Response to interpellation 2023/24:72 on gender equality in the economy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that an enhanced earned income tax credit promotes economic equality through broad tax cuts 1 and that the government prioritizes equality through work on honor-related issues, increased ownership for women, and benefit reforms 2. M argues that the earned income tax credit affects men and women equally in percentage terms 3 and that the budget is well-balanced through tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners, increased housing allowance, and investments in welfare and women's entrepreneurship 3. M argues that they are reforming the multi-child supplement to avoid a "woman trap" and are investing in the elderly care initiative 4. S argues that the government's equality analysis is unclear 5, that the earned income tax credit is not sufficient as a standalone measure 6 7 8 and that the government risks increasing inequality through the transfer of parental days 9. S argues that the government prioritizes high-income earners over low-paid women 10 and proposes a fair tax cut for ordinary people 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.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me if I have made any analysis of how the job tax credit affects equality and how I, in that case, intend to act based on this.
Sweden is in a serious economic situation. Inflation is at its highest level in over 30 years and is putting pressure on households. The most important thing we can do for households is therefore to ensure that inflation is fought. For that to succeed, a restrained budget is required where expenditures are weighed against each other. At the same time, we need to support households during a crisis where many wage earners have received a significant real wage cut. Therefore, we are now ensuring a broad tax cut, for both women and men, through an enhanced job tax credit.
The Government submitted a bill to the Riksdag on September 28 regarding, among other things, an enhanced job tax credit. Economic equality is a central priority for the Government. The bill contains the distribution and equality analysis that Eva Lindh requests. It states there that the disposable income is expected to increase by approximately the same percentage for women and men as a result of the proposal. The equality analysis has been one of several bases in the Government's work to produce the proposal.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! The importance of equality cannot be overstated. It is important in itself so that everyone can have more equal opportunities, but it is also important for society and the economy that more people can contribute. We all win from that. Let us confirm that equality is important.
In order for us to know the effect of the measures we take in politics, it is important to analyze everything from an equality perspective and to conduct an honest and clear equality analysis. There are people outside Sweden who think that Sweden has been good at equality, even though we have not reached where we want to reach. Many ask for the recipe and what needs to be done. I usually answer that one of the important things is to analyze, so that we know that what we do is truly targeting the right things. Therefore, it is important in a budget to have just such an equality analysis.
When I asked about the consequences of the job tax credit for equality, the Minister for Finance answered that they are evident from the government's analysis. I do not agree with that. Based on what is stated in the bill, I therefore have a number of questions.
What I can see is two years merged in the analysis. This means that we do not know what the effects of the proposals are for this year and for the coming one, 2024. We do not know what they entail because the analysis is merged.
It is also the case that it is reported in percent. But an increase in percent of a very low income does not yield particularly much in terms of kronor. The same percentage increase for an income that is higher yields significantly more. If one were to say that the first one gets a 0.5 percent increase and the other 0.4, it could be that the one who gets 0.4 receives significantly more in terms of kronor than it might appear when we talk about the percentage changes.
When examining this gender equality analysis, one can see that the government writes what is included in it, but it is a bit strange that some things are included and others are not. It seems that the government does not look at everything when it comes to the effects of the various investments, for example the job tax credits, and what they entail. One includes the paused increase of the threshold for state income tax, but one does not include what was actually introduced and which meant that high-income earners received much lower tax during 2023. It should probably be included if it is true as one says that one has looked at the total impact of the reforms when it comes to tax credits for 2023 and 2024?
The question remains, then: What does this mean, and what effect does it have for equality when it comes to, for example, the job tax credit in the budget?
Sanne Lennström (S)
Mr. Speaker! Just as the interpellator Eva Lindh mentioned, the importance of equality cannot be overstated. Economic equality creates empowerment over one's life and future, not least for women. With this as a background, it is very worrying that women's wages are not only stagnating but actually declining. I hope that we, regardless of party affiliation in this chamber, can agree that the development is deeply problematic, not only because women's economic conditions during working life are deteriorating but also because it creates female pensioners in poverty.
In the Riksdag, we had a seminar this spring organized by Lön for the entire day. At that time, we asked the labor market parties what the policy could do to reverse the trend. The answer was unambiguous: Create an equal uptake of the parental insurance! IFAU also has reports that say the same thing.
