Response to interpellation 2024/25:696 on safeguarding the welfare_
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that municipalities and regions have a far-reaching responsibility for their financing through the right to tax 1. KD argues that the most important thing for the municipal sector's economy is to boost growth and increase the tax base 2, and that tax cuts are a conservative government's task 2. KD stands for a tax-financed welfare that is financed jointly and in solidarity 3. KD argues that the government has provided large supplements to the municipal sector and that inflation has been pushed down 3. S considers that investments in welfare are one of the smartest ways to achieve a stable economy 4. S argues that welfare is under threat and that the government is not doing enough 4 5. S considers that value securing is about common resources following the cost development 6. S argues that the government has betrayed welfare by not providing the resources needed to manage healthcare, elderly care, and school 5. V considers that the government chooses to lower taxes at the expense of welfare 7. V argues that the government's policy makes the poor poorer 7. V considers that the government's goal is that each person should pay for their own welfare 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me how I view the conditions for securing the funding of the welfare system and whether I intend to take any measures to fund the funding of the welfare system.
The municipalities and regions have, through the municipal right of taxation, an extensive responsibility for the financing of their activities. Tax revenues also account for the absolute largest part of the municipalities' and regions' revenues. For the development of the tax base, the government's policy for increased growth and a restored work line is of great significance. The municipal economy is also affected by several other factors, for example, price and wage developments, demographic development, and the ability to develop new and more efficient ways of working.
The government safeguards order with a strict budget process, where different expenditures are weighed against each other and expenditure increases are tested against a pre-determined economic space provided by the expenditure ceiling and the surplus target. This includes weighing a potential increase in state grants to municipalities and regions against other measures and, before each budget, assessing how large grants are appropriate.
Even though the economic situation is uncertain, as a result of the uncertainty in the world around us, the finances of the municipalities and regions are expected to improve during 2025 and 2026. The Government is following the development closely and has shown that economic supplements to the municipal sector are prioritized when the needs are considered to be great.
In this uncertain economic situation, it is more important than ever to conduct a responsible economic policy where tax revenues are used effectively and where they are needed most. At the current moment, an automated value adjustment of the general government grants is not something the government is considering.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! This debate is intended to be about welfare and the conditions for welfare – for our care, elderly care, school, and everything else that is so important for all of us.
Let me begin with the economy, which the Minister also touched upon. Sweden is in an incredibly serious economic situation. We have a growth that places Sweden at the bottom of Europe. More than half a million people are unemployed, also very poorly compared to other countries in Europe.
What needs to be done in this economic situation? An important measure that the government could take to get the economy moving is to invest in welfare. We know, in fact, that investments in welfare are one of the smartest and most effective ways to achieve a stable, long-term, and secure economy. Strengthening welfare is good for all of us.
But every time during this parliamentary term that we have talked about more resources for welfare, the government says that it is not possible. That is, we cannot handle the inflation. However, that is not true. What Sweden has faced is not just high inflation, but we are also struggling with a deep recession. Investing in welfare is therefore good for all of us – for elderly care, school, healthcare and all that important stuff, but it is also good for the economy.
In this situation, the government should therefore do what we Social Democrats desire, namely strengthen the Swedish welfare model. But now the contrasts in politics are also becoming very clear. When welfare is now so completely crucial, one should see that it is not a cost but an investment in security, cohesion, and trust.
What is a value assessment of the welfare about, Mr. Speaker? Well, it is about municipalities and regions knowing what resources they have for next year. The Minister for Finance stood here earlier and said that now the costs for pensions are falling, because inflation is lower now. But municipalities and regions have struggled hard with this for several years. The government has done nothing, and municipalities and regions continue to struggle with their finances.
The Minister for Civil Affairs is the responsible politician for municipalities and regions, and I expect that he is out meeting municipal and regional politicians. It would then be strange if he does not hear how tough it is for many municipalities and regions.
What does this mean? My concern is not just about the local politicians. I feel for them; I have been a municipal councilor myself. But it is about what it means for the tough decisions that need to be taken now. Now, it is not just that the healthcare queues have grown during all the years that the SD government has ruled, but now they have to cut even more. Welfare is under threat.
