Response to interpellation 2025/26:549 on the finances 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 as well as lowered food VAT and childcare fees 1. M claims that unemployment is falling and that the focus on the work principle is the best tool against economic vulnerability 2. M argues that S's proposal for increased child allowance lacks funding and is a benefit line rather than a work line 3. M argues that economic security is created through hard work and saved wages 4. S argues that families with children are affected by high prices and that child poverty is one of the country's biggest social problems 5 6. S argues that they have financed previous child allowance increases and that their policy benefits nine out of ten Swedes 7. SD argues that workers keep more of their salary thanks to tax cuts and indexations 8. SD emphasizes that they have increased the housing allowance for families with the worst finances and lowered the food VAT 8. SD claims that child poverty is now at its lowest in ten years 8. SD considers that general benefit increases are expensive and that it is better to target the support to those who have the greatest need 9. SD argues that the long-term way out of child poverty is that more adults enter the workforce 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.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Sanne Lennström has asked the Minister for Finance what responsibility she considers the government to have to, through its economic policy, strengthen households' ability to bear the increased costs that follow from having children and what measures she takes to live up to that responsibility. The work within the government is so distributed that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
In worrying times, the economy becomes an increasingly important factor for more and more people. We inherited sky-high inflation, skyrocketing interest rates, and a prolonged recession. Now, inflation has been fought down. Interest rates have been pushed back, and food prices are falling.
During the mandate period, the government has taken a number of measures to support households and strengthen their purchasing power. The government has, among other things, eased the tax burden through reduced taxes on work, pension, savings, entrepreneurship, and transport. The government has also supported households through reduced food VAT, reduced childcare fees, and raised housing cost limits in the housing allowance, which particularly benefits families with children with low incomes.
A family with two children has, as a result of our budgets during the mandate period, received approximately 5,000 kronor more per month, and a single parent who is a care assistant with two children has received approximately 3,200 kronor more per month. This has truly made a difference, which can be seen in the distributional policy report that is made every year in our government bill. It is right and just that those who work get to keep more of their earned money.
Good economic growth lays the foundation for a society that grows and becomes stronger. Therefore, it is extra pleasing that Sweden has moved from the absolute bottom of the EU when it comes to growth, where the country stood when we took over in 2022, to now belonging to the top, according to the EU Commission.
The Government has, through extra supplementary budgets for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:236 and 2025/26:275), proposed additional measures to support households and the economic recovery, including a reduced tax on petrol and diesel, a new electricity and gas support, and a new support for reduced prices in public transport. The Riksdag has also decided in accordance with the Government's proposal, which is particularly pleasing.
The government's policy has, viewed over the entire mandate period, given the most to those who earn the least. The effects on household finances as a result of the government's measures during the mandate period show that the economy has been strengthened most, in percentage terms, in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least in the two highest income groups. This has also led to an increase in the population's economic standard and to a decrease in the proportion with low income standard during the mandate period.
The best tool for breaking economic vulnerability and counteracting low economic standards is, however, own income from work. To help economically vulnerable households in the longer term, it is therefore incredibly important that more people get into work.
The government is taking a number of different measures aimed at strengthening the work line and making it more profitable to move from benefits to work. More parents going to work means that children receive a more stable economic situation and a higher economic standard, which is beneficial for children's development and security. This is reflected in the fact that only about 2 percent of cohabiting households with two working parents have a low economic standard. When it comes to cohabiting households where neither parent is working, the proportion with a low economic standard is, on the other hand, very high – around 85 percent.
Since the interpellator reported that she was prevented from attending the meeting, the Speaker granted that Arber Gashi (S) instead participated in the interpellation debate.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer. I apologize that it is not Sanne Lennström who is standing here and hope that the Minister is not too disappointed by that. The question was, on the other hand, addressed to the Minister for Finance, so it should balance out.
SEB has now determined that a child costs around 2.2 million kronor until the age of majority. It is an amount that I believe many find difficult to grasp, but let us think about it. Prices have skyrocketed. Rents have increased. Interest rates are rising. Food costs have risen. We have a sharply increasing unemployment rate, and at the same time, the severance pay has been lowered for many who have been laid off. Around 730,000 people live in material and social poverty, and over 400,000 people live in serious poverty. It is a sharp increase in just a few years. According to Save the Children, 276,000 children – approximately every eighth child – live in economic vulnerability. According to Sweden's City Missions, there are nearly 10,000 homeless children, and here the number of unreported cases is estimated to be large.
Despite all this, the support for families with children has remained stagnant. The child allowance remains at the same level as in 2018. While all of Sweden's neighboring countries have increased the child allowance in the cost crisis, this government has flatly refused. Reports show that it is 50 years since one could buy so little for the child allowance.