It is positive that the government and the Minister for Finance have chosen to retain the goal of equal parenting in expenditure area 12. It can be read in the government's budget bill that the unequal distribution of parental leave has negative effects on women's wage development and also on long-term earning capacity. The government thus acknowledges the problem that the largest wage gap is created when the first child is born and that it subsequently lowers women's incomes for the rest of their lives.
Now we come to the toolbox. If the parental leave is a major source of unequal wages and pensions - how can we solve that problem?
I recently had an interpellation debate with Minister Anna Tenje on the theme of the parental leave's design and its impact on both wages and pensions. In summary, her answer concerned double days and job tax credits, regarding today's debate. I received that answer despite the government having a large toolbox to work with to solve the problem of unequal wages and pensions. It contains everything from "pappadagar" to speed premiums, ceilings, floors, reserved months, and much more. But it does not stop there.
The government is moving forward with a reform that could create even more inequality. I am, of course, referring to the fact that they are opening up for people to be able to give away days from the parental leave to whoever they want. Legislation is normative, and it is not difficult to calculate that fathers in male-dominated workplaces may feel pressure not to take these days but instead give them away to the child's grandmother or grandfather. Then they do not need to be off. It will lead to mothers taking out even more days and receiving lower wages and pensions. It will result in poorer economic equality.
Of course, the Minister could wave away my fears, but this is not a criticism that we in the opposition have made up. Both LO and TCO, as well as several others, point out that it is deeply problematic that the proposal can lead to this. The Government can make it difficult to reach its own goal of equal parenting through this reform, which can therefore worsen the equal uptake and threaten economic equality in our country.
I want to ask if the Minister feels confident that the reform regarding the transfer of days will not lead to a more unequal withdrawal and thus also to lower wages and pensions for women. Yes or no?
Hanna Westerén (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have the greatest respect for what is put forward by the Minister for Finance. I believe that all of us who live in Sweden today are extremely aware of the incredibly pressured economic situation. In such a situation, there is even greater reason to, as it is so popularly called, hold two or preferably three thoughts in the head at the same time. It must be possible to fight inflation, ease the burden for households, and promote equality.
In the name of honesty, Mr. Speaker, it is the case that equality is failing its watchdogs, and this applies to the highest degree to economic equality. We know what the imbalance looks like when it comes to vab, that is, childcare. We know what it looks like when it comes to the taking of parental days. We know that women work for free at the end of the day. We also know that female poor pensioners are far more numerous than the male ones. We also know that equality pays off. We have it in black and white. The Swedish labor force participation is much higher than the European average, and it serves Sweden incredibly well.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is extremely worrying, I believe, that the equality medicine prescribed by this government is solely spelled out as job tax credits. I believe it is dangerous and makes Sweden poor. I believe it takes us backwards. I hope, even though I distrust that it will happen today, that we will receive larger and heavier answers from the government than what we have heard so far.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Many thanks for this debate! I thank the interpellator for an important question on an important area. I want to start by zooming out a bit, which several other speakers have also done. I will then, of course, also come to the answer to the question.
My grandmother Fanny was born in 1892. My grandmother Matilda was born in 1902. They were born in a time when women were not even allowed to vote in all elections. An enormous amount has happened since then. I believe we all feel that. We are grateful to all who have gone before and widened and paved the way for those of us who came after.
With that said, there is still a great deal to be done. My eldest grandchild Juni is ten years old now. I want her, when she is as old as I am now, to also feel that progress has been made. I want her to live in a more equal society than I do now.
I want to mention three large and important issues of equality, and then I will land on the interpellator's question.
The first is the issue of honor. I will mention it very briefly. It is one of the most acute issues. It is about small girls and boys, young women and older people being allowed to live exactly the life they want and not be restricted by their husband, by an uncle, by a cousin or by a brother. It is one of the issues that the government has in the strongest focus and a major problem that I believe many of us feel. It has not become less with the years but has increased in recent years. Here I know that all parties want to do more, and that is important.
The second question - now we move on to economy - concerns ownership. Sweden 2023: Women own half as much as men. That is nothing to be proud of. There is much more to be done here, from entrepreneurship to stimulating and encouraging women to pursue other educations and take other jobs. Of course, one must also ensure that wages become more equal. But the ownership itself of forests, real estate, and other assets is important for women's freedom and equality.