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Mr. Speaker! This government consists of quacks and charlatans. One speaks of how important and valuable the welfare is. One speaks of how one tries to help the pressured households and that one wants to see a functioning healthcare system. I have not yet heard that one considers unemployment to be a particularly large problem, but the 100,000 who have become unemployed during this government would probably think that it is, just as we in the opposition do.
Now we hear from the Minister that one pretends that the responsibility for welfare lies with someone else entirely, that it is the municipalities and regions that are solely responsible for welfare, even though it is a mandate that the state has given to them.
Mr. Speaker! The government's policy is to make the poor poorer and themselves in the government richer. This is done by lowering taxes. The fact is that taxes are what finance our common welfare, and the government will have lowered taxes by 100 billion during this mandate period when they are finished. These are funds that should have gone to welfare, to healthcare and the school. Instead, they have chosen to put them in their own pockets. I think it is despicable.
Mr. Speaker! I find it difficult not to draw parallels to what is happening in Israel. Given that the minister is a Christian Democrat, that there is mass famine in Gaza right now, and that the minister's own party leader believes that Israel is doing the world a service, I must nevertheless point out that what is happening in Gaza is appalling. These are crimes against humanity being committed there.
It is not enough that the Christian Democrats believe that the children in Gaza should starve. They also seem to believe that the children in Sweden should starve because they want to make the children's families poorer. They conduct an active policy towards the municipalities, which the minister himself says are responsible for the welfare, and tell them that they should not give the families enough money for the children to have food. That is the result when one introduces subsidy ceilings, which the government wants to do. It is part of the welfare.
I think that the minister and the government should be a bit more honest. Is it not the case that they consider that welfare is not particularly important for themselves and their closest ones and that they think that welfare should be cut – preferably cease? Do they not consider that it should be each person's own responsibility to pay for their healthcare, school, and elderly care and that if one cannot afford it, one must blame oneself? I think it would be more honest to say this, because that is what the government is actually conducting as its policy. The minister shall be given the opportunity to answer that.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! That was probably one of the more attention-grabbing contributions I have heard in my debates, I must say, so it is difficult to know where to begin. My four minutes will definitely not be enough to answer everything.
Gonzalez Westling said that the government consists of tricksters. I think the entire post just now was exactly trickery on a very high level regarding much of what was said.
I simply must say something about Gaza. That my party leader Ebba Busch would have said that what is happening in Gaza now is good politics, that it is right to starve a population and that we would support children starving in Gaza and in Sweden is nothing other than a pure lie. What she said was that we should stand behind the work of neutralizing Hamas. But the methods being used, we naturally do not fully defend. That was also why the government yesterday presented a decision on increased support for the civilian population in Gaza so that food, water, and medicines can get in.
We are now one of the countries in the world that provides the largest nominal amounts to improve the situation for the civilian population in Gaza. Sweden pursues a policy where we want to improve and increase support for the civilian population in Gaza. But we also, of course, stand up for Israel's right to exist, to defend its country's territories and to fight Hamas. We must be able to do both.
It is completely correct that the government has chosen to lower taxes. Sweden now has the lowest tax burden since the 70s. I think that is good. It is a bourgeois government's task to lower the tax burden and, not least, to lower the tax for wage earners.
We are now implementing the ninth job tax credit. They are criticized every time by both the Social Democrats and the Left Party, but not a single job tax credit has been removed when the Social Democrats have had the chance to do so, but rather the tax cuts are accepted in hindsight. One realizes that it is bad policy to raise the tax for wage earners.
I can remind that Gonzalez Westling's Vänsterpartiet was involved in voting through a government and a Prime Minister who, for example, abolished the defense tax. I think that even that became a deception in the argumentation.
