Response to interpellation 2024/25:506 on economic challenges for single parents
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that the government has acted to support households and that the economic standard is increasing most among those with the lowest incomes 1. 1 M emphasizes that the temporary additional grant in the housing allowance is an important measure 1 and that tax cuts make it more profitable to work 1. 2 M argues that inflation has fallen thanks to the government's policy 2. 3 4 5 M argues that the government prioritizes the work principle by lowering the tax on work 3 4 5. 6 SD argues that family policy support has reduced the proportion of child households with a low economic standard 6. 7 S argues that many who work still live below the poverty line 7. 8 S argues that the government is not doing anything to simplify the situation for single parents 8. 9 S believes that the government and SD are failing their responsibility by lowering grants and prioritizing tax cuts over families with children who struggle with child poverty 9. 10 M emphasizes the importance of the work principle 10 and argues that S's policy means that everyone should receive more in grants but that no one should be able to live on their salary 10.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (13)
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Serkan Köse has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take to improve the economic situation for single parents, especially considering that many of them already work but still have difficulty managing financially.
No one can have escaped the fact that the uncertainty in the global economy has increased just in the last few days. USA's tariffs affect the entire world economy and are visible in country after country. I do not believe that anyone today can say exactly what will happen in the coming days and how it will affect us as a country. But the situation is extremely concerning, and the government is following the issue very closely.
The high inflation that has been, but which has now fallen, has had a major impact on Swedish households, not least on households with children. During this period, the Government has acted to support households in general and the weakest households in particular. Analyses of the effects on households' economic standard as a result of the Government's proposals and notifications during the mandate period clearly show that the economic standard increases most in percentage terms in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least in the two highest income groups.
The temporary supplementary grant in the housing allowance has been an important measure to support households with children in a time of increased living costs. The Government has extended this temporary supplementary grant on five occasions and has also increased the supplementary grant when the needs were assessed as greatest.
At the same time, the housing allowance is a benefit that is income-tested and creates marginal effects. For groups that have a weak foothold in the labor market, income-tested benefits can, in a longer perspective, reduce the incentives for work and self-sufficiency. The intention with the temporary supplementary allowance for families with children within the housing allowance has always been that it should be precisely a temporary reinforcement.
Single parents who work benefit from the government's reinforcements of the job tax credit. This is primarily aimed at people with low and medium incomes and makes it more profitable to work. The average tax reduction for those affected by the proposal amounts to approximately 2,600 kronor per year.
Serkan Köse (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have twice asked about the economic situation of single parents, partly in a written question to the Minister for Finance, which was answered by Minister Anna Tenje, and partly through this interpellation. I thank the Minister for both answers.
To speak of brighter future prospects or that the supplementary grant for the housing allowance is extended when it is lowered from 40 to 25 percent and removed completely in June is to step back when people need support the most, not least in these economically difficult times.
The Minister also argues that households with the lowest incomes have seen an improved economic standard in percentage terms, but that speaking in percentages instead of actual kronor is to hide reality behind figures. For the single mother who lacks 3,000 kronor every month to cover food, rent, and clothes, it does not matter if the income has increased by a few percent if she is still forced to take out SMS loans to buy winter jackets for her children.
According to the report from Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar, eight out of ten single parents are financially stressed, and four out of ten have been forced to borrow for basic expenses. According to the organization's reports, an average of 3,029 kronor is missing every month. Majblomman confirms the picture and shows in its latest report that children skip meals and activities and that many children are ashamed of their clothes. Almost 30 percent cannot afford to eat until they are full at home. Let this sink in. This is happening in Sweden in 2025, one of the world's richest countries.
Mr. Speaker! According to the Enforcement Authority's reports, the number of evicted families with children increased by 24 percent during 2024. It is not a matter of the parents being lazy, but that the rent is too high and the support is too weak. The government often speaks about the work principle, but many of these parents are already working. They work in healthcare, trade, or care. According to Handelsanställdas förbund and Akademikerförbundet SSR, many are below the EU poverty line despite working full-time. The problem is not that the parents do not work; the problem is that the government does not care that the job income should be sufficient.
