Response to interpellation 2024/25:674 on the economic situation of families with children
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government has strengthened households' purchasing power through tax cuts on work, pension, and savings 1, which benefits people with low and medium wages 1. M emphasizes that work is the way to a better economy 2 and that tax cuts as well as the rot deduction support growth 2. M believes it is important to fight poverty by leading people to work and inclusion 3. S argues that the government primarily benefits high-income earners 4 5 and that the child allowance, housing allowance, and maintenance support have lost in value 5 6. S wants to keep the extra supplement in the housing allowance and increase the child allowance 7. SD argues that the family policy has increased flexibility 8 and that tax cuts as well as low fuel prices are important for the countryside 9.
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)
Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked the Minister for Finance how she intends to act so that the most vulnerable households can cope with the ongoing rate of price increases, as well as how she will protect the prosperity of families with children in the current economic situation. The work within the government is so distributed that it is I who shall answer the interpellation, and I hope that the member does not misunderstand.
The government has acted to support households during a difficult time. If one looks at the effects on the households' economic standard as a result of the government's proposals and notifications during the mandate period, it is very clear that the economic standard increases most, in percentage terms, in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least of all in the two top income groups.
To strengthen households' purchasing power, the government has eased the tax burden for the Swedish people by lowering taxes on, among other things, work, pension, savings, entrepreneurship, and transport. The government's reinforcements of the job tax credit are primarily aimed at persons with low and medium wage incomes and make it more profitable to work. A family with a police officer and a nurse has around 9,000 kronor more in their pocket this year thanks to our budget and 23,000 kronor more in their pocket compared to 2023.
To support the economy's recovery, the government is investing 5.8 billion kronor in direct economic stimuli in connection with the budget amendment. This includes, among other things, labor market and education initiatives to get more people into jobs, a temporary increased rot deduction, as well as investments in road maintenance and housing.
In recent years, the root of Sweden's acute economic problems has been the high inflation. Several of the problems of inflation still remain – we know that – but we also see that the trade war and its effects weigh on the Swedish economy. The Government therefore follows the development for households very closely and will return to it in the budget bill if necessary. The Government stands on the side of the households.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! The government stands on the side of the households, concludes Anna Tenje's speech. Then one must ask: Which households?
Let us focus on the group that is getting worsened conditions for their livelihood with this government's budget, those who are dependent on housing allowance for their livelihood. It is a group that has an average income of 16,300 kronor. The reinforcement they had in the form of a 40-percent increase of their housing allowance has the government currently reduced to a 25-percent increase, and the government now plans to phase out the reinforcement by the half-year mark. The motive for this is that now that the economic development has turned and the future looks brighter, the need for the housing allowance is decreasing.
It is grave that the food price increases continue. The forecast for April – the increase for May has not arrived yet – was a 5 ½ percent increase compared to the same period last year. Rents are increasing by just as much this year, that is, 5 percent. At the same time, the government is completely abolishing the enhanced housing allowance that has existed for 106,000 families with children in this country. Of these, 85 percent are single-person households, and 65 percent of the single-person households are women. It is predominantly single women with a low economic standard who pay for the government's policy. Let us remember this.
The government does not stand on everyone's side. Let me tell you whose side the government stands on. In the autumn, the major reform was a marginal tax cut for those who earn 65,000 kronor a month or more. A minister received 4,000 kronor more in disposable income as a result of that tax cut.
In the budget amendment, the single largest reform was an enhanced renovation deduction. It benefits those who own their home and who also have the means to renovate. The distribution profile for that reform is hardly in favor of decile 1 and 2, to use Anna Tenje's description.
Ahead of the budget coming in the autumn, the government has referred a proposal to lower the corporate tax by 6.5 billion. According to the government's own analysis, it is primarily men with high incomes who will benefit.
On whose side does the government stand? Yes, those who have the highest incomes. Among those who have the lowest incomes, that is, households with single parents, 50 percent – when Majblomman, Hyresgästföreningen, Röda Korset, and Rädda Barnen ask – state that they have not been able to afford to buy nutritious food for their children during the last half year.
