Response to interpellation 2024/25:739 on vacation poverty for families with children
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns vacation poverty for families with children. M argues that the government has strengthened households' purchasing power through tax cuts on work, pension, and savings 1, and that work is the best insurance against poverty 1 2. M emphasizes that the job tax credit ensures that workers, especially mothers, keep more of their wages to support their family 3 4. S argues that the government's focus on jobs is not enough 5 and that families with children experience vacation poverty due to a lack of family policy 6 7. S wants increased child allowance, strengthened housing allowance, and increased maintenance support 8 6 9 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Sanne Lennström has asked me if I intend to act so that vacation poverty will decrease and, if so, what concrete measures I intend to take so that more families with children can afford a decent summer holiday.
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, one sees very clearly 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 top income groups.
That parents work is the best insurance against poverty. This is reflected in the fact that it is uncommon to have a low economic standard in households where the parents are in gainful employment. During 2023, only about 2 percent of cohabiting households with two parents in gainful employment had a low economic standard.
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 people 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 autumn budget. This includes, among other things, targeted labor market and education initiatives to get more people into jobs, a temporary increased rot deduction, and 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 caused by inflation still remain, but we also see that other effects from world events are weighing on the Swedish economy. It is important to support families in a difficult economic situation, as we have done. We will return to this if necessary in the budget bill for 2026. The Government stands clearly on the side of the households.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! According to statistics from SCB published in July, 12 percent of the population state that they cannot afford to go on holiday away from home. It is particularly serious for single mothers – where it is almost every third who cannot afford it. And this is an increase compared to 2023. SCB points out that the figures show that even people who have jobs are struggling. There are many stories that highlight the reality that a full-time job today unfortunately does not mean that one manages their finances.
I really want to emphasize that we Social Democrats believe it is very important to have a job. But this survey shows that the government's one-sided focus on a job line is not enough to create economic security for everyone. An active family policy for the expenditure area that the Minister is responsible for is also needed, and I call for such a policy in today's debate.
Time and again in this chamber, I have asked both Minister Tenje and Minister Svantesson whether Sweden's families with children are struggling financially. I have not received a clear yes to that question from any representative of the government, but for me and the families with children, it is obvious. Rents have increased, food prices have skyrocketed, and so have the interest rates. Families with children become extra vulnerable because children grow out of clothes and the seasons change.
Yes, it is tough for families with children. But even though I have not received a clear yes to my question, many tips have instead been provided in this chamber and in the media by government representatives: to get a job, move, take extra shifts, try to bargain at Ica, shop at cheaper stores, and so on.
I also do not feel the Minister's answer to me here today is anchored in reality, because road maintenance does not pay for a birthday present for a child. And I am not asking how the economy has improved for a police officer and a nurse who live together. I am asking about improvements for the single nursing assistant who has two children.
It becomes very clear today that the government does not stand on the side of the households, and I have a very illuminating argument for this: Minister Anna Tenje did not meet Makalösa Föräldrar when they were here and demonstrated outside the Riksdag. None of the government representatives did. Nor did any members of parliament from the government parties. Why not? I believe it is because you know that your policy lacks very much in this area. You are worsening things for single parents, and all the fine words in this chamber do not change that.
But I and several colleagues who are also here today went there. Many of us went there, even from other opposition parties, because we have a policy that we are not ashamed of in this area. We listened to the stories, and we followed up with several conversations. They were stories about taped-off sinks. They were stories about tea instead of dinner so that the children could get food, and stories about playing with your son and his plastic dinosaurs while simultaneously feeling anxiety over whether the bills for this month will be able to be paid. They were also stories about food being bought on Klarna and constant fear of the enforcement authority. Not least, they were stories about worry ahead of the summer, when it gets even worse when one also has to afford an extra lunch.
Not being able to afford a holiday is not just a sign of inequality. It is an expression of a society where welfare is being dismantled, because a holiday is not a luxury. It is recovery and quality of life. My question to the Minister is therefore: Does the Minister think it is reasonable that holiday poverty is increasing in Sweden? If not, what concrete measures, other than road maintenance, does the Minister intend to take so that more families with children can afford a decent summer holiday – including single parents?
Arber Gashi (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I hope the Minister has had a good summer.