The third question, which I will link to the interpellation, concerns the fact that significantly more women must enter the labor market and perhaps work more to a greater extent. We have a large group of women who stand outside. They can be part of the labor force as job seekers or stand outside. They came to Sweden 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago but have not quite established themselves on the labor market.
There are important things that this government intends to do and also take action on. Number one is that we are working on a major subsidy reform. It should always pay to work and qualify for welfare. A woman who takes a job should have more in her wallet when she has done so. The family shall be able to keep more. It is truly important.
The second part is about lowering taxes. We know that lowered taxes on low- and middle-income affect employment. If one works with the benefit systems and the taxes, it will become more profitable to work, and more people will do so. But more will be needed. Better language teaching and more targeted efforts in certain areas were needed for women to "come out."
Another important issue, which we also mention in the budget bill I submitted here a few weeks ago, concerns the multi-child supplement. We want to reform it. It is a woman trap called duga, first and foremost for very many who have immigrated to Sweden but also for others.
I will certainly return to the tax in a later speech. There are many reasons to lower the tax. It is about supporting households and ensuring that it becomes more profitable to work and that the marginal effects change, so that more women who today are not on the labor market can enter there with language support, education, and help from Arbetsförmedlingen and obtain their own income to live on.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I share much of the picture of problems and challenges that the Minister for Finance paints. I want to briefly say one thing about this matter of honor. I remember very well the day when, in my work as a school counselor, I truly had my eyes opened to what this means. It was a girl who came to me and said: Why are not all girls worth as much? You would act if it were another girl who was subjected to the same thing as I.
That is exactly what it is about. We must talk about all girls and all women - and of course also all boys and men - and provide equal conditions. That is what equality is about.
I therefore share much of the view on the challenges and the problems. But then we have different ways of reaching the goal. When I ask the question about this gender equality analysis, the question is seriously intended. It should not be that one just does a gender equality analysis and then it is finished, but it must be honest and clear. If I cannot discern this because it is mixed together, it is a problem – not because I cannot read it, but because we cannot see the consequences and the effects of the measures that the government is taking. It also becomes more difficult to have a discussion about what is best.
We Social Democrats also propose a tax cut, but a fair tax cut for ordinary people. I mean that the tax cut we propose also targets men and women more equally. We still have the situation in Sweden where women do not have as high wages. Just as the Finance Minister pointed out, ownership is also very unequal and unequally distributed.
When one has a tax cut that seriously targets low- and middle-income earners and is tapered off at high incomes, such as the one we propose, it also means that women receive more in crowns and öre than in the proposal that the government puts forward. I might be wrong, but this cannot be discerned from the bill. That is my point in this question, which is seriously intended. How can we see the effects? But I and quite a few with me are convinced that what is written – that this benefits women more than men – is not true. It is not.
Another thing that is in the budget, beyond the job tax credits, is the insufficient investments in welfare. The Finance Minister has previously said that they constitute 40 percent of the budget that one has. So that may be the case. It is still insufficient. We have talked a lot about priorities here in the chamber today. What is it that one prioritizes over the other – to lower the tax for high-income earners or to invest in welfare? I think that one should invest more in welfare, partly for welfare itself – we need to support the Swedish welfare model, which is important for many – partly because it is so incredibly important for women. It redistributes more to women than to men and provides better conditions for more people to get into jobs.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Mr. Speaker! Of course we should be grateful for all the women who have gone before us and created a more equal world. But women's wages are declining de facto, for the first time in 15 years.
The parental leave, which I mentioned, may seem like a somewhat strange entry point to discuss gender equality in economics, but it is not. Among couples who are 40-plus, we know that up to 75 percent of today's wage differences can be explained by parental leave and vab.
It does not have to be so, because we know that we can influence towards an equal uptake of our parental leave through politics. That the government has chosen to retain the goal of an equal uptake and equal parenting also obligates. If the Minister wants her children and grandchildren to have a more equal world than the world she lives in today, it therefore obligates her not to present reforms and propositions that could actually cause equality to retreat in our country.
I am asking again because I did not receive any answer to my question: Is the Minister confident that the transfer of days in the parental leave will not lead to a more unequal uptake and thus to lower wages and lower pensions, yes or no?
Hanna Westerén (S)
Mr. Speaker! Like the Minister for Finance, I have a string of anecdotes about what equality has brought in my immediate family, in my relatives, and in my circle of acquaintances. There are many fine stories about increased empowerment, educational paths that have opened up, and pensions and incomes that have improved. But on the theme of anecdotal evidence, there are still, in my background, stories about unequal take-up of parental leave and a woman's pension that is approximately half of her husband's.
