. But it is only to be noted that this is a proposal that was submitted last year, and it was and is not handled in a good way.

What is the current government doing then? I remind you of what I said just a few minutes ago. Here and now, my message is that we are, of course, analyzing and following the issue closely. We are not just following it, but we are analyzing it carefully and taking it very seriously. Let me emphasize that. I will not give any other or any new message, and I do not intend to prolong the debate by saying other things. I am just very clear that we are analyzing the issue and taking it seriously.

Alongside the issue we are now discussing, there are very clear provisions and target goals in the Tidö Agreement that we shall continue to strengthen the pensions for pensioners in general. I can promise that all age groups will be included in all decisions we make and in all proposals we will submit. That is a matter of course.

But even the question that we are now discussing and addressing is under analysis, and we take it most seriously.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam President! First: There is no one here who does not take the inflation situation we have seriously. What we wonder in this debate is how it can be that high-income earners can get a tax cut - something which, moreover, is also inflation-driving - when one cannot do anything to compensate those born in 1957. What we wonder about when we hear the Finance Minister refer to inflation is precisely this prioritization.

From today's debate, I choose to take away hope. I truly hope that the government not only realizes that a major mistake has been made – as the Finance Minister has also expressed here today – which puts people in difficult economic situations where money simply does not suffice for food and rent, but that the government will also act on it.

As we have established today, it is ordinary people who are affected. They are forced to make difficult economic decisions because the situation is as it is. What makes it all even worse is that the information about this injustice did not reach those who have now been affected in time. Then they would at least have been able to plan differently.

Let us state that those born in 1957 should not have to handle this unjust tax hit. They need to have their money. If the government in this situation can find a financial space to lower the tax for the country's high-income earners, the Finance Minister should still have room to find a solution even for this group, who have worked a whole lifetime.

I can only regret that the will has not existed until now, but I truly hope that this changes moving forward. We will follow the issue closely, and we also would like to be a constructive force so that it becomes possible to compensate this group so that it receives redress.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the interpellante, for the question! I think it is good that the interpellante is driving the matter and asking questions. However, I would perhaps have wished that the interpellante would not only drive the matter forward but also more clearly point out the responsibility that the interpellante's party and also the Socialdemokrater have for this. But I am the Finance Minister now, and we are the government now, and as I said, I take responsibility for the situation we have.

I return to inflation and why it is so important to fight – one of the absolutely most important goals and the great challenge right now. One pushes down inflation to push down the costs for many households. The question regarding the 57s is included, and we are analyzing it. I say the same thing again. I understand that one might think it is boring, but it is the message that I give here and now.

I can also only state, Madam Speaker, that the commitment is great. That is good. The commitment for pensioners in general is also great in this chamber, which is also good.

It has been said many times in this chamber that the government has made a decision to lower taxes for high-income earners. That is not true, and everyone who has said it knows that. It is about the fact that our systems work exactly that way. Guarantee pension recipients will receive 850 kronor more from January 1st of this year as a result of the price base amount. It doesn't matter how much the Left Party members shake their heads here in the chamber; that is how it is. The basic deduction, the job tax deduction, and the income bracket limit change with the price base amount. One can have different opinions about that, but it is something most here in the chamber agree is good. It is still good for those who have listened to the debate to know this. We have systems that are adjusted for inflation.

With that said: Thank you for a good discussion! We will return to the issue in different ways because the commitment is great.

(Applause)

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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