Response to interpellation 2023/24:609 on the finances of upper secondary school students
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the economic situation of upper secondary school students and the government's priorities. L argues that the government makes clear priorities by directing support to families with children through housing allowances and weak finances 1 2 3 4. L emphasizes that they want to counteract inflation and that the rotavdrag (tax reduction for repairs) is a necessary stimulus for the construction sector 1 3 4. S argues that the government does not intend to strengthen the finances of upper secondary school students as the student grant is being eroded by inflation 5. S believes that the government prioritizes high-income earners through tax cuts and rotavdrag instead of raising the student grant or strengthening the maintenance allowance 6 7. S proposes that the student grant be raised in line with Nordic neighboring countries 5 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Madam Speaker! I have been asked how I intend to act to improve the economic situation of upper secondary school students.
From the quarter after the student has turned 16, the child allowance transitions to a study grant for a full-time student in upper secondary school. The study grant within the study assistance has historically been left at the same amount as the child allowance and currently amounts to 1,250 kronor per month.
Parents are obligated to provide maintenance for their children until the child reaches 18 years of age. If the child attends school after this point, the maintenance obligation remains during the period that the schooling continues, however, at most until the child reaches 21 years of age. The study grant is part of the state's support to families with children and aims, among other things, to compensate for a part of the family's costs for the children's schooling. Within the study aid, there is also an extra supplement that can be granted to students from low-income households. Extra supplements can be granted with an amount of up to 855 kronor per month depending on the household's total income.
The economic situation, with a downturn in the economy combined with high inflation, has contributed to many households, including families with children, having a more strained economy. In order to protect low-income families with children against the sharp price increases and to give them better conditions to meet their housing costs, the temporary additional grant to families with children receiving housing allowance has been increased and extended for an additional six months until June 30, 2024. The housing allowance is a targeted benefit to reach households with weak finances. The families with children affected by the temporary additional grant within the housing allowance are among those with the lowest incomes. The child allowance and the student grant do not have the same distributional policy precision.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that the economic situation we find ourselves in is tough for both households and public finances. For the government, it has been and remains a priority to fight inflation and manage the effects of inflation by supporting households and welfare.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mats Persson, for the opportunity to debate the economic situation of upper secondary school students on a Tuesday evening like this!
I thought I would start by making a brief exposé of the Minister's answer to my actually very simple question, namely whether the Minister intends to take any measures to strengthen the economic situation of upper secondary school students.
The short answer is: He does not intend to. He answers first and foremost that parents have a maintenance obligation, that is to say that it is not the minister's responsibility. Then he answers that there is an extra supplement for those who have small economic margins, the very smallest margins. He refers to a time-limited reinforcement of the housing allowance, which is something completely different and already implemented. Finally, the minister talks about fighting inflation. Summed up, I would like to say that there is nothing in the minister's answer that suggests he intends to act to strengthen high school students' finances in any way.
We have previously had a debate, I and the minister, about the boarding allowance. It is about equality in students' opportunities to move to educations that are far from the parental home - that there should be equality in the opportunity to do so. The state part of that support is included in the same grant as the student grant and is not increased, just as the student grant is not increased.
The reason why the student grant would need to be increased by so much right now is the galloping inflation of recent years, i.e., that which has caused ordinary wage earners to see ten years of real wage increases fly out the window and which has given us records in debts to the Enforcement Authority, calculated in both debt amount and number of debtors, and records in the number of evicted families with children during 2023. Those with the smallest margins are hit hardest, and families with children are extra vulnerable.
The study grant was increased in 2006 to 1,050 kronor. In 2017, that is eleven years later, the chairman of Sveriges Elevkårer signed a debate article where a calculation had been made of how much the value had changed during the eleven years that had passed in between. At that time, the assessment was that it had eroded by 107 kronor during the eleven years.
In 2018, the student grant was increased by 200 SEK to today's level of 1,250. According to a report from the Riksdag's investigation service, the value has been eroded by 265 SEK over the last four years. This provides a picture of how much faster inflation is eating up the value of this grant.
The extra supplement that the Minister refers to, of maximum 855 kronor if the household has incomes below 75,000 kronor per year, is also not moving. It is not being adjusted either. It has not been increased since 2018, so those who are economically most vulnerable also become increasingly vulnerable with each passing year.
There is every reason to, in line with our Nordic neighbors, increase the child allowance and as a consequence of that, increase the student grant.
Why does the Minister say no to our proposal for an extra payment of the student grant during the current year?
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Linus Sköld, for a good debate!
It is naturally the case that people in Sweden are affected to different degrees by the economic crisis. Swedish households are very different. Swedish families with children are very different. Swedish students are very different in economic terms and have different conditions to handle the inflation crisis and the economic downturn that we are in right now.
In that situation, the government wisely chooses to prioritize those groups that have a weak economic situation. It is also for that reason that the government is moving forward with a targeted investment for those with the smallest margins who have the hardest time coping with the economic situation.
This is a fundamental dividing line between the Social Democrats' and the bourgeois government's policy. The Social Democrats always promise everything to everyone, while the bourgeois government makes clear prioritizations and prioritizes those who are in greatest need of the money, in this case people with small economic means.
Linus Sköld cannot seriously mean that all Swedes and all Swedish students are in the same need of support in this situation? It must be that different families are affected to different degrees by the economic downturn. In that case, we in the government, because we do not promise everything to everyone, choose to make clear prioritizations. We choose to prioritize families with children with small economic margins, and that is where we place the emphasis.
