Response to interpellation 2025/26:134 on economic equality

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me if I can account for which gender equality analysis has served as the basis for the state budget for 2026. She has also asked if I intend to take the initiative for a plan for more equal taxation and fiscal policy. Finally, she has asked which reforms for increased equality I intend to prioritize moving forward.

I welcome the member's engagement in the issue. The Government is actively working to achieve the goal of economic equality, that women and men shall have the same opportunities and conditions regarding paid work that provides economic independence throughout life.

The Government closely follows the development of economic equality. In connection with the preparation of individual reforms that affect women's and men's finances, the effect on economic equality is an important part of the decision-making basis. Every year, the development is reported in the appendix to the budget bill, Economic Equality. In the budget bill for 2026, the effect of the Government's economic reforms during the mandate period up to and including the budget bill for 2026 was reported. It appears there that the combined effect of reforms so far during the mandate period increases women's disposable income by a slightly higher percentage than men's.

The Government is actively working to continue strengthening women's economic independence. Women have, on average, lower earned incomes than men. An important explanation is that women work part-time to a greater extent than men. Women also have a lower labor force participation than men. Lower earned incomes mean lower pensions in the long run and fewer opportunities to have savings. Reforms that contribute to increasing women's participation in the labor market are therefore a priority area for the Government. The Government assesses that the benefit reform and reduced tax on labor will result in more women entering the workforce. This leads to higher earned incomes and pensions. Other important economic reforms in the Government's budget bill for 2026 that contribute to promoting economic equality include, among others, raised rent ceilings in the housing allowance and lower childcare fees within the framework of the maximum fee.

Economic independence is also about having your own savings, something that, for example, can make it easier to leave a bad relationship or to get a better pension. Lower tax on investment savings accounts makes it easier for more women to save up a buffer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! Economic policy is never gender-neutral. It distributes power, resources, and life chances.

The budget that the SD-led government has now presented for 2026 risks deepening the economic inequality between women and men. It is once again the men who emerge as winners.

This is not a political interpretation but what several analyses of the distribution effects of budget policy during the entire mandate period actually show. The tax cuts primarily benefit high-income earners, and since men on average – just as the Finance Minister also said in his response – earn more, work more full-time and have higher capital income, this means that men receive a larger share of the tax cuts than women. This is also clearly evident from, for example, the Gender Equality Authority's reports on economic equality.

At the same time, we see the opposite for those with small margins. Support for households with weak finances is eroded or disappears. The child allowance has not been increased since 2018. At the same time, prices in society have increased by 27 percent. It is no coincidence that women are overrepresented among single parents, part-time workers, and low-income earners. The statistics show it. We know that.

This is happening at the same time as the government is underfunding the welfare system. Time and again, several have warned that municipalities and regions lack sufficient resources to fulfill the welfare mandate. The consequence is a higher workload, more shared shifts, and a more difficult working environment in professions that are predominantly female-dominated. When the welfare system fails, it is also women who most often have to bear the consequences.

The small glimmer of light, the government's proud initiative on women's healthcare, has been quietly reduced year by year and now stands at half of what was promised when the government took office. Taken together, the government's policy means that resources are shifted from women to men, from welfare to high-income earners, and from equality to increased disparities.

I also want to say a few short things about the answer that the Minister for Finance read out here and has also provided in writing. According to the law, the government is obliged to carry out a gender equality analysis to report how the pursued policy affects all of us in Sweden. The Minister for Finance has today, and in the previous debates we have had, also referred to that gender equality analysis and said that the budget is equalizing and that it even gives more to women percentage-wise in relation to what men have received. The Minister says that the answers to my questions can be seen there. If only that were so!

If I am to be kind, I cannot call the gender equality analysis that the government presents anything other than number-tinkering. Therefore, no references to that analysis can actually be counted. Why? Some reforms are not counted, while other reforms are counted. And when one does calculate the effects of certain reforms, well, then one takes 50 percent – as if certain reforms go equally to women just because we are 50 percent of the population. That is not true. The analysis is not in-depth, and it is not finished.

Then the Minister for Finance refers to three reforms that in no way contribute to what would be good for women. I will have to return to this in my next contribution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for a very important interpellation and important question! I know that we both are passionate about improving equality in Sweden.

I think very much forward, about what we need to do for Sweden to become better in 5, 10, 15 and 30 years. But I also think a good deal backward and on learning from what has been.

I have mentioned it before, but I am doing it again. It concerns both my grandmother and my grandfather. Grandmother was born in 1892, and my grandfather Matilda was born in 1902. It is two generations back, when women did not even have the right to vote in all elections. Enormous things have happened since my grandmother and my grandfather were born.

We have the right to abortion – it is important for women. We removed the joint taxation – it is important for women. I am thinking of much of the childcare that has emerged. Step by step, Sweden has become more equal over the years. But despite this, Sweden in 2026 is still not fully equal.