Mr. Speaker! When a child does not dare to invite a friend over or feels ashamed because they cannot join the class trip, it is not about motivation but about political indifference. It is also a betrayal of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is now Swedish law. In the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it clearly states that every child has the right to a reasonable standard of living. It also states that every child has the right to be protected from economic deprivation. But this is not happening today.
The government, just like the Minister in his response, is happy to highlight the job tax credit and the 2,600 SEK per year. This corresponds to 150–220 SEK per month depending on income, but at the same time, food prices have increased by 20 percent and rents have risen. Households are also being pressured by the electricity bill. The tax cut is thus being eaten up faster than a liter of milk. At the same time, the government has removed the tapering for high-income earners, which has given them thousands of kronor more every month. It is a deliberate action from the government to take from those who have the least and give to those who have the most.
Mr. Speaker! Today, very many single mothers are struggling with part-time jobs, food anxiety, and electricity bills, and the only answer they get from the government is that they should be happy that the tax has been lowered. I do not think this is enough. I do not think it is dignified. This is not Sweden when Sweden is at its best.
My question to the Minister remains: When we have so much fact on the table, what is it that prevents the government from acting much more clearly and forcefully against the increased child poverty in our country?
Daniel Persson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to the interpellation.
The interpellator raises an important issue, and it is good that we can debate the issue and shed light on it from a broad perspective. We recognize the problem description as described in the interpellation, and we all know that it has been tough for many during the years with high inflation. It has affected the entire society and left its economic marks on many.
Mr. Speaker! Inflation and high interest rates caused real wages to fall between the years 2021 and 2023. It has been noticeable for many, even for many families with children. Combating inflation has been a priority for the Tidö agreement – to find a good balance between supporting households and not fueling inflation. But it looks like inflation is defeated for this time.
The Tidö parties and the Social Democrats use the same economic conditions when we present our budget proposals, but it must be clear that we have different priorities. My perception is that the Social Democrats have a more responsible view of the economy than their intended cooperation partners Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who want to increase the national debt exponentially.
If one looks at the shadow budgets submitted by Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet during years with high inflation, one can conclude that if Sweden had been governed with either of these budget proposals, it would have fueled inflation further and worsened the economic situation for many households, especially child-rearing households. The economic policy within the red-green bloc needs to be visible, and the voters need to know what economic policy they will get from the red-green side at the next election.
Mr. Speaker! After a falling inflation during 2024, real wages have increased slightly. We have seen that the industrial parties have agreed on a new collective agreement that sets the benchmark for wage increases in the Swedish labor market. The agreement extends over two years and entails total wage increases of 6.4 percent.
With this in place, real wages will continue to move upwards. We must hope that this trend continues. But a prerequisite for us to see continued real wage increases is that inflation continues to be kept at a good level. Both the Riksbank and the National Institute of Economic Research project that inflation will be at 2.5 percent in 2025. If that is the case, real wages will continue to move upwards, and it will hopefully be a supplement for families with children.
Mr. Speaker! There are several factors that affect households. Lower fuel prices are a prerequisite for many families living in rural areas to be able to afford to stay and manage their lives. Fuel prices at a reasonable level also mean that the prices of goods and services do not increase as a result of high fuel prices. To be clear: the price of the grocery bag is increasing, but with Social Democratic fuel prices, it would have been even worse.
The Tidö cooperation implements broad tax cuts. It should pay to work, and it must become more profitable to work. We also see lower interest rates and lower electricity prices. In the long term, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna strengthen the households' economy, and that is what we shall continue to work on.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is no news that single parents often belong to the households that are the toughest off financially in Sweden, even if it seems to be the case for the Sweden Democrats here in this chamber. These parents stand alone with the entire responsibility for both provision and care in a situation where the costs for the most basic things have skyrocketed. Food, clothes, rent and electricity – everything has become more expensive. While many other households can share the burden, they stand there alone with an everyday life that rarely adds up.
Many work full-time. Many work within the welfare sector. They do right by their responsibilities. They struggle every day. But still, the money is not enough. For some, it is about constantly living with the worry of an unexpected expense. For others, it is about having to rule out leisure activities, new winter clothes, or even meals.