Today we are talking about children's summer and their summer holidays. For us Social Democrats, it is a matter close to the heart, because we know how hard it hits a child when the family's finances are not sufficient, when one sees friends traveling away but oneself has to stay at home, or when one hears talk of excursions, summer camps or ice cream from the kiosk but oneself cannot be part of it.
We know that every tenth child in Sweden lives in economic vulnerability. The proportion of poor in Sweden has doubled since 2021 and is now close to 7 percent of the population. Around 700,000 people are unable to pay for necessary and basic expenses. Unemployment is at a record high. It is the receipt for moderately-led politics. But behind the figures are real children who carry a lump in their stomachs all summer, children who return to school and do not dare to answer the question: What did you do during the break? That feeling of exclusion characterizes an entire childhood, and it must never be normalized in our country.
Madam Speaker! Sweden can do better. We Social Democrats have presented a multitude of proposals over the recent years to strengthen the everyday economy of families with children. We have proposed increased child allowance, a support that reaches all families with children and makes a difference every month. We have proposed strengthening the housing allowance, because we know that rent is one of the largest and most worrying expenses for many families. We have proposed increased maintenance support for single parents, a fair tax reduction that primarily goes to those with the lowest incomes. We also proposed school lunches so that no children have to go hungry when the dining hall is closed during the summer. These are concrete proposals aimed at families with children that would give more children a more secure and equal everyday life here and now.
All this, the government and Minister Anna Tenje have consistently said no to. At every given opportunity, they have instead chosen to lower the tax for the very richest.
This also becomes quite clear, Madam Speaker, in the response provided to today's interpellation. To the question of what measures the government intends to take so that more children can have a better summer holiday, the Minister answers, among other things, that they are increasing the deduction for home improvements. Families who cannot go on holiday will therefore be able to focus on a renovation instead. She also mentions investments in road maintenance.
Furthermore, she says that the situation is not so bad for those who live in cohabiting households, i.e., households where two adults are in a couple and work. I do not quite understand how it helps single parents who have not planned to end up in that situation or who are not there voluntarily. Perhaps one has fled a violent partner. Is it dating apps that single people should place their trust in instead of politics?
It is the difference between social democratic and Moderate policy.
Madam Speaker! The government will soon present a budget for the coming years. I genuinely wonder whether Minister Anna Tenje will once again prioritize society's wealthiest groups or if the country's families with children will now get a larger share.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Several of the problems of inflation, which I accounted for earlier, obviously still remain. It is also clear that the Swedish economy is still being negatively affected by effects from world events. These factors have burdened many households, and the government has therefore acted with full force to both push back inflation, which has dug deep holes in everyone's wallets, and at the same time provide support to households during this difficult time.
I am surprised by the lowered tax and that we are investing in road maintenance or, for that matter, creating the conditions for the rotavdrag. It is because, from the Social Democrats' side, Madam Speaker, one does not quite understand how society and the economy work and how growth is created. Everything is connected. Lowered tax on work, lowered tax on pension, lowered tax on savings, lowered tax on entrepreneurship and lowered tax on transport, as well as increased appropriations for road maintenance and construction, provide more jobs so that more can move from benefits to work or perhaps from part-time to full-time, which definitely has a very large impact.
To alleviate the effects, the government has also implemented a tax cut for 2025 which means that an average family, which a police officer and a nurse often are, will receive 9,000 kronor less in tax. If one earns less, the amount will also be somewhat smaller, but it is in any case a supplement via the reduced tax which overall improves the family's finances. This relief we have combined with targeted measures for the households that have been hit hardest by the high inflation: the weakest households in society.
This work has had a clear effect. It is primarily the tenth of the population with the lowest economic standard that has received the largest improvement in percentage terms, while the two top income groups have received the least improvement in percentage terms. This shows that the government's policy in this area is accurate.
Supporting households is not a temporary measure but a long-term commitment. The Government will continue this work for as long as it is needed. We will return to this, if necessary, in the budget bill for 2026. The Government stands on the side of the households and will continue to take responsibility in a time that continues to be characterized by uncertainty.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! I understand very well how growth is created, or how one believes growth is created. I have studied economics. But I have also studied political science and know that there are different ideologies and thus also different parties in this chamber that have different ideas about how one creates growth.