Daniel Persson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to the interpellation.
We know that there are some households that are struggling financially. There are different tools for looking at the finances of households with children to see trends. Let us look at what Statistics Sweden says about children and young people living in a family with a low economic standard. Low economic standard is defined as an income lower than 60 percent of the median income at the national level. In the statistics, one looks in the interval 0–60 percent of the median income, which within the range itself can vary quite significantly.
In 2014, there were a total of 363,524 child households with a low economic standard. By 2020, the number of child households with a low economic standard increased to 425,339. This was under Social Democratic-led governments. In 2024, the figure is 404,606 child households.
If we are to summarize the figures I am talking about here, the number of children living in a family with a low economic standard increased between 2014 and 2020 by approximately 62,000. For 2020 to 2024, it is a decrease of approximately 20,000 children.
Madam Speaker! In the Social Insurance Committee's report concerning expenditure area 12 Economic security for families and children, the development of the proportion of child households with a low economic standard is followed. A household has a low economic standard if the household's disposable income is less than the calculated basic income. The proportion of child households with persistently low income standards has decreased over time, but it is still high in certain groups that have a weak connection to the labor market. No major changes occur there.
The proportion of child households with a low economic standard has gone from 17 percent in 2020 down to 15 percent in 2023. Were it not for the family policy supports, 24 percent of child households would have had a low economic standard in 2023, but now the figure is, as said, 15 percent for 2023.
The trend is that the proportion of child households with a low economic standard is decreasing, despite the fact that we have had tough years with the pandemic and inflation. If you look at these two measuring tools, you can see that the trends are moving in the right direction. It may not be going fast, but it is moving in the right direction. It may not be the picture that the red-green parties want to give in debates here in the chamber.
Madam Speaker! As has been said, there are families that are struggling financially, and we are all well aware of that. But family policy alone probably cannot create a good economic standard of living for all families with children. A breadth of measures is required so that all households can achieve a better economy.
But to facilitate combining family life and work life, Tidösamarbetet has ensured that it is now possible to transfer parental leave in a broader circle. We have also increased the number of double days from 30 to 60, and they can now be taken until the child is 15 months old. These are changes that Tidösamarbetet has made into reality to increase flexibility and freedom of choice so that it should become easier to piece together the puzzle of life.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! We stand here in the chamber. I believe it is a Tuesday evening, and it is the first week of June. It is a pre-summer evening out there, and summer holidays are approaching. The schools are beginning to wrap up the final days, and the children are waiting to have a long, beautiful summer.
Many children will receive it, but there are also very many children who will go through a very tough summer in many ways. It will not live up to the dreams one has. One might not even express them to one's parents because one carries a sense of guilt over the economic situation.
Many hard-working single women out there have struggled for a very long time to make ends meet for their most basic household expenses. Food prices are sky-high and have increased for several years. Rent increases have reached entirely new levels, and real wage increases have vanished in a flash. People have borrowed, and they have sold what they could to make ends meet for the most basic needs. Now, they face the summer holidays with sleepless nights, stomach aches, and deep anxiety about how it will add up when the children do not get food in school every day of the week and one has to provide for them, make ends meet, and perhaps even be able to ensure they get a packed lunch when going on an excursion or to the beach to swim.
Then this government chooses not to increase the child allowance. Instead, it chooses to clap its hands when the food giants make profit distributions. This government chooses to worsen the high-cost protection so that medicines become more expensive. It chooses with precision to remove the extra supplement in the housing allowance on July 1, which makes it even harder for the hard-working single mothers to cope with the incredibly tough everyday life they already have.
The government claims that it stands on the side of the households. Then I wonder in what way. And it is not the side of these households that this government stands on. They are the ones that have been thrown under the bus and whom one chooses not to stand up for. One does not stand up for the households that need this government the most.