I am proud that the government has allocated many resources to lowering the tax burden. It shall become more profitable to work. People shall get to keep more of their salary once the tax is paid. Since the beginning of the 2022 mandate period, an employee has received 5,000 kronor more in their wallet to move around with. I think that is good, because households have been hit very hard by the rising prices we inherited from the previous government. We have brought down inflation, and thus we have brought down the interest rates. We see rising real wages and a lower tax burden. I think that is good for the Swedish households. It also means that growth and domestic demand can get started.
To return to the topic of the day, namely the municipalities' finances and the funding of the welfare system, the most important thing we can do for the municipal sector's economy is to increase growth and stimulate domestic demand. This will, in fact, lead to a better tax base, and an increased tax base is by far the most important instrument for the municipalities' finances to improve.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to return to a few words in the Minister's response. He said: ”In this uncertain economic situation, it is more important than ever to conduct a responsible economic policy” – absolutely, we agree with that – ”where tax revenues are used effectively and where they are needed most.” I believe that quite many who work in healthcare, elderly care, and schools think that it is with them that the funds are needed most. But what is seen now are the largest cuts in schools in a very long time, increasing healthcare queues, and an elderly care that has been forgotten.
We were indeed in agreement during the pandemic – at least that is what I heard – that elderly care would be prioritized. It was there that real investments were to be made. But where did those investments go? Sometimes I have been given the answer that Sweden has a Minister for Elderly Care. But a minister is not enough if you do not have a policy. Investments were needed to secure welfare and make our residents safe, and to strengthen the economy and society. A stronger society was needed, not a weaker society – especially in times of economic hardship.
I am a bit concerned about the situation. It is said that investments are being made, but they are actually not investments. We saw it, for example, when the Minister for Education spoke about investments of 4.3 billion. In reality, they are down to half a billion. At the same time, people are struggling in schools with the consequences of high inflation and other difficulties with simply providing our children with a good education and a good school. What we are talking about and what we need to do is to finance the welfare in the long term.
We cannot have a situation where municipalities and regions are forced to live in uncertainty every year about what the resources will look like next year. We cannot have a development where healthcare, school, and care constantly have to struggle uphill, where planning is short-circuited and where the staff, who do everything so that people receive the care and support they need, are pushed to the breaking point. Securing the welfare is about justice and responsibility and about common resources following the cost development and not being eroded so that it becomes as it has become now. Over time, elderly care and school have received less money despite promises of investments.
Why can the Minister and the SD-led government not even consider securing the welfare or at least make real investments? Such investments are needed.
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Mr. Speaker! I understand that the truth sometimes hurts, especially when one feels targeted. It is nevertheless a fact that the government wants children in Sweden to starve. That is how it is. When one introduces a benefit ceiling and says that families should not be able to get money so that they can survive, one indirectly wants the children not to get food. It is a fact. That is what happens. Where else are they supposed to get money?
We know the answer. Investigations have already been conducted after this was introduced in Denmark. It resulted in worsened school results and increased crime. Is that perhaps the government's objective?
Let me return to the question of securing the value, which is the subject of the debate. I know the answer, because I asked the minister the same question before. The answer I received then was that one could indeed secure the welfare, but that there would then be less money left for the reform space. This reform space is tax cuts. It is the government's single largest budget item every year. This means that the government and the minister choose to lower taxes for everyone but mostly for themselves. A mail carrier received 175 kronor more per month last year, while the Prime Minister received 4,700.
This is a fact, and one chooses to do this. At the same time, we see the welfare being progressively dismantled until nothing is left. The government's objective is, Mr. Speaker, that everyone shall pay for their own welfare.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I want to make a single comment regarding the last entry, but only so that the listeners do not believe this trickery. The Government does not want children to starve in Sweden. The Government does not want everyone to pay for their own welfare.
We stand for a tax-funded welfare with co-payments in certain areas, precisely in the way that has applied regardless of whether it has been conservative or social democratic governments. We finance the welfare collectively and in solidarity. The more we invest in a growth-promoting policy, the greater the conditions we have to maintain this system. That is a fact.