I am thinking of my grandchild and of others' grandchildren. My grandchild Juni turns a teenager this summer. When she is an adult and when she in turn has children, I want Sweden to be much more equal when it comes to economy but also when it comes to structural problems. I am thinking, for example, of serious problems, such as men's violence against women. I can return to that later.

But the economy is still the fundamental basis for one to be able to be a free person. If I do not have my own income, I cannot leave a bad relationship. If I do not have my own income and a reasonably good income, I will receive a lifetime income and a pension that is lower. Many women have experienced this and are experiencing it right now. Therefore, economic equality is a very important issue. I really appreciate that the member also raises it.

I will say something brief regarding how we report. This is also how the previous government did it. One reports different parts of the policy to show how it affects different groups, income groups, but also men and women. Then it is exactly as Eva Lindh says when it comes to taxes. For me, it is incredibly important that more people, more women, who work and toil should be able to keep more of their salary. We have lowered taxes for three years in a row for assistant nurses, nurses, and directors, so to speak. Overall, it has benefited women somewhat more than men, in percentage terms. But when it comes to crowns and öre, Eva Lindh is completely right. What is the solution to that challenge? What is the solution to the challenge that women in Sweden only own half of what men own? Eva Lindh says that economic policy cannot be neutral, absolutely not. But the tax policy in itself is gender-neutral. I do not think anyone wants different taxation based on gender. I doubt it, but someone is welcome to answer that.

When it comes to my view of this and my solution, I want more women to have leadership positions. We can, through political decisions but also as role models, with power and responsibility, show the way.

It is also the case, Madam Speaker, that we have progressive taxation. Someone who earns 125,000, a high-income earner in Sweden, therefore pays eleven times as much today as someone who earns 25,000. The taxation is progressive, and it is high. Many men therefore contribute more than women in this case. But the solution is not, for me, to change the tax policy. The solution is to ensure that more women enter the workforce, have their own jobs, and seek out the areas where one can actually earn more.

Now the speaking time is over for this round, but I am happy to continue in a moment.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! No, I do not doubt the Minister for Finance's commitment to issues of equality after all the debates we have had. But we draw completely different conclusions when it comes to where we are headed and which tools we should use in politics to improve equality.

I am glad that Matilda and all our grandmothers have actually had it better. Equality has improved. Unfortunately, the party that the Minister for Finance represents has perhaps not always been along and voted yes to the reforms that have improved equality in Sweden.

I just want to comment on some of the things that the Minister for Finance points out in his response. Reference is made to contribution ceilings, to reduced taxes as a prescription so that more people will enter the workforce, and to savings.

I will start by doing what the Prime Minister has repeatedly urged us to do: look at Denmark. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister only seems to want to look at Denmark in certain respects. The research on the effects of the benefit ceiling in Denmark is, in fact, clear. The conclusion is that women's labor force participation decreases. It is therefore fewer women in jobs, not more. Furthermore, research shows that crime increases. That is another issue, but it is a quite important conclusion for us to learn from.

The Minister for Finance says that lower taxes mean that more women enter the workforce. Research shows that job tax credits one and two perhaps did that. But now we are probably at number eleven, unless I am completely wrong – the Minister for Finance can correct me if I am wrong. Then that effect is no longer there.

Friend of order and I myself wonder: How does reduced tax for high-income earners contribute to bringing in women who are far from the labor market? There is no research on that. It is not possible to answer.

Then it concerns savings. Of course, it is important to save in order to be able to do what is important, that is, to have the possibility to leave a violent relationship. We all think that. But for those who have no money to save, it doesn't matter whether one lowers the tax on ISK or not. That can still be done, but in this case, it is very difficult for those who do not have those margins.

I actually think it is a somewhat disrespectful answer to all those who are struggling to put food on the table for their children. How much can they save?

We see that the SD government's economic policy actually systematically disadvantages women financially. I do not mean that women and men should be taxed separately. But the reality is what it is. Men earn more than women. That must be taken into account when preparing political proposals.

I also want to remind [you] of something. It concerns all of us who talk about and are passionate about equality, but also those who perhaps think that we have managed well anyway. We have managed well. We have come far in Sweden. But right now, Sweden is fifth from the bottom, of all EU member states, in terms of the development towards equality. We are losing momentum. It is from a high level. Sweden is still in the top tier. But I do not believe that either the Finance Minister or I are satisfied with equality losing momentum. We cannot just be satisfied with what we have done until today. We must also, just as the Finance Minister said, look forward and improve equality even for our children and grandchildren.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Eva Lindh, for this discussion!

In the name of honesty, the Social Democrats have never wanted to lower taxes for anyone, not for the hard-working nursing assistant who struggles to make ends meet, or for the one who might be the department head at the elderly care home where the nursing assistant works.

I am proud that on ten occasions here in the Riksdag, I have been able to vote for reduced taxes for the nurse and for the assistant nurse. I know that just a few years ago, it amounted to a total of 4,000 kronor a month for a nurse. Money, therefore, means something.