In this incredibly exceptional situation, we Social Democrats choose to retain the extra supplement in the housing allowance. We want to introduce free lunches. We want to increase the child allowance and the maintenance allowance to support these incredibly vulnerable families of children in a time that is incredibly restless. We see that we are in a situation where we have one of the lowest growth rates in Europe, sky-high unemployment, and an economic world that is turbulent. In that case, one needs to choose a policy that supports these families.
Just to give the government a small tip on how to get the Swedish economy in order: One can choose to increase purchasing power, and that is done by, for example, raising the child allowance. The families with children will go on a shopping spree – they will buy that dress for the school graduation or the new sneakers. But the government chooses to lower the tax for those who have the most, who might choose to buy shares instead.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to Linus Sköld, who has requested the debate on this important issue.
It hurts in the heart, I think, when one meets people who speak about how tough it is. We meet them. We also see the reports from Rädda Barnen, Majblomman and all other civil organizations that help many vulnerable families with children, and we hear their stories about what it looks like.
But one feels a bit embarrassed when the Sweden Democrats' Member of Parliament Daniel Persson stands here and says that they have become so much fewer, those who are having a tough time. It says a lot about why the government actually does nothing, because we have an SD-led government.
I say: See the reality! See the reality that exists out there and all the families with children who are struggling and turning over every krona to manage their ordinary everyday lives. We are not talking about buying some luxury cruise, it is about buying food for their children.
Tell those who work but who, despite that, cannot afford food and rent! Ten years of real wage increases have vanished. Many are having a hard time. But then one chooses to see that it was just as bad earlier. No, it was not just as bad earlier. It is true that we would need to do more. But that is truly not what this government has done.
I want to raise a particular perspective, which Sofia Amloh also touched upon. We sometimes forget the circumstances of the children who live in the poverty that their parents are exposed to. They are children who do not want to say that they actually want to start football practice, because they know that the parents cannot afford to buy football boots. Children who do not want to say that they are hungry because they do not want to make mom worried. It is tough for those children too. And for me and for the Social Democrats, the children who are born and live in Sweden are all of our children.
We have a special responsibility to ensure that all children have good conditions to grow up in this country. We should be able to afford and manage this in this welfare state. But now segregation is increasing. The differences are increasing, and it is a policy that this government continues with.
I know that the ministers sometimes get a bit irritated when we continue to bring up this issue with the enormous tax cuts. But we do not do it because we think it is fun, but because we are upset by the large differences that are now being created and which increase the differences between children and children. Some children have very good opportunities. Their parents, those who already have, have received even larger tax cuts. But some children do not and cannot afford to go to football practice or eat nutritious food. It upsets me. It upsets us.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! As I began by saying, the government supports households in several different ways. Through reduced taxes on labor, hard-working people can keep more of their wages, which they have earned. This increases purchasing power while also strengthening self-sufficiency. Through measures to stimulate the economy and through more labor market initiatives and educational places, we ensure that more people can get their first job – or return to work.
We are also now carrying out a major subsidy reform so that more people can move from subsidies to work and so that more children can see their parents go to a job. Another way in which the government, with our well-balanced economic policy, supports households is that the sky-high inflation we inherited from the Smärkt government has actually been pushed back.
Sometimes one might forget how high the inflation was when we took over power. We are now talking about a 5 percent increase when it comes to food. This is definitely very harmful to the household economy. But we inherited an inflation that stood at 10 percent. This means large holes in the household economy.
When we took over power, the gasoline price and the diesel price were also approximately 10 kronor higher per liter. The households and women I meet in the countryside are incredibly grateful that we have now pushed back the price of fuels. They now de facto have the means not only to drive their children to football practice but also to get to and from work without actually losing money.
High inflation and unemployment are the greatest threats to the economic situation of families with children, and this applies to the vulnerability that the interpellor highlights in their interpellation. If the government can contribute to keeping inflation in check while we can pursue a policy where we get more people into work – more who move from benefits to work and more who move from unemployment to work – it is a very great gain.