I am absolutely not telling this to expose anyone, but rather to emphasize that we have a long way to go. We have absolutely achieved a lot, but obviously have a long way to go. And as I said earlier: Equality needs its watchdogs, not least in the economic area. We must increase the pace, and the job tax credit cannot be the only medicine if we are to achieve success. It cannot be the only answer in a situation where we have a climate crisis, war in our vicinity, and skyrocketing inflation. It is not sufficient as a watchdog; it weighs too little.
Economic equality requires much more than this. I sincerely hope that the Finance Minister will in the future pull more aces out of his sleeve to rectify the inequality that we still have remaining.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you once again for this debate - an important one. I want to return to the interpellant's questions, which is what this debate is about anyway. Just as I said in previous remarks, the job tax credit affects men and women to the same extent in percentage terms. Then it is, as the interpellant is pointing out, completely true that men earn more, and in crowns and öre, it becomes a larger tax reduction for men. But this is another problem, which we really should consider and debate. Now we are reducing the tax most for low- and middle-income earners in percentage terms, but should we refrain from reducing the tax for ordinary people because wages are unequal? I do not see this as a solution, but one can naturally do that.
What do we do - very briefly - in the budget for women in general? We lower the tax, as I said - that is important. It provides increased motivation to work. We extend the increased housing allowance; we raised it to 40 percent earlier. Of those who receive that allowance, 60 percent, I believe, are single mothers. We allocate 40 percent of the reform space to the welfare sectors. There, both men and very many women work.
People can have different opinions on whether this is sufficient. I mean that it is well-balanced. But there is, of course, more to do, both to increase equality and for us to now take Sweden through a very tough time.
Fundamentally, I am pleased with this debate. I also finally want to say one thing about women's ownership: We are also increasing the appropriation to Tillväxtverket for measures to increase women's entrepreneurship.
There is much to say about this. When it comes to the job tax credit, I think I have answered the questions that have been asked. Then, one can have different views and analyses on whether it is right or wrong. But I am, in conclusion, glad that the Social Democrats also think it is a good idea to lower the tax for ordinary people. It is actually something new and pleasing, which I think is very positive.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Many of us are passionate about equality, and equality has improved. But many researchers now argue that equality is in decline. Young women will not have the same opportunities as we had. Therefore, we must continue to always keep the issue of equality at the top, because we cannot give up on this. As soon as we do not fight to continue increasing equality, it swings, so we cannot give up on this.
The Minister for Finance has pointed out several challenges, but there are no proposals to seriously improve equality. Much of what is being done and what we need to do is about investing in those with the lowest wages. We know, for example, that single women with children are among those who have it toughest in Sweden now. Despite this, not enough is being done to support that group.
It is said that one is investing in welfare, but the resources are insufficient. Cuts are being made in many areas and especially in the regions. Healthcare is heading into a crisis.
In this situation, it is a matter of prioritization. The government repeatedly dismisses this and refers to the fact that it is difficult and that one risks fueling inflation. This affects women primarily. But when it comes to investing in lower taxes for high-income earners, that is to say primarily men, there are resources. I question that prioritization - I do not think it is reasonable. Nor does it constitute an investment to increase equality in Sweden.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: This is an enormously important issue, which I personally am passionate about. That is why we in our budget are allocating more resources to help and support children who are exposed to honor oppression. That is why we are now also reforming the multi-child supplement so that it does not become a woman trap for foreign-born women. Why the Social Democrats have not done this earlier, I cannot understand.
That is why we are lowering taxes most for low and medium incomes, to increase the labor supply but also to provide support in a tough time, when real wages have fallen.
That is why we continue with an elderly care lift so that the staff in elderly care - many of whom are women - receive an education and a better salary.
And that is why we take responsibility for the budget as a whole, that is to say, ensure that it is not inflation-driving so that we all, including women with small margins, can afford to buy food for the children or to do something with the children on vacation, for example.
It is some of the things we do, and this is truly important. I am glad that the Chamber and many parties think this is truly important. We sometimes have slightly different tools to get there, but for me, self-sufficiency, benefit reforms, tax cuts on low incomes, as well as learning the language and getting help to get out, are very important parts of this. I hope that more women who for many years have been left out will now come in.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.