Response to interpellation 2025/26:368 on the reporting of budget effects
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that the government is working continuously to increase transparency in fiscal policy and that budget bills already contain assessments of long-term effects on employment 1. 2 M is proud to have doubled the defense appropriations, lowered taxes for hard-working people, and lowered the food VAT to boost the economy 2. 3 M emphasizes that investments make Sweden one of the countries in the EU making the largest investments, which creates jobs 3, and that they have fought inflation with an expansive budget to strengthen people's wallets 3. 4 S considers that the government lacks the ability to understand the Swedish economy and conducts a backward cyclical policy where ordinary people are left behind despite money being spent 4. 4 S argues that the government does not take responsibility, that the economy is not trump-proof, and that Sweden needs a new direction 4. 5 M argues that they have their finances in order and that the national debt is lower than when Magdalena Andersson was Finance Minister 5. 5 M considers that their policy works, that they will have higher growth than many other countries, and that taxes on work and entrepreneurship should not be raised 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Peder Björk has asked me if I intend to take measures to strengthen the transparency and reporting of the long-term effects of the policies pursued, so that it becomes possible to assess the consequences for jobs, welfare, and economic security.
The government is working continuously to increase clarity and transparency in the reporting of fiscal policy, but even today, the effects of the government's economic policy are reported. For example, the budget bills contain assessments of long-term effects on employment. In the case of changes to tax rules, assessments of the proposals' socio-economic effects are reported in tax memoranda, referrals to the Council on Legislation, and bills. These assessments include, among other things, long-term effects on employment.
Peder Björk (S)
Mr. Speaker! I find it sad to hear how a Moderate Finance Minister so casually brushes aside my question in the interpellation and thereby also, in fact, the Fiscal Policy Council's criticism.
The Fiscal Policy Council is the government's own expert agency, and its mandate is to review the government's economic policy and to safeguard the fiscal framework. In this year's report, which concerns the state budget for 2026, the council directs the sharpest criticism it has ever directed at any government – that is, ever!
The Fiscal Policy Council points out, among other things, that the budget risks leading to the largest deficit in 30 years, apart from the pandemic year, with minus 167 billion kronor. The Government justifies the budget with cyclical reasons, but according to the Council, they do not report what effects the measures actually have on the Swedish economy.
The government is also implementing large tax cuts, while increasing defense expenditures, according to the council, are not fully financed. The government is therefore borrowing to fund tax cuts for high-income earners. The council also warns that the government's policy risks increasing inequalities and contributing to rising child poverty.
When the Minister for Finance commented on the criticism a few weeks ago, she said that she is proud of the economic policy that this SD government is conducting. Just as in the response to my interpellation, all forms of humility or self-reflection are completely absent.
This comes from a Minister for Finance who many times during this parliamentary term has said that the turnaround in the economy is near. Out of respect for the Minister for Finance – I do not want to embarrass her – I will refrain from stating the number of times she has actually said this.
Just recently, Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister also said that the Swedish economy is Trump-proof – very bold, I must say! And then, the day before yesterday, the forecast for Swedish GDP was adjusted downwards again by the Finance Minister. It is a forecast that, according to economic analysts, will soon need to be thrown in the trash.
Mr. Speaker! Now that the forecasts are constantly being adjusted downwards and the government's own expert authority is directing its sharpest criticism ever, I am curious whether the Minister for Finance is still satisfied with and proud of his economic policy.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! One would think that Peder Björk and the Social Democrats have completely different views on fiscal policy and on the budget that has been presented.
One could think that the Social Democrats, who have said yes to growing defense expenditures, have said yes to increased infrastructure, which this government is investing in, and said yes to expanding the justice system, police, and correctional services, still do not stand behind this. But from what I have understood, they do.
Is Peder Björk trying to paint a picture that the Social Democrats are not behind the deficit that we will have this year, which for slightly more than half will be due to Ukraine and defense expenditures? That is the only conclusion one can draw from this political game, where one sits in the stands and does not stand up for one's own policy.
Yes, I am proud of what we are doing. I am proud to be the Finance Minister who has doubled the defense appropriations in these years. I am proud that we have brought together eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag that are building a strong defense. We agree to debt-finance for a short period and then permanently finance this. I am glad that we agree on that.
It is against this that the Fiscal Policy Council's criticism is primarily directed. The Council does not think we should have temporarily debt-financed but instead find permanent financing now. I believe that Peder Björk should read through the Fiscal Policy Council's report a bit better.
Then there are absolute differences in our policy. I have, for example, been involved in lowering the tax for hard-working people for three years in a row. I am now ensuring that on April 1st, the VAT on food is lowered so that food becomes cheaper. This government is also lowering the preschool fee and much more.
Why are we doing this? We are doing it to get the economy moving, of course. But we are also making these investments to build a richer and safer Sweden. So yes, I am glad that we have supported people in that way.