Let me move on to Eva Lindh's contribution and interpellation, which is the main theme of the debate. During 2023 and 2024, when the economy for the municipal sector was at its toughest and was particularly vulnerable to high inflation, the government provided large supplements. In the first budget, one-third of the reform space went to the municipal sector. In the second budget, 40 percent of the reform space went there. We prioritized welfare and municipalities and regions very strongly in our first two budgets, because the economic situation was very tough.
Then we succeeded in bringing down inflation. The anti-inflation policy was successful. This has, in this year, 2025, provided 50 billion more for municipalities and regions to move with compared to the years before just because of the suppressed inflation, as high inflation has a direct impact on the municipalities' and regions' pension provisions. Just by pushing down inflation, we succeeded in freeing up 50 billion kronor for the municipal sector.
Now we see that the tax base next year is developing better than normal, which means that the economy will become even brighter in 2026. It is very positive.
In addition, the government is providing a number of targeted state grants to, among others, health and medical care so that the work of shortening the care queues can continue. It is a tough job, but we are firmly determined to shorten the care queues. We are now providing substantial supplements for that. We are also increasing the appropriations for psychiatry, school health, and much more within the school system. The municipal sector will therefore receive more money for schools and health and medical care.
The narrative being presented here, that the government is doing nothing, is not giving the municipalities any money, and is not making any investments in welfare, simply does not hold up. The government has made major efforts within the municipal and regional sectors so that they could avoid making large cuts during years of tough economic conditions.
The municipalities are, however, undergoing major demographic changes. There are fewer and fewer children of preschool and school age, and more and more elderly people over 80 years of age will need home care and nursing and care homes. This means that resources will need to be shifted from the school system to elderly care in the future. What can sometimes look like cuts may in fact be adjustments to demographic changes.
Since elderly care was mentioned, I also want to say something about it. It is close to my heart, and I was responsible for it in Stockholm during the last parliamentary term. The government continues with Äldreomsorgslyftet, which has been a good initiative and a good way to strengthen elderly care and improve its quality.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I am becoming frustrated. If you don't have 20 bucks – I am not saying it is the government that has taken them – but you get 1 buck from me and I tell you that you should be happy now is exactly the situation that has been in the welfare system. Inflation has made the situation very tough, and the SD government has betrayed the welfare system. It has not provided the resources needed to manage healthcare, elderly care, and school. That is the actual situation.
It is very good that the government is giving money to Äldreomsorgslyftet, but not a single penny goes to elderly care. It is the operations that need money to be able to provide good elderly care for our elderly, who have fought an entire life to build our society. But when they really need the society, the government fails them by not providing the resources that are needed.
And with this budget, the healthcare queues have increased. Has the minister not seen that? Does he not know that they have increased? Does he not know that cuts are being made in the school system? Does he not know what it looks like in elderly care?
What is needed is fundamentally good with resources for the school, healthcare, and elderly care. That is what Sweden needs. Those who are in need of what society can provide are worthy of it.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Let me clarify something in light of the claims that have been tossed around in the debate. Sweden does not have an SD government. The Sweden Democrats are not part of the government, but the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals are. However, we have a parliamentary cooperation with the Sweden Democrats to pass, among other things, our budget. Democracy works such that a majority in the chamber is needed, and therefore our four parties have formed an alliance. But the Sweden Democrats are not part of the government, and therefore it cannot, by definition, be an SD government.
Great chest-thumping is also taking place in this debate. In the budget option the Social Democrats present, they want to strengthen the municipal sector by a few per mille more compared to the government, and these per mille would be decisive for whether welfare is maintained or destroyed. So that is obviously not the case. The absolute most important thing for the municipal sector, besides the state grants, is how the economy develops, that the tax base is strengthened, and that inflation is kept in check. This we have created. Inflation has gone down, and from next year the tax base will be significantly strengthened, which will have a very large effect on the municipal sector's economy.
The government has strengthened the municipalities' finances throughout the entire mandate period. In our first two budgets, we substantially increased the general government grants, and we have also provided targeted government grants for health and medical care, school, and elderly care. This is not least about the important work of shortening the care queues, which we are working on very intensively. It is a difficult task, but we are working purposefully with it. Important investments are also to strengthen psychiatry and school health.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.