What does the government do in this situation? Well, in the midst of an economic crisis for the country's families with children, one chooses to lower the tax for the very richest. One does not present any proposal to increase the child allowance, and one chooses to in practice lower the housing allowance when one removes the temporary increases, even though it is the most accurate support for just single parents. It is a prioritization that is difficult to understand but even harder to accept.
We Social Democrats have a different view on responsibility in such a situation. We propose an increase of the child allowance so that it keeps pace with economic developments and strengthens children's opportunities regardless of what income the parents have. We also want to ensure that the increase in the housing allowance that has been in place remains, because we know that it is a concrete and powerful way to alleviate the burdens of everyday life for those who need it most.
Mr. Speaker! It is not just about figures in a budget, it is about something as fundamental as security – that children should not grow up with a constant worry in the home and that we as a society should not leave those who have it hardest behind while we reward those who have the most.
I have a clear question for the Minister. Tomorrow, Wednesday, between 11:30 and 13:00, the association Makalösa Föräldrar, which the interpellor referred to in their interpellation, will be outside the Riksdag. They want answers as to why the reduction of the housing allowance is being carried out despite the fact that the needs are currently greater than ever. I intend to be there and meet them. I wonder, Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister for Social Insurance take the time to be there?
Caroline Högström (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer.
It is true that many single parents, not least mothers, have an economically pressured everyday life. It is a real problem, but it is a problem that requires both sensitivity and concrete solutions.
The answer to economic vulnerability is not to permanentize benefit systems or create new dependencies on the state, but the answer is to strengthen people's ability to stand on their own feet. The Moderates' policy is based on that everyone who can work shall also work, but that it shall also always pay to do so. It shall always pay to set the alarm in the morning and go to work.
Mr. Speaker! I think Minister Anna Tenje expressed herself well in her answer. It is a worrying time we are living in. The fight against inflation has been important, and there we have seen the results of the government's policy. The levels have actually come down, and in the budget for 2025, the government has made important investments and taken important measures in exactly that direction.
The tax cuts that the Social Democrats stood up in the rostrum and lectured about mean that it pays more to work and that one keeps more of one's salary. An average nursing assistant keeps more of their salary, and that should not be underestimated. It is money that makes a difference, not least for those who are single parents.
We have also on several occasions increased, for example, the national standard for social assistance to account for inflation, which has been particularly noticeable for households with small margins. We have thus both strengthened the safety net and reinforced the incentives to get out of it.
We have, as the Minister pointed out, for several years supported the temporary increase of the housing allowance primarily for families with children because it has been a targeted measure during a crisis. But now that inflation is falling, it has been decided to scale it down from 40 to 25 percent.
It is always difficult, but we are incredibly proud of our safety net. But the safety net should be temporary. It should be a springboard, not a permanent state. The real security for children and their parents does not come from the state stepping into every life situation, but from more people getting the freedom, stability, and faith in the future that an own salary provides.
The way forward for single parents is through jobs, education and empowerment, and through a policy that focuses on growth, responsibility and opportunities. It is this that builds a Sweden where more children grow up in economic security and where more adults can feel the pride of supporting themselves and their children.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by emphasizing that I understand that many are worried right now, given the global situation and the changes we are facing.
We faced a situation with 10 percent inflation when we took office. We took that fight, and we emerged victorious from it. Now we face new challenges that also risk further fueling inflation, which we know digs large holes in household finances.
There is, of course, a risk, Mr. Speaker, that the recovery in the economy will be more protracted than the forecasts suggest. But in that case, we stand ready to support the Swedish economy and Swedish households if needed. Sweden, unlike many other EU countries, has strong public finances, and we will be able to handle the effects we are now seeing better than many other countries. That being said, the task remains to tackle other challenges.
One of the government's overarching priorities is to break the exclusion and find measures that ensure people get into work and become a part of the community. It is crucial that more people get into work and manage their own livelihood through their own work. It is also important that it pays more to work.
People who have a job have a significantly lower risk of low economic standard, and it is very uncommon to have a low economic standard in households where the parents are in employment. Only about 2 percent of cohabiting households with two parents in employment have a low economic standard. In households where the parents are not in employment, however, the proportion with a low economic standard is very high. The employment rate has however increased slightly among single women with children since 2021, which is very good.
