Response to interpellation 2023/24:389 on employer contributions for retirees born in 1957
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned incorrect employer contributions and missing tax cuts for persons born in 1957. M argues that the government has prioritized compensating these persons with 3 billion kronor in the budget 1 2 3. M claims that the employer contributions were paid according to legislation and that no incorrect payments occurred 1 2. S argues that the government does not plan to do anything for sole traders and companies that have paid too high contributions 4. S emphasizes the importance of trust in the tax system and argues that it is unacceptable to collect more than intended 4 5. S wants to find solutions together 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Sofie Eriksson has asked me if I have taken note of the information regarding the issue of incorrect payment of employer contributions for persons born in 1957 and what initiatives I intend to take to resolve the problem.
I want to begin by again expressing regret that those born in 1957 had to wait an extra year for the tax reduction that the increased basic deduction entails. The raising of the retirement age to 66 should have been handled in a different way.
That is why it is important that the government, in this year's budget, compensates persons born in 1957 for the missing tax cut with over 3 billion kronor. The payment is planned to take place from July 1 this year and will be made via the tax account.
When it comes to the employer contributions, these have been paid by the employers in accordance with current legislation, and it has been clear at what level the contributions have been. Employer contributions are also normally deductible for the employer in the income taxation. The employer has therefore had the opportunity to foresee and plan for these costs. It is also the case that it is the employers who benefit from reduced employer contributions, not the employees. The Government has prioritized compensating those persons born in 1957 who have had to wait for the tax relief that the increased basic deduction would have entailed. There are no plans for further compensation.
Sofie Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer! Yes, people born in 1957 were charged an excessively high tax rate during 2023. The Government has now announced through the budget bill that just over 3 billion shall be paid back to the pensioners who have been affected. That is good.
The error arose as a consequence of the decision – which almost all parliamentary parties stood behind – to raise the retirement age, which the Pensions Group presented. People born in 1957 were unfairly affected. This also appeared to affect those born in 1959 in the future.
Madam Speaker! Very many have engaged in this issue, not least a grassroots movement consisting of people born in 1957. But also pensioner organizations and others have participated. I really want to thank everyone who has fought hard with this. They have been an important part of democracy and in scrutinizing, criticizing, and demanding change.
We Social Democrats have been involved in pointing out this issue. We extended a hand to resolve this very unfortunate situation. I believe it is a sign of strength for Swedish democracy that we can reach an agreement across party lines and resolve matters when things obviously do not turn out as intended.
The question today is how the government intends to act regarding the self-employed and companies that have paid a high employer contribution. They have paid 31.4 percent instead of 10.21 percent.
I would like to thank you again for the answer. But I interpret it as a very clear no. The Government does not plan to do anything about this.
Madam Speaker! The financing of our social insurances is absolutely crucial for security in society, but that does not mean it is right to extract more than what is intended just because the money goes to important systems. Persons born in 1957 are not allowed to utilize the social insurances included in the higher employer contribution, but their employers have paid for them. It also concerns self-employed and small business owners who do not always have it so easy. This now risks undermining trust in our systems.
Madam Speaker! I am convinced that one of the most important components in a functioning tax system is its legitimacy and the trust in it. It is about the citizens feeling that they can trust that everyone contributes in accordance with democratically made decisions. It is about the systems being simple and easy to understand and functioning well. It is about the authorities responsible for them having a high level of trust among the population, but also about any errors being handled in a good way. Many of these things work very well in Sweden. We should be proud of that. There is a high level of trust, and we must safeguard it.
But I interpret the Finance Minister's answer today a bit as that it is not as important to rectify errors that affect small business owners, sole traders and other employers as it is to resolve this situation for the pensioners.
I must say that it is a somewhat interesting argument from a Moderate Finance Minister, and perhaps it is equally interesting and surprising to hear me say: Does the Finance Minister really think that entrepreneurs are less worthy than wage earners?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin by stating the obvious. The increase of the retirement age should have been handled in a much better way. There are reasons for many here to be self-critical, not least the Social Democrats and the Green Party who were the architects behind this very failure. Many of us here voted for this, but one can never escape one's responsibility.
Now this happened, but I am glad that I and my colleagues in the government and in the Sweden Democrats were able to agree to include 3 billion kronor in the budget for this year. We do this in a situation where it is, in many ways, a tough situation. Despite the fact that there are great needs and great expenditures, it was obvious for us to prioritize just this.
When it comes to the employer contributions in general, they have been paid by the employers in accordance with current legislation. It has been very clear at what level they have been. There, therefore, no incorrect payment has occurred. Employer contributions are also normally deductible for the employer in the income taxation. I therefore do not understand the criticism from the member in this regard.
When it comes to the co-payments, I understand that it affects individuals in a different way. But here I still want to be clear that the government, in a difficult economic situation, prioritized the compensation for the 57s - it is about 3 billion. We did that in a situation where much has been tough. I firmly assert that that compensation was completely correct. We corrected an error, and many in here think that it was good.
But the tone now, I don't quite understand. From Sofie Eriksson, it sounds as if the Social Democrats in some way would have adjusted this with the self-contributions in their budget, but some such proposals do not exist as far as I know.
