Response to interpellation 2024/25:407 on increasing economic inequality
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that the government has prioritized combating inflation to strengthen households' purchasing power 1 and that tax cuts benefit everyone who works, including those with small margins 1. L claims that the government's reforms increase women's disposable incomes more than men's 2 3 and that we live in a market economy where the government cannot regulate food prices 4. L implements a policy that levels economic inequality and will continue to find measures that strengthen households 3. S argues that the government chooses to lower taxes instead of raising the child allowance or maintaining the housing supplement 5 and that economic equality is decreasing under the current government 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! Sofia Amloh has asked me what I intend to do so that economic inequality does not increase and become even greater.
I welcome the member's engagement in the issue and would like to thank her for her important question regarding economic inequality and the difficult situation that many families with children, especially single mothers, find themselves in.
Economic equality is one of the gender equality sub-goals: Women and men shall have the same opportunities and conditions regarding paid work that provides economic independence for life. To this is also added, of course, the importance that all people shall have the opportunity and conditions to build up their finances in order to feel both security in everyday life and a belief in the future.
Unfortunately, it is true that we are in a cyclical situation where many households have a strained economy. In that situation, it is important that the fiscal policy is well-balanced and that the government continues to act to bring down inflation. Inflation hits Swedish households in general, but in particular, it hits the especially vulnerable households with small or no margins. Among the especially vulnerable households are single women with children.
In the government's budget bill for 2025 (prop. 2024/25:1), women's and men's disposable incomes are estimated to increase by approximately 22 billion kronor as a result of the government's reforms 2023–2025. The reforms are judged to collectively increase women's disposable income slightly more than men's.
The Government has taken the initiative for a long series of assignments to the authorities in order to promote economic equality. This includes, among other things, remote work after the covid-19 pandemic, promotion of women's entrepreneurship, women's establishment in the labor market, equality in the housing market, and analysis of life incomes.
The government is therefore firmly determined to continue working to reduce economic inequality.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
I believe that many who are listening to this debate will recognize themselves in the descriptions that I intend to give a highlight of in the debate. I shall do that so that it will be very clear, even for the Minister, what reality looks like out there.
There are incredibly many – thousands and thousands again – testimonies from women, for example single mothers, who are having it brutally tough. They cannot make the finances work. It is no coincidence. And it is not for any months that it has been that way, but now we are beginning to be able to count years of the difficult economic situation they are in.
A woman named Alexandra says the following: ”I am an adult and want to manage on my own and not need help from him, or relatives and friends. It is good that they exist, but also think of all the women who do not have that support. Who perhaps live in violent relationships but cannot leave because of too small an economy. The government should make it easier and not harder to be a woman.”
Then we have Sandra, who works full-time as an assistant nurse in elderly care. She is forced to hunt for food at discount prices and skips meals to make it through the month. There is a great fear of getting sick or needing to stay home with a sick child, because then the entire monthly budget breaks. When Sandra went to the bank to get support to change her financial situation and her housing situation, she was advised that the best thing would be if she could get herself a man.
What I am raising here is only a few, a handful, of the testimonies we have received. Report after report is coming in, and entire civil society is reporting on the situation.
Then the government chooses to use a gigantic reform space of about 30 billion to lower the tax. Instead, one could have raised the child allowance and refrained from abolishing the extra housing supplement, which the government therefore intends to implement in June. At that point, the time for the extra housing supplement expires. Virtually everyone testifies that it will be a death blow, meaning that that last thousand kronor that made the money last and made everything add up now disappears. The government is, therefore, removing it.
One can simultaneously reflect on what is happening and why the economic situation looks the way it does. It is because rents are increasing. They continue to increase, and they have done so for a longer period. Food prices have increased for several years. At the same time, we can read that the four major banks made a profit of 150 billion last year and that Axfood last week distributed almost 2 billion in profit to its owners. It is nothing that the government is doing anything about.
I therefore have a question. You are leaving hard-working women behind, Paulina Brandberg. It increases economic inequality and child poverty. Why are you doing that?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! To begin with, I want to say that I completely agree with the interpellor that it is an incredibly tough situation for those with the very smallest economic margins in our society. Among them are very many women, not infrequently single women with children, who today are truly struggling to make ends meet.
The government has no other view of reality, but this is a very tough situation for many. It is obvious that in different ways we need to see how we can strengthen households and strengthen those who have the smallest margins in their wallets.
This government has prioritized fighting inflation. We inherited an inflation of 10 percent. We have succeeded in pushing it down, which is important in a situation where we see just now that food prices and rents are skyrocketing. Then we must fight inflation so that the money one has in the wallet also has some value. This has been one of the government's absolute most important priorities. This is important for everyone, but not least for those who have the least money in their wallet.
We have pursued a policy that has succeeded in pushing down fuel prices so that it does not cost as much to drive the children to football practice or to school. We have implemented tax cuts, and they have of course benefited everyone who has a job. They have had more money left in their wallets through our tax cuts. This is also something that benefits those who have the smallest margins and where every krona matters.
Let us look at those who are the most vulnerable – those who do not even exist on the Swedish labor market but who stand outside of it. Here there are many women with a foreign background, and for them, the margins are often incredibly small. They are also very dependent on those they live with and on because they have no economic independence.