Just as the member previously pointed out, it is very unusual to have a low economic standard in households where both parents are in employment. Indeed, only about 2 percent of cohabiting households with two working parents had a low economic standard during 2023. Among households where the parents are not in employment, however, the proportion that has a low economic standard is very high.
For me and the government, it is very clear that it is work that is the way to improve the economic situation for families with children. In economically restless times with higher prices, the government's reinforcements of precisely the job tax deduction, which is primarily aimed at persons with low and medium wage incomes, have been very welcome and important.
It matters very much, Madam Speaker, that two working parents this year, thanks to our budget, get to keep around 9,000 kronor more in their pockets and 23,000 more in their pockets compared to 2023.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! Now I shall demand some honesty in this debate. It is true that inflation was high when the government took office. Neither Anna Tenje, I, nor my government at the time were responsible for this. It was, in fact, directly linked to the outbreak of war that same year. It is true that fuel prices were high when the government took office. It was directly linked to the outbreak of war that same year. Anna Tenje knows this. To stand here and try to blame this on the Social Democratic government is nothing other than trying to mislead those listening to this debate.
Next question: Work is the way to combat economic vulnerability – something along those lines Anna Tenje just said. I agree. But then it is astonishing that the government stands by and watches while unemployment increases. It is higher than it has been in the last ten years. The government's labor market initiatives have been halved. The number of educational places has decreased – the exact opposite of what Anna Tenje states. In all forms of education for adults, the number of educational places is decreasing. We are talking about labor market training, folk high school, komvux, university colleges, and the academy. In all these forms of education, the number of educational places is decreasing, and they have done so throughout this entire mandate period. We can have a tough debate, but let us stick to the truth.
Let me get to some truths. This has happened with the value of social insurance benefits, according to a report from the Riksdag's investigation service. Many social insurance benefits are adjusted with the consumer price index. Therefore, those who are dependent on them are not affected by inflation in the same way. Many of the benefits that accrue to families with children, however, are not adjusted but are set in nominal terms. Anna Tenje knows that.
This means that the child allowance has decreased in value by 250 kronor over the last five years. The housing allowance has decreased by 430 kronor compared to last year. The basic level of the parental leave benefit has decreased by 1,500 kronor over the last five years. The maintenance support has decreased by 230 kronor over the last five years.
It is Anna Tenje who is responsible for the priorities that this government makes with the expenditure room it deems it has. I understand that one needs to manage the inflation that – as a consequence of the ongoing war and now also other circumstances in the world – is occurring. But one chooses how one prioritizes the reform room.
Anna Tenje and her friends in the government consistently prioritize protecting the purchasing power of people who have the highest incomes. I have given three good examples from the two most recent and the third, upcoming, budget. Together, it amounts to expenditure increases of 16 billion – or rather income reductions, because it is deductions and tax cuts we are talking about. How many hundreds of kronor could one have increased the child allowance or the maintenance support by for 16 billion, Anna Tenje?
We Social Democrats have only presented in the supplementary budget that we wanted to have free school lunches for school pupils, that we wanted to put pressure on a dysfunctional food price market, that we wanted to increase the maintenance support by 500 kronor and that we wanted to maintain the level in the high-cost protection for medicines. It would have eased things for families with children. Add to this that we have previously submitted proposals for child allowance increases and other ways to support this target group.
Daniel Persson (SD)
Madam Speaker! This is my final contribution, so I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister and others who have participated in the debate!
I want to point out that the trends according to statistics seem to be moving in the right direction. Child-rearing households with a low economic standard have not become few – they corresponded, as mentioned, to 15 percent in 2023. The Tidö cooperation has lowered taxes during the mandate period, which hits broadly. We have made it more profitable to work. We have prioritized keeping the price of fuels at a low level. This is an important issue for the countryside and especially for families with children who live there. Reasonable levels on fuels also mean that the price of goods and services does not increase as a result of high fuel prices. Had it been Social Democratic fuel prices, this would have been devastating in today's situation.
Madam Speaker! The government has pushed back inflation, and it is important to continue that work so that we can see that real wages increase. We also see that interest costs are decreasing and that electricity prices are at a somewhat reasonable level.