There is also a point in highlighting that this government does exactly the same as the previous one when it comes to reporting of different parts and effects. The problem is just that Peder Björk does not always like everything that we do. The fact that we have lowered the tax for ordinary people for three years in a row is not something that the Socialdemokrater always like. Here in Stockholm, they would rather raise the tax, for example.
The reporting will therefore take place exactly as before. I would still like to say that we in Sweden are very open and transparent compared to how it is in many other countries. This applies to governments regardless of color, and it is completely correct. We produce impact assessments and consequence analyses for our decisions.
Such an effect is that a family with children will have approximately 5,000 more per month to live on this year compared to 2022. First, we fought inflation. We ensured that we supported households with lowered taxes in various ways. But we have also, for example, ensured that people who receive housing allowance now receive a higher ceiling and a larger allowance.
It is about supporting those who have it toughest, but also about ensuring that all the hard-working Swedes who have had it tough during these years receive compensation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am proud. I am not ashamed of the budget that we have presented.
I still think this is strange. Is it the defense expenditures that Peder Björk wants to reduce? Is it the infrastructure investments? The Social Democrats' budget looks practically the same in terms of the deficit. It is 5 billion under, and both Peder Björk and I, who can count, know that it is practically the same thing. So yes, I am proud.
When it comes to growth, I am very happy that we will have growth this year. Now, all countries in Europe are having to temporarily scale down their growth forecasts because we do not know how the developments in the Middle East will unfold. But Sweden has a strong economy, and we can ensure that we have strong safeguards and protect Swedish households.
Peder Björk (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is quite telling that the Minister for Finance both begins and ends his contribution by attacking Social Democratic policy instead of talking about his own government.
I understand that, because the criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council is troublesome in so many ways. Not least, it must be particularly troublesome for a Moderate finance minister to receive this criticism.
Let me be clear. This is not about us being in disagreement over the support for Ukraine or that we, in that respect, are in disagreement over the support for the defense.
It is not the case that the Fiscal Policy Council only directs criticism at this; a large part of the criticism is about the fact that this government has made a different prioritization. It is about the government having chosen to prioritize lowering taxes, not least for those who have the very highest incomes, instead of using that space to make prioritizations of another kind, for example, to fully finance the defense investments.
The criticism does not stop there, but it also concerns the job tax credit, which this SD government is always so proud of. The Council says that it has a minimal, if any, effect on, for example, employment.
This leads to the part of the council's criticism that concerns the fact that the government cannot even demonstrate what effects the pursued policy has on Swedish GDP. That is the very core of the criticism: the prioritization, and that the policy is not achieving the effects that the government claims it should.
Mr. Speaker! There are three things in the Swedish economy that clearly stand out. First and foremost, it is about mass unemployment. Sweden has one of the highest levels of unemployment in Europe. Growth in recent years has been historically weak. The Swedish economy has developed worse than the economies of many comparable countries, far below the potential that exists. It is a record in the number of bankruptcies.
At the same time, the Finance Minister has long said that the turnaround is near. But people who lose their jobs or companies that are forced to close their operations have not seen this turnaround.
In that situation, the government's priorities become completely decisive and, in this case, also very revealing. The SD government has chosen to prioritize large tax cuts for those with the highest incomes. At the same time, they have severely worsened the cash register, made medicine more expensive, refused to pay out electricity support despite sky-high electricity bills, and cut back on welfare – just to mention a few things, Mr. Speaker.
We Social Democrats have chosen a different path. In our Social Democratic budget proposal, we propose, among other things, better economic conditions for families with children, for example through increased child allowance, abolished care deductions, investments in jobs and education, strengthened resources for welfare, and investments in infrastructure and climate transition.
Mr. Speaker! Nine out of ten Swedes would get more in their wallets with the Social Democrats' policy than with the SD government's policy. It is actually a completely different direction. If anything, it is a policy for jobs, growth, and economic security.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! The time we live in is, to say the least, turbulent and has been for a long time. Ever since the pandemic, we have, together with many other countries, struggled in different ways. People have struggled with both health and economy. We have a war in our neighborhood. We have had very high inflation. Right now, we also have an American administration that is very unpredictable and affects us in different ways.
In such a situation, it is obvious to take responsibility – take responsibility for the economic policy here and now, but also for the Swedish economy to grow in the long run. The economy must become larger so that we can do everything we need to do in the years ahead and hand over a better Sweden to future generations.
When we took office, Mr. Speaker, we inherited an inflation that was double-digit. We had a growth rate that was among the lowest in the EU. For me, it has been incredibly important and a priority to work according to a clear plan. The first part was to press down and combat the high inflation. Now it is low, Mr. Speaker, which is very good. We know what high inflation does to people. You get less for your money. Housing costs, interest rates, and other things also become very high and make it tough.
So, inflation was one thing. It is being fought now.