This should be a policy that is close to the Social Democrats because the Social Democrats have historically had a tradition of, at least in rhetoric, protecting the weakest the most. I am somewhat surprised by both the social democratic rhetoric and the Social Democrats' policy proposals because the policy we are pursuing now is very close to what the Social Democrats should consider good policy.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! I had planned for my second contribution to deal with the extra supplement in greater detail. The fact is that there is a worrying development in it, and it would have been a precise measure to direct the support to those who are in the worst position. The households that are entitled to this are those where the household's common income is below 150,000. Then one is entitled to a couple of hundred kronor. If the government had strengthened it, it would have hit those who are in the worst position.
But that is not how Mats Persson and his government prioritize. As Mats Persson points out, politics is about prioritizing, and Mats Persson and his government do not prioritize the weakest groups. What Mats Persson prioritizes is lowering taxes for the rich.
For less than half of what this government spends on making it cheaper for high-income earners to luxury-renovate their kitchen and their bathroom, one would have received an extra payment of the student grant to our high school youth. Those who take part in the rot deduction are exclusively the 50 percent of the Swedish population who have the highest incomes, no one else. It is them this government prioritizes.
What last year's targeted tax cut for high-income earners, the upward adjustment of the threshold for state tax, cost - 13 billion kronor - would have been enough for an eleventh payment of the student grant to upper secondary school students for 30 years. That is how this government prioritizes.
The government does not prioritize strengthening the finances of the weakest households. Then, one would not have said no to our proposals to strengthen the maintenance allowance for single parents. One would not have said no to our proposals for an extra payment of the child allowance. One would not have said no to our proposals for a debt relief to prevent more people from ending up with the Enforcement Authority. One would not have prioritized lowering the tax for high-income earners before these measures if one cherished those who have the smallest margins.
It is those with the smallest margins who suffer the most. Common food on the Easter table – and it was just Easter – such as salmon, herring, and eggs were between 10 and 12 percent more expensive this year than last year. So it is also for those who have the lowest incomes, and yet the payments from the transfer systems are not increasing.
The erosion of the student grant is over 20 percent over the last four years. Mats Persson expresses himself almost slightly mockingly in this debate and implies that I should not be protecting the most vulnerable.
No, bot and improvement! Why, Mats Persson, do you say no to an eleventh payment of the student grant?
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Madam Speaker! This was incredible consumer information for the Swedish people! The Social Democrats are against the rot deduction. Apparently, it is only high-income earners who use the rot deduction.
I believe there are many carpenters and builders in Sweden who are listening to this post by Linus Sköld with astonishment. We have a construction crisis in Sweden. Construction is decreasing, and many tradespeople risk losing their jobs. People are being laid off on construction sites, and tradespeople are being laid off. In that situation, the government implements a much-needed stimulus by strengthening the rotavdrag. And what is it met with? Well, Social Democrats, with their worker ideal, say that they are against it. I am astonished!
What consumer information for the entire Swedish people! The Social Democrats think that the renovation deduction is only used by "well-off" people. How can one, in this situation, with the construction crisis we have, be against it and question it? I am amazed.
Madam Speaker! The Government has, with our policy, clearly stated that we prioritize households that are struggling financially. Therefore, we are making a targeted investment in families with children with housing allowance. It is difficult to argue that these are not groups that are hit hard by inflation and the economic crisis. On the contrary, one could say that families with children who receive housing allowance are a group that is in need of support when economic times are tough and inflation is high. We believe this is a reasonable and correct prioritization to support the groups that most need society's support in this situation.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! The construction crisis in this country admittedly began as a consequence of inflation and cost increases. But it does not get better by abolishing the investment support for building housing. It is the government's responsibility that there is a construction crisis in this country.
What I am talking about is the reinforcement of both the root and rut deduction that the government is spending 1 billion on in the current year. It would have cost approximately 400 million to make an extra payment of the student grant - less than half of what the government reinforces the tax reduction with for those who have home help and those who renovate for large amounts. It is that reinforcement I am talking about.
The Social Democrats do not want to abolish the rotavdrag, for the sake of clarity. We have not submitted any such proposal.
I think that Mats Persson is trying to dodge what this debate is about. He wants to talk about other things than high school students' finances and the fact that he does not care that families with children and high school-aged youth should have a maintained standard of living. Mats Persson cares more about high-income earners' standard of living. It is regrettable.
As said, the student grant was increased by 200 SEK in 2018. Since then, it had been eroded by 100 SEK since the last increase, so one actually received a real value increase of 100 kronor. Since 2020, the value has fallen by 265 SEK, and it is time to increase the student grant again, as all our Nordic neighbors have done.
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Madam Speaker! The Government does not consider an increase in the child allowance to be a reasonable measure from a distributive policy perspective because it also covers those who have good finances and can manage the economic crisis. I find it difficult to see that increased student grants or child allowances to Stefan Persson's family are the solution to the problems Sweden has. I have great respect for Stefan Persson and his family, but I do not believe that it solves any problems in Sweden if we increase the allowances to the country's millionaires and billionaires.
The government thinks it is better that we have a redistributive policy profile on the proposals we put forward, and therefore we have instead chosen to move forward with targeted support to those families with children who have housing allowance. It is very accurate; it meets those families and households who have it the toughest in the economic crisis and find it the most difficult to meet inflation.
That is how you build a strong Sweden. We support the households that need the support the most and also carry out growth-oriented reforms to create more jobs in Sweden. This also involves ensuring that we have a construction sector in Sweden - that carpenters at home in Skåne have a job to go to. That we take measures to prevent the jobs in the construction sector from disappearing is, unlike Social Democratic policy, also to take responsibility for Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.