Madam Speaker! Svenskt Näringsliv considered that the budget for 2025 provides good and important conditions for growth. The construction sector is positive about the spring budget amendment that has been presented. Growth is what leads to more people being able to go to work, and in that way, more people get a better economy. We have also seen that the leisure card will soon be in place, which will be a targeted support for families.
These are some of the measures that have been implemented during the mandate period to strengthen the economy for households. Of course, more people need to be able to stand on their own feet and be self-sufficient. Parents need to have a job so that they can support their family. It is a long-term task to strengthen households, but we see that the trend seems to be moving in the right direction.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! There are thousands and thousands of single women out there who are struggling brutally financially. We can spin any figures, diagrams, and percentages we want, but people do not experience that they have had it better or that it has become easier. The Government is welcome to stand here and talk about how people have had it better and try to convince them: "You have received 100 kronor there, and we have done this for you!" But when reality does not look like that, it will be difficult for the Government to own that perception of reality.
Even if things have been done – even if you lower the tax for the nursing assistants, the shop assistants, or the healthcare assistants by a hundred or two kronor – it will not be able to replace what you take away with the other hand, that is, the extra housing supplement, or what you let be eroded, that is, the child allowance and so on. There will not be more in the wallet no matter how hard people work. It will never be able to be compensated by the tax cuts, because they are not anywhere near this. People will still not be able to pay their basic expenses.
It is also exactly this that people are testifying to. Alarm report after alarm report comes in. These are voices from women and children out there who come with tangible testimonies. To be so deaf – to not listen but instead put on the blinkers and say "No, it will get better!" – is actually almost inexcusable of a government. The government is supposed to be for the entire Swedish people, Anna Tenje, even those who need you the most right now. Why do you not ensure that they manage through this difficult economic time?
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by highlighting a group of families with children that Linus Sköld's interpellation was not actually about, but which have nevertheless been raised in the debate.
Instead of referring to Svenskt Näringsliv as the Sverigedemokraterna Member of Parliament, I want to refer to a report from LO that I can warmly recommend. It is about working-class households in times of crisis.
It is stated that a family with two adults and two children living in a detached house in Alvesta had some margin when the report was presented barely a year ago. In these times, however, the family has negative figures at the end of the month. Even in a family where the parents are cohabiting, it has thus become tougher. Reference is always made to gasoline prices and so on, but it is also 30,000 kronor more per year in increased costs for food.
Then I also just want to say that the government, and also the Minister, often refer to a family with a police officer and a nurse. With our budget, they would have had it better than with the government's budget – just so that it is said.
I will say something brief about what Linus Sköld has raised, that is, the families who actually have it toughest and whom we are worried about. This is about children who grow up in severe poverty – children who do not get nutritious food on the table. It is them we are talking about here. I am worried about them, because their future is affected by the childhood they have now.
I do not understand how it can improve the conditions for the children or create greater trust and greater cohesion in a country when one increases segregation and the differences between children and children.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Earlier, one of the members said that one is not standing here talking about the major tax cuts for households because it is fun, but because one is worried. I think that speaks clearly, because the view on tax is fundamentally about the view on whose money it is. According to the Social Democrats in this chamber and in the municipalities all around Sweden, everyone should receive subsidies, but no one should be able to live on their salary.
Lowered taxes is the very opposite of this. That more people get to keep more of the fruits of their own work is both more just and better than having state bureaucrats administer both increased taxes in and increased benefits out.
For households, it is crowns and öre that matter; there is no doubt about that. Today we have discussed vulnerable households that are having a very tough time financially. The high inflation of recent times, and furthermore a trade war on top of that, do not in any way make the situation easier. It is clear that it is worrying. I have great respect for that people are worried about what will happen ahead. I am not standing here pretending that things have become so much better, but what we are discussing now is how we best support just vulnerable households.