The second part that was important and that I have worked on from day one is about growth: to get the wheels turning in the short term but also to get the economy to grow. We are doing that now step by step. This year, the commission expects that Sweden will have one of the highest growth rates in the EU. What does that depend on? Yes, the led policy. Our large investments – 6 percent of GDP this year – make Sweden one of the countries in the EU that makes the largest investments. Those investments yield jobs: new employment opportunities and more jobs for small business owners. It is a very important part of the policy to invest for the future.
Here and now? The recession was extended due to Trump's announcement last spring, but in the last six quarters we have seen that households are actually increasing consumption again. That is good. I believe and hope that Peder Björk wants what is best for Sweden and the Swedish economy, and we know that the recession right now is largely caused by low domestic demand.
That is why we have presented a budget that is expansive. It contains a good deal of tax cuts. Approximately half are temporary, half permanent. For example, the food VAT is lowered on April 1, which will make food cheaper. I do not know if Peder Björk has ever proposed this or had that policy passed. We also ensure that the tax is lowered for everyone. It is important to point out, even if some parties do not really want to admit it.
Step by step, we ensure that people can feel safe enough to dare to move forward. That is what will be able to break the recession. When people dare to invest – perhaps dare and can go to a restaurant, take the children to the cinema, or whatever it may be – it also creates jobs.
Many small companies in the service and service industry have had it tough because many have held back their consumption. If the wheels are to turn, one must therefore ensure that people get more money in their wallets.
Regarding what Peder Björk said about nine out of ten Swedes: If you look at the purchasing power, you see that it is not at all like that. The Social Democrats, for example, do not include the bank tax of 12–13 billion. It is as if it is not to be paid by anyone.
One can do a lot with statistics. I will always be transparent about what I do and why I do it. For my part, it is about continuing to do what I believe is right: to strengthen people who work.
One can have many opinions about the job tax credit, but the whole point now is that those who have worked during the years of high inflation have had no other compensation. To both have the right reforms structurally and additionally strengthen people's wallets is, therefore, the right policy now.
Peder Björk (S)
Mr. Speaker! I think the Finance Minister's latest contribution was very telling of this government's economic policy. One likes to talk about history. One always thinks it is someone else's fault when the government's economic policy does not work. When it was toughest during the last two years, there was also no interest whatsoever in supporting the households that had it the toughest.
Mr. Speaker! The government obviously completely lacks the ability to understand the developments in the Swedish economy. The other day, the Finance Minister was forced to admit once again that she had misjudged the growth in Sweden. Throughout the entire mandate period, the government has pursued a perverse economic policy. They have burned all the money, and despite this, it is the ordinary people who are constantly forced to step back. We have mass unemployment, and now the Finance Minister admits once again that she, as she said, has misjudged the Swedish growth.
We Social Democrats have previously demanded that the government produce a protection plan for the Swedish economy. Instead, the Finance Minister says – a bit flippantly, I must say – that the economy is Trump-proof. Every Swede knows that it is not. Sweden is strongly dependent on what happens in our global environment.
The government says that the economy will turn soon, while at the same time unemployment is high, bankruptcies are increasing and growth is weak. In that case, it is not enough to just walk around and hope and then blame it on someone else's fault that things are not going as planned.
A government that truly takes responsibility in a restless time, Mr. Speaker, plans for the worst and hopes for the best. This government does exactly the opposite. Sweden clearly needs a new direction.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would perhaps recommend that Peder Björk speak with his party leader. She often mentions the first cornerstone of macroeconomics, which concerns cyclical policy. The purpose of having a framework is that we should have our finances in order. Today we have a national debt that is lower than when Magdalena Andersson finished as Finance Minister. One only has to go back and check how it looked in 2021.
My point is that we have this framework precisely in order to be able to support in difficult times. That is what distinguishes Sweden from many other countries – and that is something we also agree on: We save in better times to have resources in worse times. We now have both war in our immediate vicinity, in Ukraine, and large military expenditures ahead of us. To then use the strength in our public finances is completely reasonable. The Social Democrats also think so, since you stand behind all of this.
Peder Björk's way of expressing himself surprises me. He thinks I am nonchalant, or whatever expression he used now. To be honest: We have exactly the same deficit. One has a deficit in a recession. Furthermore, the largest part concerns Ukraine and defense. I will never be ashamed of being involved and contributing to it.
The government's policy is working. We will now have higher growth than many other countries. That is due to the fiscal policy. That is the case. It is also now that the national debt is low.
The Social Democrats want to paint a dark picture of the Swedish economy. We have our challenges, and we are very dependent on what happens around us. That is absolutely clear. Precisely for that reason, we shall continue to safeguard having world-class public finances.
When there is a crisis or war blowing around us, we can still stand strong. We can do that because we keep things in order. And one thing you can be absolutely sure of: If you want the economy to grow and for people to have it better, you must not do as the Socialdemokrater do and raise the tax on work and entrepreneurship. It will not lead to a stronger, safer and wealthier Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.