Response to interpellation 2024/25:212 on measures to reduce economic inequalities
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns measures to reduce economic inequalities. M argues that the government is building a wealthier Sweden through growth reforms, tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners 1 and inflation-indexed benefits 2 3 4. M believes that tax cuts strengthen households' purchasing power 2 and that S wants to raise taxes on work and savings 4. S argues that the government's policy does not reach those living on sickness or activity benefits and that tax cuts increase inequalities 5. S believes that the government prioritizes the well-off and that child poverty is spreading. S wants strong safety nets 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)
Mr. Speaker! Jessica Rodén has asked me how the government intends to work to reduce economic inequalities in Sweden and create a more equal society. She has also asked me what concrete measures the government is prepared to take within its area of responsibility to improve the economic situation for persons with sickness benefits and everyone who is dependent on our social security systems who today cannot live a dignified life on their incomes.
The government's focus is to build a wealthier and safer Sweden for everyone in society. Only a growing economy can sustain the welfare of the future. We will become wealthier together and receive more tax money to spend on school, healthcare, and care. At the same time, households also need to be compensated for inflation.
The government's budget for 2025 therefore prioritizes growth reforms while simultaneously strengthening the households' economy. To increase growth, the government makes historical investments in research and infrastructure and strengthens the number of places within vocational education. At the same time, we lower the tax for primarily low- and middle-income earners through an enhanced job tax credit and remove the highest marginal taxes to increase the incentives for work, education, and effort at work.
Lower taxes on work and pensions simultaneously mean that we strengthen households' purchasing power, an important measure to compensate wage earners who have seen their real wages decrease as a result of the high inflation. A family with a police officer and a nurse, for example, will have 9,000 kronor more in their pocket in 2025 compared to 2024. When it comes to sickness benefits and many other benefits, they have been adjusted for inflation, unlike wages. The government is, however, making further investments to strengthen the most vulnerable households by extending the supplementary grant to families with children with housing allowance and increasing the amount for those who receive sickness or rehabilitation allowance in special cases, as well as for the housing allowance. These are important steps to build a wealthier and more secure Sweden for all groups in society.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have taken note of the Minister for Finance's response, and I must say that I am disappointed.
I asked a straight and clear question about what concrete measures the Minister for Finance intends to take to improve the economic situation for people who live on sickness benefit or activity compensation. But instead of a clear answer, I received an enumeration of general measures that do not hit those specifically whom I want to speak about today.
The Minister for Finance speaks about the job tax credit and tax cuts for wage earners as a way to strengthen household finances. But what does it help those who cannot work? What does it help those who are dependent on sickness or activity benefits to survive the month? For them, the job tax credit means nothing, Mr. Speaker. They are left out of the government's tax cuts and receive no relief in their everyday lives.
The Minister for Finance also mentions that the sickness benefit has been adjusted for inflation, as if it were a new measure. But it is not any special effort from the government's side; it is an automatic adjustment that already exists in the system. It does not solve the problem that the benefits are still so low that they are not livable.
I also specifically asked about measures to improve the conditions for those living on the guarantee level of the sickness and activity compensation. They receive a maximum of 13,275 kronor per month - before tax. These are people who every month are forced to choose between paying the rent, buying food, or picking up their medicines. These are people who are forced to borrow money from relatives to survive. What is the government's answer to them? What is the government doing so that they can have a bearable economic situation?
The only concrete proposal that existed to improve their situation in the long term was the investigation that the Social Democrats commissioned to review the indexing of the sickness and activity compensation. It was intended to ensure that the compensations do not fall behind as costs in society increase. But what did this government do with that investigation? Well, they chose to scrap it. They actively chose not to improve the conditions for the most vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker! This is not a policy for a safer Sweden for everyone. This is a policy that benefits those who already have the opportunity to work while those who are ill or have a disability are left behind. It is a policy that creates increased gaps and reduced trust, Mr. Speaker, for how can people who feel forgotten and abandoned by society be able to believe in the future? How are they to feel like a part of a society where they are treated as second-class citizens?
Mr. Speaker! I would therefore like to ask the question again: What tax reliefs do those who live on the guarantee level of the sickness and activity compensation receive with the government's policy?
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the interpellor for a very important and pressing interpellation debate!
I also believe that the Minister for Finance lacks policy in this area if this is the only answer the Minister for Finance has.
In previous debates in the chamber today and previously in other contexts and at other times, the Minister for Finance has described how she sees, hears, and in some parts also understands the most vulnerable in society. At that time, I think that it was supposed to result in policy, but unfortunately, it has not done so – absolutely not to the extent that was needed.
In the response, the Minister for Finance says that one simultaneously needs to compensate households for inflation. I then wonder if the Minister for Finance and the government think they have done so. In the child poverty report for 2024, it is stated that it is actually a staggering 42 percent of households with low incomes that need to borrow money to cover necessary expenses.