Halfway through the parliamentary term, the government practically implemented a reduction of the housing allowance. This is said not only by the Social Democrats but also by Majblomman, Rädda Barnen, Röda Korset, and Hyresgästföreningen. One has to ask: Is it really the entire civil society that has misunderstood reality, or is it the government?
The vast majority describe the same reality. It has become much more expensive to have children, of which already too few are born. I believe that very many parents recognize the feeling. You sit at the kitchen table. The salary has arrived. The bills are in a pile. The children ask if they can go to the football camp, go to the cinema with friends, or go somewhere with the family during the summer holidays. Many have had to say for the first time: We cannot afford it.
For me, that is where Swedish family policy begins – not in any department's background material, but at Swedish kitchen tables.
This government has had four years to make it cheaper to be a family with children, but the result is that it is more expensive than ever. The question, therefore, is not what the government says it has done, but whether the Swedish people want four more years of this policy and whether the Swedish people can afford it.
I find it laughable to hear the minister talk about a reduced tax burden. If one earns as the minister himself does, one has probably felt it. Whether one is the Prime Minister or Jimmie Åkesson, one has felt it. They have received up to 6,000 kronor more per month through their own tax cuts. But ordinary people have noticed something else: that the money is not enough.
The government has had four budgets, four chances, to say that now it is the finances of families with children that matter, but all four times the government has chosen something else.
The child allowance remains at the same level as in 2018, not because the government forgot, but because the government chose to leave it out. Why has the government never prioritized the child allowance during these years?
Daniel Persson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance for the answer to the interpellation. Thanks also to the interpellator, who is not here, for an important question that we are now debating!
It is worth reminding that people working in Sweden now get to keep more of their salary. In 2023, no tax cuts were implemented. However, the historically high indexation of tax thresholds and basic deductions meant that many wage earners had between 200 and 300 kronor more left in their pockets every month. This was an effect of inflation and how our tax system is designed. In 2024, the government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, implemented another job tax deduction. Together with new indexations, this meant that a person with a median income paid around 410 kronor less in tax every month. In 2026, the tax has been lowered further, by up to 400 kronor per month.
Mr. Speaker! Overall, this means that an average worker in 2026 will be able to keep around 800–900 kronor more of their salary per month compared to 2022. On an annual basis, this corresponds to approximately 10,000 kronor more in their own pocket, which is a significant change. It provides better opportunities to manage everyday costs and is a clear reward for work.
Mr. Speaker! At the same time, the Sweden Democrats and the government have implemented important reforms for the families who are struggling the most financially. We have increased the housing allowance. Families with one child can receive up to 800 kronor more per month, and families with two or more children can receive 1,000 kronor more per month. It is a targeted support aimed at those with the poorest finances. Furthermore, it is the first time since 1997 that these levels in the housing allowance have been increased. It is also worth noting that this was not implemented when Sweden had Social Democratic-led governments.
We are also changing the way the housing allowance is calculated. Instead of being based on an estimated annual income, the allowance shall be calculated monthly. The purpose is to reduce the risk of incorrect payments, clawbacks, and indebtedness for the people the allowance is intended to help.
In addition, we have lowered the food VAT, which can mean a saving of around 6,500 kronor per year for a family with children. On July 1 of this year, the preschool fee was also lowered for virtually all families with children. In the autumn of 2025, the leisure card for children and young people was introduced. The basic amount is 550 kronor per child and calendar year. Children in economically vulnerable households can, however, receive a higher amount, 2,500 kronor per year for leisure activities.
We have also lowered the electricity tax across the entire country, which results in lower electricity costs for all households. We have also introduced a high-cost protection for high electricity prices, which is intended to provide security when electricity prices rise sharply over a longer period.
The Sweden Democrats and the government have implemented several proposals to strengthen household finances, and according to SCB, child poverty is now at its lowest in ten years. Our policy is therefore making a difference.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by answering the member's concluding question: Why have we not prioritized increasing the child allowance? Well, because we have prioritized lowering the tax for hard-working people, lowering the preschool fee for families with children, lowering the food VAT so that the grocery bag becomes cheaper, lowering the electricity tax and, not least, lowering the fuel taxes so that one can get to and from work, drop children off and pick them up from extracurricular activities, and get to sporting events.
Mr. Speaker! This does not give the 150 kronor per month that the member requests, but rather 5,000 kronor per month to hardworking mothers and fathers. That they get to keep more of their earned money makes a big difference.
Mr. Speaker! Something that also makes a difference is that we have succeeded in fighting sky-high inflation, which eroded both paychecks and savings, and that Sweden, according to the EU Commission, has moved from the absolute bottom of the EU league to being at the top. It is also a testament to the fact that the government's policy really works.