The most important measure to improve the situation for economically vulnerable children is therefore to create conditions for their parents to support themselves, as we know that long periods of financial assistance contribute to an increased risk of, among other things, ill health and exclusion – an exclusion that furthermore risks being passed on as an inheritance.
Therefore, extensive work is underway within the Government Offices to strengthen the conditions for more people to enter employment and be able to support themselves and their families. It concerns the activity requirement in the social assistance and qualification for welfare, but it also concerns a benefit ceiling that increases the incentive to move from benefits to work and makes it more profitable to work – this is in addition to us lowering the tax on work, which makes it more profitable to work and ensures that more people keep more of the money they have worked for. This strengthens the work principle as such. It also contributes to more households having a more stable foundation to stand on, and it reduces the risk of falling into exclusion and an economically vulnerable situation.
It is about investing in increasing growth and the drivers for work, and that is what we do in the budget for 2025. With increased growth, we will become richer together and get more tax money to spend on, for example, welfare.
Serkan Köse (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
It was an interesting contribution from the Sweden Democrats, who were more concerned about the Left Party's economic policy than about the economic situation that very many families with children are struggling with. SD is welcome to take that discussion with the Left Party.
Mr. Speaker! There is fine talk here about being responsive and strengthening people's opportunities to stand on their own feet and that it should pay to work. Then one comes to the conclusion that taxes should be lowered. The Minister and the Moderates are repeatedly insisting that people should work and do right by themselves.
The trade union Handels shows in its latest report that many of its members, especially women, live below the EU poverty line – despite working, Minister. Part-time employment and low contract hours make it impossible for very many of Handels' members to live on their wages. Calculated to full-time, the average wage within Handels is 29,000 kronor, but seen to actual working time, the income is rather 19,500 kronor before tax.
Almost four out of ten employees in the retail trade state that their wages are below the poverty line. Even when non-monetary compensation is included, one-third of those working in trade are below the line. At the same time, three out of four part-time employees with contracts of less than 30 hours want to work more, but they are not given the chance.
Mr. Speaker! This is the new reality in Sweden: People work but are still poor. The response to this from the right-wing government is that tax cuts are the solution to all the problems we have in Sweden. They solve all the households' problems.
The Minister speaks about tax cuts. It is about a few hundred kronor a month. At the same time, food prices have increased by 20 percent in two years. Rents have been raised. Electricity prices remain high. Public transport fees have increased. It is not the case that all other costs in society have stood still so that when one receives a tax cut, one can go to the store and consume as much as one wants. I do not know what reality the Minister lives in.
Mr. Speaker! According to the report "Barnfamiljers ekonomiska svårigheter 2025", written by Hyresgästföreningen, Majblomman, Svenska Röda Korset and Rädda Barnen, almost one third of Sweden's single low-income earners have not been able to afford to eat their fill. It is not I who am saying it, but it is the report that says it.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker: It is not child poverty in theory, but it is children in our country who go hungry. It is not a low standard of living in an Excel sheet, but it is children who are ashamed because they do not have the right clothes. And it is not the individual who bears the responsibility, but it is society that fails the individual.
Mr. Speaker! When the families themselves are asked what could make a difference, they do not answer tax cuts for high-income earners. In the report I refer to, many parents say that 1,000 kronor more per month would have made a big difference. Then they could have bought better winter clothes for the children and cooked more varied food, and they would not have had to say no to various activities that the children want to participate in.
I could have let my son go to extracurricular activities, says a mother. He loves football, but we haven't had the means.
It is the children's lives we are talking about, Minister, so away with all the Excel spreadsheets and all the percentages! In Sweden today, we have very many children who cannot eat until they are full, who cannot buy these clothes, and who cannot go to their extracurricular activities. It is then our duty in this parliament to have a serious discussion: How do we now ensure that all children in our country get equal opportunities to succeed?
Daniel Persson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! This is my final contribution in this debate. I would like to thank the Minister and the others who have participated in this interpellation debate on an important issue.
Mr. Speaker! The family policy supports shall contribute to ensuring that households with children reach a good economic standard of living. Within expenditure area 12 Economic security for families and children, there are supports that make a difference.