Almost eight out of ten single parents are worried about their finances. That is, an incredibly large number who worry about how they will make ends meet. Every day, they have their children's best interests in mind.
I will take a couple of examples. Why has the government not increased the child allowance or created conditions to lower the sky-high sickness absence rates—which are clearly stress-related—in the public sector? One must ensure that people feel better and can work instead of being at home and on sick leave.
This is the government's third budget. There is a record-breaking reform space, but almost half is spent on tax cuts. It almost sounds as if tax cuts are taken from somewhere else and do not affect anyone – but they do. It is a clear priority. The tax cuts will not benefit everyone. That was exactly what the interpellor pointed out in their contribution. The tax cuts hit incredibly unfairly. They cost the entire society, but only benefit a few.
The Minister for Finance has on several occasions presented an argument that one should not have higher taxes than what is needed. I wonder if we should interpret that as that more money was not needed for preventive social interventions to, for example, break the new recruitment of children and young people into gang crime. Does the Minister for Finance believe that there are sufficient funds for that? Should we interpret it as that elderly care and preschools around the country do not need more resources and that welfare workers have sufficiently good conditions? Does the Minister for Finance think that there is too much money in the state budget in relation to the needs that need to be met? It is, after all, an economically difficult time that many households are still suffering from.
Edward Riedl (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the interpellator for raising this type of question. It is good to debate and discuss this. I will return to it, because we need to pause and see what the government and the Minister for Finance have done. But it would have been interesting if the Social Democrats sometimes fought for all low- and middle-income earners across the country who are struggling to make their household finances work.
Mr. Speaker! I shall speak about what this government and this Finance Minister did when inflation hit hardest and prices rose. We inherited 10 percent inflation from the Social Democratic government. That is what we had to handle when we took over government power. People bought milk and food with kronor and öre. The government and the Finance Minister inflation-proofed grants and compensations as far as possible. That gave them, by the narrowest of margins, opportunities to offset some of the cost increases. Many, however, had to bear this burden, because the money is not enough for everything. But that is how one fights inflation. I know that Social Democrats also know that.
The most dangerous thing one can do is to remain caught in the web of high inflation and experience price and wage spirals. Now that we have fought the inflation we inherited from the Social Democratic government, we have the opportunity to provide economic relief to all households who saw ten years of real wage increases erased. Now, Mr. Speaker, they get tax cuts. That means more people get somewhat lower interest rates and slightly larger economic margins, and that is a reasonable policy. One can pick out individual reforms and individual years, but viewed over the mandate period, we have fought inflation and ensured that those with the smallest economic margins get the most. Now, as opportunities are presented, we shall ensure that broader income brackets get to share in the tax cuts, because there are still very many who are struggling.
Mr. Speaker! A pattern can be discerned in today's debates. Social Democrats repeatedly take the rostrum and talk about how bad tax cuts are for wage earners. But the fact is – let us bring facts back into the debate! – that the Moderaterna since 2007 in various constellations together with different parties have implemented nine job tax credits. The Socialdemokraterna have voted no to all of them.
An ordinary nurse has 4,000 kronor more left in their wallet every month today than they had in 2007 with the tax that applied then. This applies across the board. One never wants to lower the tax for the hard-working people who uphold society and ensure that things function. That people go to work and work is what builds growth. It also provides the opportunity for generous compensation systems for those who, for various reasons, cannot work and participate in the labor market.
I want to step back and say that these types of debates are good. I think the government has made the right priorities. It was chosen to ensure that those with the smallest margins received the most when the crisis with high inflation we inherited from the previous government hit.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the interpellation.
We have earlier during the day spoken about how very many people are having a hard time because of the consequences of the high inflation. Even though it has now been dampened, prices are still high. Therefore, the three budgets that we have placed on the Riksdag's table and for which decisions have also been made contain support and assistance to households. This includes, among other things, the increased and extended housing allowance that the government has worked on in several budgets to reach and help those who have it the toughest. It concerns families with children and often single women. The government also ensures that people who have low incomes and no other compensations receive tax cuts. They have not received any compensation previously but now receive strengthened purchasing power.
I have mentioned previously that the changed reduction obligation has made fuels such as diesel significantly cheaper. This also means that many people who have sickness benefit or activity compensation, i.e., the group we have highlighted, receive a somewhat eased burden. That being said: I know it is tough. It is incredibly tough. Therefore, our policy from day one has been about pressing down inflation and supporting households.
I can give an example of an entirely specific group that for very many years has not received any increase. It concerns those who have sickness or rehabilitation benefit in special cases. Now we are increasing their benefits. This means that a single person with two small children and a housing cost of 10,000 kronor receives approximately 3,000 kronor more in benefit every month.
Mr. Speaker! It is important that our systems help those who have it the toughest. In order for the economy to grow and for us to obtain resources for both defense, police, the judiciary, welfare and so on, and these systems must ensure that we emerge from the recession and get the economy to grow. We have had a focus on strengthening the households' purchasing power.