With this said: We compensate the individuals with these 3 billion. We have no plans to compensate further. The ordinary employer contributions do not affect the employers in the way that Sofie Eriksson mentions.
I do not see any other proposal from the Social Democrats regarding the issue that Sofie Eriksson now wants to criticize the government for.
Sofie Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Elisabeth Svantesson for the contribution. I completely agree that this repayment is very important.
Many of us are self-critical. I believe that if the Minister for Finance had met some of those who have struggled a lot regarding this issue, she would also have known that they are not interested in hearing different politicians stand and point at who has done wrong and who hasn't. They are interested in solving the situation.
I can absolutely say that there is a self-criticism, otherwise we would not have raised these questions. The important thing, however, is to find solutions.
In light of what the Minister for Finance said in conclusion, we Social Democrats stand ready to find solutions. But we believe that a Government Offices is needed to prepare it. It is very obvious that things can go wrong despite the Government Offices. Almost 5,000 people work there, and when it comes to such complicated systems, I believe the government needs to set the pace. But we stand ready to talk about what could be done and how we can do it together.
Madam Speaker! On the theme that it has been clear for everyone involved, I can say that I have spoken with many of those who have been affected. They have themselves contacted both the Swedish Tax Agency and the Pensions Agency several months after the decision was made and still received different answers regarding what applies to the employer contribution. It may be anecdotal evidence, but my impression is that it really has not been clear. And if it were not a problem at all, one could wonder why organizations such as Svenskt Näringsliv, SKPF, SPF Seniorerna, and Företagarna all raise this as precisely a problem in various referral statements.
One part of this, Madam Speaker, is about pensioners having paid too much in tax, but it is also about the employer contributions having been higher than notified.
The second part concerns the information regarding the possibility of planning. Many small-scale and self-employed entrepreneurs plan many years in advance. For them, it has been unclear. Several months after the decision was made, it was still unclear. Many testify to the total confusion.
I do not mean to say that the confusion is the government's fault, that is not the question, but the question is how we are to solve this moving forward. It is, in some way, a matter of principle: One should feel that one can trust our common systems and the tax system, and that if something goes wrong, we can solve it together.
I wonder how the Minister for Finance views it. Doesn't the Minister for Finance think that this is a problem? What does she then say to Svenskt Näringsliv, SKPF, SPF Seniorerna and Företagarna, who all raise this as a problem in their referral statements?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, I have already given an answer to this: We compensate through 3 billion to the individuals, and we have no plans for further compensation.
I also meet very many entrepreneurs, both small and large. I had and have had contact with many both before the pandemic, with extremely many during the pandemic, and with many even now afterwards. I encounter many wishes and high expectations for the government, which I think is very good. People have expectations that we should tackle crime, which the vast majority of small and large companies highlight as one of the major problems. They want us to address the skills supply issue, that is, that more people actually have the right education and can take the jobs that exist. They want us to ensure that we organize the energy systems that have been dismantled and have not been expanded at the pace that should have occurred.
We take all of this very seriously, together with work on simplifying regulations and much more to improve for business in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! I will say it as it is. I am glad that we included 3 billion to compensate those people who were born in 1957. We do not intend to do so regarding the employer contributions. I believe the interpellor knows that it is fundamentally not about incorrect payments there.
When it comes to the self-employed contributions, I understand that it affects some individuals who have their own company. But we have prioritized the 3 billion to the individuals, and now we are working generally to ensure that companies get better conditions.
Finally, I am glad that the Social Democrats here are raising the issue of entrepreneurship. It is an important issue for me. I also look forward to the Social Democrats now in some way coming forward with a proposal regarding this. I would gladly be informed on how the Social Democrats will prioritize and deprioritize, because politics is ultimately about prioritizing. How is one to find money and resolve this situation?
Now I have given notice. We have no plans for this in this situation.
Sofie Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! I will not need to be so long-winded in my final contribution.
I experience a bit that the Finance Minister is changing the subject and starting to talk about everything else that entrepreneurs think is important here in the country. There are surely many important things to raise in that regard, but I think that a very important thing for both entrepreneurs and private individuals is that one feels that one can trust our systems. Here we have become very much in agreement across party lines that it went wrong. Then the question is how we are to solve it. If one then concludes that it went wrong for one part, what is it then that makes it stuck in the other part?
When it comes to exactly who should do what, I believe it is important to have broad agreements in these types of issues. This decision and the inaccuracies that arose also came from broad agreements, and I believe we need equally broad agreements when we try to solve them. It is about large, important and complicated systems that we need to help each other agree on across party lines to find a long-term perspective. I believe that it is important.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Of course, one can talk about more issues regarding entrepreneurship, just as Sofie Eriksson does. Entrepreneurship involves many different parts, and for us, it has been important to compensate the 57:s on an individual level. But it is also important to work with priorities for companies in other ways.
All politics and all budgets are about prioritizing. In a very difficult time, the government has succeeded in prioritizing a lot of money for defense, the police, and the justice system. At the same time, we have lowered taxes both for those who have worked and now have a pension and for those who work. Lowered fuel tax and changed reduction obligation also facilitate things for the 57:as and many others.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.