I am therefore pleased that the government is investing extra much in supporting women's organizing in vulnerable areas. I myself recently visited Mamma United in Sollentuna together with my ministerial colleague Minister for Employment and Integration Mats Persson. It is a fantastic project that is precisely about ensuring that women get closer to the labor market and enter employment through various integration measures. This is an activity that is possible thanks to the government grant that the government has decided on.
We obviously need to continue working with the issue in various ways to support those who have it the hardest.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister says that it is important to fight inflation. I do not believe there is any politician who does not agree with the obviousness of this.
What is happening right now is that food prices continue to increase despite the fact that inflation is going down. Rents are increasing, most recently in January. That is the reality we are here debating, and it is the reality that so many people out there are experiencing and need to manage.
What is the point of fighting inflation if it does not result in money becoming more valuable? When food prices continue to rise, the whole point of this is weakened.
It is absolutely very important that even those who are outside the labor market get in. I do not believe the Minister has any other opinion than I do regarding this, and we have debated it many times. One must work on that as well. Now, unemployment has been up and peaked at over 10 percent, and furthermore in the reality that I am now describing.
If you have a job, you cannot afford to live on your salary despite the government's tax cuts, which you now claim will put more money in the wallet. If you are outside the labor market or are on sick leave because of a poor work environment or because you have been worried about your economic situation for an incredibly long time, it is even worse. If you had small margins when you had a salary, you definitely have none if you are outside the labor market.
We have an unemployment rate of over 10 percent, food prices that continue to rise and rents that continue to rise despite the fact that inflation is going down. Then the government uses the reform space to expand the margins for some. I can take myself as an example, and I can take the minister. It is people like us who already have very good margins and who manage the situation. But the government chooses to expand our margins even more every month, by several thousand kronor. These are very expensive reforms!
Instead, the government could have retained the extra housing supplement or, for that matter, the child allowance. It does not affect inflation. It does not affect the Swedish economy negatively. One can make the active political choices, but this government does not do so.
One could, for example, tax the banks, which make the gigantically large profits, to ensure that it is facilitated for those who have no margins or those who cannot live on their wages – for we also hear testimonies about this. One could have ensured that more enter the labor market or improved the situation in almost any area whatsoever. Why does the government choose not to do so?
Today we see that economic equality is decreasing with this government. I ask myself and the Minister: Why? We have a sub-goal that says we should increase economic independence.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! When one listens to the interpellor, it is easy to get the impression that it is the government that has set the high food prices and that it is the government that decides what rents our homes shall have. That is not the case. We live in a market economy. There, it is a market that governs, even if we have certain regulations in the housing market.
Of course, the government must take the situation seriously, and we do too. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Rural Affairs, for example, recently called in the food giants to talk about the situation. But the government will not step in and set food prices in the grocery stores. Even though one can, of course, have opinions about food prices and how they relate to inflation, the government will not step in and regulate food prices. That is not what you do in a market economy, even if there may be parties in this Riksdag that would like to go that way. We do, however, need to continue the work even though we have now succeeded in pushing down inflation.
When one listens to the interpellator, it appears as if all this with the recession and inflation would somehow have occurred during this government's mandate period. That is also not true. This is a situation that we inherited when we entered this mandate period.
We have prioritized – for everyone's sake – not least for the sake of households but also for the sake of the entire country's growth – combating inflation. When one listens to the interpellor, it appears that she does indeed think it has been wise, but I can simultaneously state that within the Social Democrats' government basis, there is a party called Vänsterpartiet. I recommend that the interpellor read their shadow budget, which is a complete inflation bonfire.
Then I naturally ask myself: If the Social Democrats aspire to government power and are then to have a cooperation and present a joint budget with a party like the Left Party, how do they envision being able to fight any inflation? And how do they believe people will be able to have money left in their wallets when the money they have becomes worth nothing?
The government will continue to strengthen households' purchasing power in various ways. There will also be a new budget this autumn where we will have a major focus on these issues. We will find solutions in various ways to support households. It is a very tough time that requires tough priorities and tough measures, but we will do that work.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I have never claimed that this government has created this entire economic situation. What I claim is that this government has no measures that are good enough to offset or help to curb the consequences of it. I would like to hear from the Minister what diligent work is being done to curb these consequences. What I am listing here is not to ensure that they are curbed.
Those who pay the absolute highest price today are single mothers out there. Should I interpret the Minister and the Government as saying that it is only in very good economic times that we can afford to work with economic equality? It is now that we should ensure that single women are not affected. It is now that we should ensure that they do not fall behind. It is now that we should ensure that we support households.
Then I actually don't understand why one lowers the housing supplement, abolishes the extra supplement and does not increase the child allowance but gives huge tax cuts to those with the highest incomes. The budget that is currently in place gave headlines such as this: It is the rich men who are the absolute biggest winners.
This is not, I mean, to advocate for the gender equality sub-goal. What is the government doing, then, to reduce economic inequality?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! We need to work with measures both for those who are in work and for those who stand outside of work. I have told in the debate about some of the measures that the government has taken. I can also state that when it comes to the government's budget for this budget year, both women's and men's disposable incomes are estimated to increase by approximately 22 billion. These are reforms that, taken together, are judged to increase women's disposable incomes more than men's.
We are therefore implementing a policy that levels economic inequality, and we will continue to do so. We will continue to find, in various ways, the measures that strengthen households, and we will continue to keep an eye on the households with the very smallest margins.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.