Mr. Speaker! It is a tough time. Step by step, we are making decisions to strengthen and facilitate for households. We will return in more budgets further ahead, but the budget that the Riksdag decided on this week and which strengthens households will take effect in just a few days.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to continue talking about the economic inequality that is spreading in Sweden. I want to talk about those who are truly affected when the safety nets do not hold up and tax cuts do not include those who, for various reasons, stand outside the labor market.
The Minister for Finance highlights that household finances are strengthened through the government's policy. But that is a truth with qualifications; which households are we actually talking about? Yes, it is not those who are dependent on sickness benefit or activity compensation and those who are already living on the margin.
The report "800 years left until equality?" shows that working women with a foreign background are hit hardest by the economic policy. They have lower wages, more insecure employment, and poorer opportunities to influence their finances. These women often work in the core of the welfare system – within healthcare, school, and care – and their economic situation is becoming increasingly pressured. When prices increase faster than wages, the gaps in society also increase.
Mr. Speaker! Economic inequality is not just about money in the wallet, it is also about people's life chances and the opportunities to live a rich and dignified life. With the government's policy, the economic differences continue to increase, and society is being pulled further apart. The government's policy with tax cuts and job tax credits is as if made to increase these gaps. It is a policy that rewards those who already have work and ignores those who, for various reasons, cannot work.
We Social Democrats want to see a different path - a path where the safety nets are strong enough to keep people away from poverty, a path where we actively work to reduce economic inequalities, not increase them. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that one does not get healthy by being made poor.
It is regrettable that the Sweden Democrats and the government discontinued the investigation that was to review the indexation of the sickness and activity allowance. I believe the government's actions clearly show that the target group is not a priority for them.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why should people who receive sickness benefit or activity compensation pay more tax than those who are in gainful employment?
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! First, I just want to ask Member Riedl what exactly were the factual errors in what has occurred earlier in this debate. I am curious about that.
I would, however, like to start at the other end. As someone born in the 80s, I know that five ants are more than four elephants, and tax cuts of 4,000 kronor a month are more than 150 kronor a month or, for that matter, 0 kronor a month.
If you are a nursing assistant in elderly care, you may indeed get a tax reduction of perhaps 100-150 kronor a month, but you also get fewer colleagues. And if you have not been on sick leave, you run a very high risk of becoming so, which you also lose out on. In addition to these worsened working conditions, you may also not have received the increased child allowance.
This is a loss for those who are most vulnerable as a result of the government's distribution policy. I see in this chamber once again that it is crystal clear that the government is truly satisfied with the result. We see that child poverty is spreading and that the single parents who have a deep concern for their finances get to continue to have it. This is what the government is satisfied with.
I am getting no answers on whether one thinks that enough money has been given in the budget to the social preventive work to reduce gang crime and the recruitment of new people into this crime. The money that is invested in school and leisure activities is sufficient, says the government, and no more is needed. What is needed is to lower the tax for the most well-off men in our society.
Edward Riedl (M)
Mr. Speaker! I will start by answering the question regarding factual errors. One can, of course, have different opinions, but I note one thing: the Social Democrats are putting forward a lot of different rhetorical tricks that one tests like this before it is time to go home and start with the Christmas food. They talk about growth being very low. That is true – we inherited one of Europe's lowest growth rates – but next year Sweden is projected to have one of the highest in the European Union. The rhetorical tricks will surely get stuck with the Christmas porridge with some of the Social Democrats who have put them forward.
There is a lot of talk about the healthcare crisis. We can observe that after the debate here in the chamber yesterday. We can take one of the regions governed by Social Democrats. In this region, there are more employees, despite the healthcare crisis that the Social Democrats talk about, and then the question arises, Mr. Speaker: What is it that they are investing in – nurses or communicators – and why is it difficult in healthcare?
I believe that the voters will demand answers to this question from many social democratic local governments. What is it that is being invested in? Do they want communicators and bureaucrats or healthcare personnel? This question, I believe, will get stuck with quite a few.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the prioritization has been correct, but it is as if people are not listening in this debate. The Government and the Finance Minister chose to ensure that those who have the smallest margins - those who have sickness or activity compensation and whom the interpellor is talking about - would remain unharmed during the inflation. They inflation-proofed the benefits, so to speak. I think that was correct.
This is this year's last debate, at least for my part - there might be a few interpellation debates to come - so I shall do as Niklas and rhyme a little, Mr. Speaker.
The Social Democrats always want to raise taxes. Under their taxes, we all have to bend our backs. It is higher tax on work, diligence, and savings. Now, however, Christmas is approaching. Children who receive a coin as a Christmas gift – if S ruled, you would hardly keep any. Now the debate is almost over. Merry Christmas to everyone! Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker, and everyone else!
FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN
The Minister for Finance waives his final reply.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.