But that is not what we are calling for here. What we are calling for is a reasonable family economic policy in expenditure area 12, which is the Minister's responsibility.
We are also requesting credible examples, as said. In all statistics, both those in the government's budget and SCB's, one sees that it is the single-person households, especially the single mothers, who have had it extremely tough in the cost crisis that we have lived through. It is such examples we are requesting. We are not requesting the two-person households where a nurse and a police officer live together. Of course, they may also have had challenges. I am not hiding that. But it is precisely the single-person households that the government does not want to face, does not want to talk to, and does not want to implement measures for. That is problematic.
One of the parents who is struggling despite having a job is the nursing assistant Sandra. She says that it was only thanks to her mother that her children could go on the carousel and have some ice cream this summer. She says: ”It is hard to be almost 40 years old and not be able to stand on your own feet. It feels bad towards my mother to take money from her that she should be saving for her pension.”
Sandra is far from alone. As stated, almost one-third of all single mothers cannot afford a week's holiday away from home. The salary is not enough, despite a full-time job. The result is that these mothers feel guilty and feel extremely inadequate.
Sandra also describes that she is terrified of breaking down and being on sick leave for a longer period.
The children, in short, are paying the price for the cost crisis we have had in recent years.
However, there is no lack of proposals in the Social Democrats' shadow budget to remedy the situation. We have several proposals that we hope the government will truly review before its own budget.
We have repeatedly proposed measures that would have provided many supplements to single parents, for example, introducing a reformed housing allowance instead of slashing the supplement to the housing allowance. Instead of strengthening single parents, the government has actively chosen to take money away from the country's economically most vulnerable families. It is tone-deaf. We have also proposed an increased child allowance, something that would be very welcome. The government refuses here as well, so far. We are last in the Nordic countries with such an initiative. We have also proposed holiday lunch to relieve parents during the holidays.
All these measures would have provided a large economic space for single parents, which would have eased the burden and perhaps given an opportunity for a better holiday time together with the children.
Instead, this autumn we are met with very many depressing stories that affect us all. Some children come to school with stories about ice cream, water parks, amusement parks, and holidays. Other children have, at best, had grandparents who were able to contribute something so that they could ride a carousel or eat an ice cream. But in the worst case, perhaps the children have seen nothing more than the four walls of the apartment and a mother with anxiety over the fact that there are extremely many extra costs because the children no longer get lunch at school. This is not the equal Sweden we strive for in 2025.
Therefore, I want to ask the Minister: What does Minister Anna Tenje want to say to all these single mothers who leave behind a summer full of anxiety? And what does the government intend to do concretely so that this does not repeat itself next summer?
Arber Gashi (S)
Madam Speaker! Minister Anna Tenje argues that the Social Democrats do not know how growth is created – implying that the Moderates have a full grasp of it. In that case, it is strange that we are at the bottom of the league when it comes to growth in Europe but at the top of the league when it comes to unemployment – speaking of how growth is created.
In a debate concerning children's conditions for a bearable summer, the Minister of State brings up the tax deduction for renovations as a proposal. It is a proposal that we Social Democrats also included. That is not where we differ.
What distinguishes the Social Democrats and the Moderates is that the Moderates allocate half of the budget, that is up to 30 billion, to tax cuts. Then they can no longer afford to support families with children. The Social Democrats manage to do both.
We also present proposals for tax cuts, increased growth, and housing construction. But we are also able to see those who stand at the back of the queue, those whom the Moderaterna do not always see and whom one does not want to meet when they stand outside the Riksdag and cook porridge.
Madam Speaker! There is a trend on social media where one tries to explain something without saying straight out what it is. I wonder if that is what the Moderaterna have embarked on when they have answered this interpellation. They want to explain that they do not have a family economic policy without saying it straight out. Instead, there are proposals for tax credits and road maintenance rather than explaining which measures they choose to take to solve the situation here and now for the country's families with children.
I have no speeches left, but the Minister of State does. I hope to receive a clearer statement.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament himself highlights in his interpellation and also in his speeches the problem with, for example, nursing assistants who, despite full-time work, have difficulty managing their finances and going on holiday. The Member of Parliament argues that the government's focus on the work line is not sufficient to create economic security.
Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament is actually partly right. She is right that too many full-time workers, especially mothers, have too much difficulty making their finances work. It is very clear that all those hardworking women and men who, despite full-time work, have difficulty making their finances work, do not get to keep the fruits of their own hard work.
The average salary, Madam Speaker, for a nursing assistant is between 27,000 and 33,000, depending slightly on where in the country one lives and how long one has worked. For a nursing assistant who earns approximately 30,000 kronor a month and works in my home municipality Växjö, the employer pays a total of 39,500 kronor a month in salary and employer contributions. Of those, almost 16,000 kronor go to tax. Remaining in the wallet are approximately 23,500 kronor for the nursing assistant.
With the government's policy, the nursing assistant gets to keep more of their own money. In this example alone, the job tax credit amounts to an extra 3,000 kronor per month, which would otherwise have gone to tax. Whatever other members say, the job tax credit is something that the Social Democrats have consistently voted against every time here in this chamber.
It is very easy, Madam Speaker, to speak of self-evident truths, such as that every Swedish child should be allowed to eat ice cream on a warm summer day. But it is obviously completely impossible for the Social Democrats to let the child's mother keep enough of her own salary to buy ice cream. If there is to be any ice cream in the Social Democrats' Sweden, it must be paid for collectively through increased benefits. This rhymes very well with the social democratic motto that everyone should receive increased benefits, but no one should be able to live on their salary.
You can keep an extra 3,000 kronor via the job tax credit if you are a nursing assistant in Växjö, but you are not as lucky if you are a nursing assistant and live in, for example, Stockholm. The Social Democrats have not only said no to the job tax credit here in this chamber, but when they sit in power in Stockholm, they have also raised the municipal and regional taxes, raised the fee on the SL card, and furthermore worsened the bus connections so that it becomes difficult to get to and from work. Then it is really tough. But of course, if we just raise the benefits enough, maybe mom can still afford ice cream for her children.
That is not how our government works. We have supported households through several targeted tax cuts focusing on low- and middle-income earners, where the need is greatest. And we will continue to do so as long as it is needed, because the government, Madam Speaker, stands on the side of the households.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! If I had wanted to discuss tax policy, I could have written an interpellation to the Minister for Finance. I understand that the Minister wants to take the initiative. But we are, as I said, calling for a family economic policy here. I want to talk about the child allowance and the supplement to the housing allowance, but it feels like we are constantly moving around it and talking about a lot of other things.
I do not need to avoid that policy – on the contrary. It is not the Social Democrats' worst nightmare to lower taxes for people who earn a little. The problem is that the government's previous budget focused on lowering taxes for wealthy people.
One cannot have a total absence of family economic policy. If the Minister reads her own budget, she can see that it states very clearly that family economic policy makes the situation better for the country's economically most vulnerable families with children. But if one does not have such a policy, it leads to the consequences we have talked about today: anxiety and plastic dinosaurs, tea instead of dinner, and things that we really do not want in our country.
I note that we probably will not get very much further in this debate. I hope, however, that I am wrong and that I see much of this in the autumn budget so that the situation improves for the country's single parents. I thank you for today's debate. Goodbye!
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank both members for the debate. It still provides a lot of energy. But I am somewhat surprised when the interpellator, who is an economist, says that she wished we could discuss family economic policy but not taxes. That makes me a bit confused. Do taxes on one's own work have no impact on family policy in the Social Democrats' world?
Apart from the rent, the tax you pay is the largest portion of the money that you do not get to keep yourself. If tax is not interesting to discuss for the Social Democrats when talking about family economic policy – being able to live on your salary, being able to support yourself and also being able to buy ice cream for your children or go on holiday – then I understand that we sometimes talk past each other.
The best way out of poverty is to have a job to go to. Therefore, we must ensure that more people move from benefits to work, that more move from part-time to full-time, and that more people in our country get to keep more money in their pockets from the hard-earned wages they have earned themselves. That more can stand on their own feet and support their family is also the best way to vaccinate the children against continued exclusion so that they do not inherit their parents' exclusion. They should be able to stand on their own feet, obtain an education, a job to go to and a career, and be able to develop into their best self. They should be able to live on their own wages.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.