Lowering taxes for everyone – especially with a focus on low incomes and middle incomes – is important. It is important because I mean that one should never collect more tax than is needed, but also so that people shall have more autonomy.

I must say that I am becoming a bit concerned. The rhetoric that every Social Democrat uses is that we are lowering the tax for those who have the most income. We are, therefore, lowering the tax for everyone.

I can also remind the members of the year when it was really, really tough for many who worked. A woman who was a guaranteed pensioner with a low income had it increased quite significantly due to inflation. The same applied to students and many others. But the hard-working nursing assistant did not get this. In 2024, we also chose to freeze the break point and ensure that the tax was changed so that it went to everyone that year. What is it I want to say with this? When I go to work, Madam Speaker, I have Sweden and Sweden's economy, but also everyone who lives here before my eyes. Most do not vote for my party, but many have. I want everyone to have it better. And if there is one thing I want, it is that women in Sweden should have a better and stronger economy.

The benefit reform that we are implementing, and which I would like to say a few words about, will result in more women entering the workforce. We are not doing a Danish variant. I also think it is a bit of a low-expectation racism to believe that one either becomes dependent on benefits or that crime increases.

This reform contains many parts, the most important of which is the activity requirement, i.e., that those who receive subsistence support shall provide a counter-performance in the form of a full-time activity. That works in some municipalities, but in most, it does not.

Those who have it the very, very hardest to enter the Swedish labor market are immigrant women. Now they will be given an activity. They will be able to participate and contribute in different ways and get closer to the labor market. That is the best and most important thing we can ever do for them, because that is where we have the greatest economic inequality.

Finally, something about violence. The interpellation is not about that, but for a long time, most recently in Rönninge, we have seen examples of brutal violence and the power that men exercise over women. "He murdered his wife," one usually hears. No, he did not murder his wife. He murdered a woman, took her life which she was not allowed to live.

Even though the interpellation is not about exactly this, it is the grossest and greatest inequality and gender inequality that some men extinguish women's lives simply because they are women and because these men want power over them.

We are doing very many things there now. I will not mention it in any great extent, but it is an important part of addressing the inequality because the violence and oppression that many women live under also makes them not dare to take the step. If one does not even have a good economy – one might not even be allowed to work for one's husband – one will never be able to break free.

Economic freedom for women is something that is important to me and to the government, and we continue to work for it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by answering some of the claims that the Minister for Finance is making from the rostrum.

Firstly: I think the Finance Minister should refrain from throwing out that we never want to lower taxes. We do have a tax cut in our budget. I can gladly print it out and give it to the Finance Minister so that she can read it. We have a broad tax cut, but we do not have the extra tax cuts that specifically and exclusively target high-income earners. That is where we primarily differ.

Secondly: Of course, violence against women is one of the most absolutely serious crimes against equality and women's freedom. But it is precisely for that reason that economic policy is so important. Women must have the opportunity to leave a violent relationship. I believe that one should not be able to measure a country's economic success if it is not possible for women to free themselves and obtain an independent life free from violence.

Back to the question: I believe that the gender equality analysis that the government has presented in its budget is flawed. It does not show reality as it is. I regret that the differences are increasing and that we now have poorer economic conditions for women. For me, this is a crossroads. Either we continue on a path where the differences de facto increase between women and men and between high- and low-income earners, or we choose a policy that builds economic equality and social sustainability.

For us Social Democrats, the choice is simple. The government has made a different choice.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Eva Lindh, for this very important discussion!

During the years when inflation was 10 percent, as it was when I took office, it was a terrible situation for very many Swedes. Prices just continued to increase, and furthermore, interest rates went up in an attempt to press down inflation. It was very tough. It was tough for many women and single people, and therefore it was so important to fight inflation and ensure that we support especially those households that have it the toughest.

That is why we have had different proposals and, for example, worked on increasing the housing allowance. Now we have raised the ceiling. Now we are also lowering the preschool fee and halving the food VAT, which will make things easier for very many both women and men with lower incomes.

We have made it possible to save in an ISK, which is not just a saving but gives women power and the opportunity to receive returns from the profits of Swedish companies. This is a success all around, even though I know there are many who cannot save very many kronor, perhaps none at all. I have been there myself. But we see now that the economy is turning. We see that more people get to keep more money in their pockets, both thanks to getting higher wages and because we are lowering the tax.

In the name of honesty: the Social Democrats do not lower the tax when they actually come to power. We see that all around in many municipalities and especially here in Stockholm. I believe and think that it is important to continue to do it for those who need it the most, and it is not the case that the tax reduction we have made on pensions and directed at wage earners this year goes to those who earn the most. First and foremost, there is a cap; one cannot get any amount of tax reduction whatsoever. Above all, it is for everyone. No matter how many times the Social Democrats say that this is only for some, it is for everyone, and that is what I am proud of.

We have made efforts regarding fuels, food VAT, taxes and much more. It is still tough for many, but we have contributed and we will continue to make it easier for more women to become economically independent.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)