During 2023, the proportion of child households with a low economic standard was 15 percent. Without the supports, that figure would have been 24 percent.
Mr. Speaker! Historically, the proportion of child households with a low economic standard has decreased from 17 percent in 2020 to 15 percent in 2023, so the trend is moving in the right direction – this despite the years with the pandemic and high inflation. But of course, we need to monitor the economic situation of child households and work to improve it.
Mr. Speaker! We see conditions for real wage increases this year. The Tidö cooperation keeps fuel prices at a reasonable level and implements broad tax cuts. We see lower interest rates, and we have relatively stable and slightly lower electricity prices. All told, this is intended to hit broadly and provide conditions for better finances for households during 2025.
The Government and the Sweden Democrats will continue to work to strengthen the economy for households in the future.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! I am relatively new as a Member of Parliament, and I sometimes get questions about how I experience this and if it is anything that has turned out to be different from what I thought.
Most of sitting in the Riksdag is probably about what I expected, but if there is something that I absolutely do not understand, it is the Moderaternas attitude towards the economic situation that this country finds itself in. I cannot for all the world understand how we are basically speaking the same language but still find ourselves in completely different realities.
Being single in Sweden means being in a struggle every month – a struggle against high rents and more expensive food and that children grow out of their clothes too quickly. It should not be a struggle against politics as well – for that is exactly what it has become. In this situation, in the midst of the economic stress that thousands of single parents live with, you choose instead to lower the tax for the very richest.
It also seems to be some kind of wrestling match between the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats regarding who can resist this type of proposal the most. I honestly thought that the Sweden Democrats were the ones in the Tidö agreement who were still trying to stand up for a more generous and secure social security system.
We have since been able to read discussions about that the Sweden Democrats seem to be those who have held back an extra payment of child allowance in the autumn budget. I do not know what is true, but what is clear is that this government – quite regardless of which party it is we are talking about – does not lift anything when it comes to simplifying the situation especially for our single parents out there. It is astonishing.
I hope we see each other tomorrow. It has been pleasant to debate with the Minister here tonight, Mr. Speaker. I will meet Makalösa Föräldrar outside the Riksdag tomorrow. I hope the Minister will also come there.
Caroline Högström (M)
Mr. Speaker! When we talk about single parents in financial distress, I think of all the women who every morning set the alarm early, pack the children's bags, go to work, and uphold our collective welfare in healthcare, school, and care. They do what they can, and they do it every day. They do it with responsibility for both their children and society. Their contribution matters. Therefore, it must also be reflected in the wallet when one goes to work.
The members of the Social Democrats have stood up and, on one hand, accused us of having a one-sided focus on tax cuts, but on the other hand, only talked about our tax cuts. However, it is for exactly those who set the clock and go to work that the tax cuts are important. It is going to make a difference. You will get to keep a little more of your salary. Not for the state to have, but for you as an individual, as a citizen, and as a part of our welfare to have.
The tax cuts that have been made, including now in the budget bill for 2025, make a difference primarily for those who have small margins. It is this that makes the money go further – not doing like, for example, Social Democrat-led Stockholm and raising the tax, taking away people's own income and keeping it in the municipal pockets.
Mr. Speaker! We know that single women often have poorer finances. Therefore, it is also our duty to pursue a policy that does not bind them to benefits but instead opens the door to self-determination, work, and long-term security. Those who take responsibility should also feel that society stands on their side.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! It becomes very clear here tonight that the government stands for the work line and that the opposition, as usual, stands for the subsidy line. We lower the tax for hard-working women so that they can keep more of the wages they have worked for themselves. The Social Democrats do exactly the opposite.
We stand for tax cuts aimed primarily at people with low and medium-high incomes. At the same time, we make it more profitable for everyone to work. We also make it more profitable to have previously worked, provided that we also lower the tax on pensions.
The latest average tax cut amounts to 2,600 kronor per year. I do not expect, Mr. Speaker, that the penny will drop for the Social Democratic members when it comes to why tax cuts specifically are so important. I understand that one has a completely different ideology and is driven by completely different things. One is much more interested in fixing and tweaking the subsidies than in having citizens who stand on their own feet and can support themselves.