For households, it is crowns and öre that matter. The Government argues that crowns and öre in times of high prices do more good in households' wallets than in the state's pocket, and therefore we are lowering the tax on labor. The interpellator previously raised and ridiculed the proposals the Government had in the recent budgets regarding, among other things, lowered tax on labor. But it is about stimulating more people to work more and about people getting to keep more of their own wages, being able to support themselves and stand on their own feet. It is important.
Similarly, people mock the tax deduction for renovations in the autumn budget and say that it is about well-off people who can renovate their kitchens or bathrooms. But it is more about supporting an industry where unemployment has been high, where companies are on their knees, and where more risk losing their jobs. If one can make interventions that ensure more people can keep their jobs, or for that matter, that companies can expand and hire more, it is very well-targeted.
I also object to proposals that we have now referred for any proposals regarding reduced corporate tax in the upcoming budget. It is also about how jobs can increase – how we can strengthen growth and how unemployment can decrease.
We know that high inflation is particularly harmful for households. Therefore, we must keep it in check while unemployment must definitely not increase. On the contrary, unemployment shall be pushed back while more people move from benefits to work and can live on their own wages. More children shall see their parents go to work.
He scoffs and says that it is not particularly important for households with reduced tax. A nurse and a police officer would, damn it, have been better off with the Social Democratic budget, let's hear it. Let's hope then that they do not live in Stockholm! Had they lived in Stockholm, they would have received a slap in the face of the worst kind, with increased tax both in the region and in the municipality and furthermore increased fees for the SL card and so on. Then there would not have been particularly much money left at all. One does not seem to think it is important to be able to live on one's salary.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! For the first thing, I have not deviated for a second in this debate. What I have done is to quote from the government's own impact assessments of the tax changes that it has sent for consultation or implemented, and of the abolished housing supplement. I have not deviated but quoted the government itself.
Secondly, it is incredible how the government's representatives express themselves here. When Majblomman, Röda Korset, Hyresgästföreningen, and Rädda Barnen ask households with low incomes how they experience their finances, 50 percent say they have had difficulty buying nutritious food for their children, 44 percent say they have needed to borrow for basic expenses such as electricity, food, and rent, and 58 percent say they cannot afford to pay leisure fees for their children. Then Anna Tenje says that it is work that is the way forward.
It is incredibly baffling to me that the government's only labor market policy is to cut back on labor market measures and educational places. It seems as if the government's only labor market policy is contempt for the poor. If the poor only become poorer, they will go to work to a greater extent. That is what that benefit reform aims for. That is Anna Tenje's line.
And the poor are becoming poorer in this country. The child allowance has lost 20 percent of its value, likewise the housing allowance and the maintenance support. Anna Tenje, who is responsible for these issues, looks at it, feels satisfied and lowers the tax for those who earn 65,000 or more per month.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I initially forgot to thank you for the interpellation. The same applies to the two interpellations I debated earlier this evening. I apologize for that. I believe it is good form to thank you for the interpellation, and this is an important issue.
The Speaker claims that I despise the poor. To stretch it that far is very far-fetched. He claims that the benefit reform we now intend to present fundamentally is about us despising the poor. No, it is precisely the opposite. To combat poverty and take people out of exclusion is perhaps one of my most important tasks. I am, in fact, aware of how it strengthens the individual, strengthens self-determination, and above all, breaks the risk that children inherit the exclusion that the parents have fallen into.
There is probably no single more important task than taking people from benefits and exclusion and leading them toward work and inclusion. If this, according to you in the Social Democrats, is to despise the poor, I think you have gotten it very much wrong.
It is about setting requirements to de facto care and providing the right conditions and right opportunities for people to grow and develop into their best selves. It is about setting requirements on the municipalities to be there for those who find themselves in exclusion and to put in the effort to provide them with support, help, and the right education. They shall learn the Swedish language, so that they can enter Swedish society, become part of the workforce, and stand on their own feet. Their children shall not end up in the same vulnerable position that they themselves are in.
It is not to despise the poor. It is on the contrary to hold them up in the highest esteem.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.