I still want, for the sake of clarity, to point out that there are many more benefits with reduced taxes than that one simply gets to keep more money of one's own salary in one's wallet. The National Audit Office wrote in 2023 in an audit report that the earned income tax credits of approximately 30 billion kronor at that time had resulted in that 25,000 more people had entered employment.
It is therefore people who have left exclusion and are now instead working and can support themselves. They do not only contribute at our workplaces all over the country; they also pay tax now instead of receiving benefits. This is both a human win and a win for society as a whole.
These are tax cuts that the Social Democrats have voted against every single time they have had the opportunity. I sat in the chamber myself in 2007 and voted through the job tax credits. They have been expanded in several steps since they were introduced. A person who every year since 2007 has worked full-time with the Swedish average wage has, on average in current prices, received around 27,000 kronor lower tax per year – 27,000 kronor, thanks to our job tax credits.
The government considers it a good idea that people should be able to keep much more of their own salary and that they should also be able to live on their salary. But instead of lowering the tax for hard-working people, the Social Democrats' latest proposal has increased the child allowance by 200 kronor.
One can ask how much the 200 kronor means for a single woman who works part-time and has a salary of 19,000. If she lives in Stockholm, she gets increased tax both locally and regionally. She also gets an increased fee on her SL-card. Then the situation is quite distressing. However, that is exactly how it is. At every single occasion that the Socialdemokraterna can, they raise the tax.
We are determined to lower taxes for people so that they can keep more of the money they have worked for. I can only state that the Social Democrats are just as obsessed with raising taxes and ensuring that one has a tough economic situation.
Serkan Köse (S)
Mr. Speaker! In this debate, we have heard figures, proposals, and analyses. We have also heard excuses. People talk about the work line, and it is not credible from the Moderaterna. When we have half a million people who are unemployed in our country, you cannot talk about the work line. Which party is it that defends the benefit line now? Half a million people are unemployed.
When the government, in response to child poverty, time and again highlights tax cuts and temporary support, we can state that they are turning a blind eye to the reality that exists today. The fact remains: Single parents work but still cannot afford food. Children skip meals, are left out of extracurricular activities, and feel ashamed of their clothes.
Mr. Speaker! Almost 900,000 adults and children live in single-person households in our country – many under extreme economic pressure. This is no exception. It is everyday life for thousands of children in our country Sweden today.
I cannot help but think of Olof Palme, wise as he was. He called child poverty the cruelest poverty of all. It affects the innocent, it is degrading, and it is something that society has every opportunity to prevent.
Today, this government and the Sweden Democrats are betraying this responsibility. When a child goes hungry in one of the world's richest countries while the government and the Sweden Democrats reduce benefits, prioritize tax cuts, and preach the work principle for those who are already struggling every day, there is something deeply wrong in our systems.
Mr. Speaker! I have one final question for Minister Anna Tenje: If the Minister knows that children are growing up in hunger and shame – despite their parents working, and we agree that everyone who can work should work – what more needs to happen before the government acts fully to support and help these families with children?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I offer a big thank you for the interpellation and the debate. This also applies to the members who have participated in the debate.
The debate has been clarifying. The major dividing line runs between the work line from the government's side and the benefit line from the opposition's side. For us, it is important that more full-time working mothers and fathers should be able to live on their wages and support their family. It is also important that it should pay to work. Those who today work part-time shall be given the opportunity to work full-time, and therefore it is important to invest in growth and get the companies in Sweden started so that more can get employment. That is not to say anything about the matter.
But raising the tax for those who already work part-time does not, however, lead to increased opportunities to stand on one's own feet and support oneself. Instead, it rather leads to one becoming stuck in a benefit dependency that then risks being inherited by the children.
This is where the dividing line lies between right and left, and that is how it has looked for decades. The government has invested in the work line and in making it more profitable to work, and the opposition has done exactly the opposite.
Madam Speaker! Since the member concluded by quoting a passage, allow me to do the same. A wise person has said that the Social Democrats' policy can be summarized in a few words: Everyone shall receive more in benefits, but no one shall be able to live on their wage. I think this debate has summarized that well.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.