The Chairman said in his opening statement that Sweden has a strongly increasing unemployment. That is completely wrong. Unemployment has been falling for I don't know how many months in a row, and if one compares the month of June this year with the same month last year, Sweden now has 22,000 fewer unemployed.
All this is obviously good for Sweden, the Swedish people, and Swedish families with children. It should also gladden the opposition that Sweden today stands both stronger and better equipped to meet the challenges of the future.
That more people can keep more of their salary and that the money does not lose value faster than it can be earned is completely fundamental. But for more people to be able to leave exclusion, the jobs must increase and growth must rise.
The government is delivering on all points, and it looks significantly brighter now. In June this year, as was said, 22,000 more people were employed compared to the same month last year. According to Lars Calmfors, whom the opposition usually listens to, this is due to the fact that the pursued policy has yielded results. Taxes have been lowered, wages are rising faster than prices, and unemployment appears set to continue falling even during next year, which is extremely positive.
That it is going slowly, which I can agree it is, depends according to Calmfors on external factors. I am also impatient and would have liked to see the recovery come faster. It would also do so if Russia left Ukraine, peace was achieved, and the real journey of building a stronger Sweden could begin.
Mr. Speaker! To help economically vulnerable households in the long term and reduce child poverty, it is fundamentally about work, and it will continue to be so.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! A receipt that the government's policy is working, says the Minister. But in my previous speech, I listed one statistical fact after another and report after report that shows a completely different reality. Is it a receipt that the government's policy is working when every eighth child lives in poverty, child homelessness is increasing, 400,000 people live in severe poverty, and the queues to collect a food bag at city missions and elsewhere are getting longer and longer? It would be reasonable if this receipt that the government's policy is working was reflected out in reality, but it is not. The Minister, as usual, lists various tax cuts, which have primarily been utilized by the very richest. This reveals a large part of the government's problem: the inability to see the whole picture and the failure to do what is required for the country's families with children in a major cost crisis.
The government's answer to almost all social problems is the same: new tax cuts. But in reality, children need food at home, and winter is coming soon when new winter clothes are needed. Children need to be able to go to a competition, play football or dance without the parents having to worry about the next bill. We Social Democrats have therefore chosen a different path.
We also go to the polls and have many times in this chamber presented proposals to lower taxes, but not for the very richest. Instead, we want, for example, to double both the child allowance and the student grant before the summer holidays and Christmas holidays, just when families' expenses are at their highest. We do this for the simple reason that children should never have to pay the price during an economic crisis, which this government has instead made a certainty.
The government's response to the proposal has already become public. In recent days, the government made decisions which mean that the economically most vulnerable families will receive less support during the summer. Sweden's poorest children are to become slightly poorer. I think that says everything about the difference between our political priorities. The Moderates represent the interests of the rich. We will choose the interests of the families with children.
The Minister also repeats that it should pay to work, which is of course true, but children cannot wait for a labor market policy that does not exist in reality. Anna Tenje's colleagues in the government have not presented a single proposal on how more people should enter the workforce. On the other hand, they have recently started looking at how it should be easier to fire people. More focus is being directed toward increasing unemployment than toward lowering it.
Child poverty is not a problem only for children who grow up with small margins, it is one of our greatest societal problems. When children's opportunities are limited by the family's economy, Sweden risks deepening its divides both today and – above all – tomorrow. We know that children who grow up in economic vulnerability run a much greater risk of having poorer health, more difficult conditions in school, and weaker establishment on the labor market later in life.
I genuinely wonder: What balance sheet does Anna Tenje make on her family economic policy, given the outcome we have seen in reality?
Daniel Persson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! This is my final contribution, so I would like to take the opportunity to thank those who have participated in the debate.
We know that the Social Democrats have repeatedly proposed that the child allowance should be increased by 200 kronor per child per month. It is part of their work to strengthen child households. It would cost approximately 4.5 billion kronor per year and would cover all families with children, including high-income earners. For my part, such a reform would mean that I would receive approximately 400 kronor more in allowance per month.
Mr. Speaker! The question is whether this is the most effective way to use the taxpayers' money. I mean that it is an expensive reform that, to a limited extent, targets the families who have the greatest needs. If the goal is to reduce child poverty, it is better to strengthen the support to the households that actually have a difficult economic situation.
This is what the Sweden Democrats and the government do, for example, through increased housing allowance and a leisure card that provides 2,500 SEK per year for leisure activities. In addition to that, we have proposals that will provide lower preschool fees for practically all families and also halved food VAT. Lower prices on fuel also benefit many families with children.
Mr. Speaker! Grants can be necessary to help people through temporarily difficult situations, but the long-term way out of child poverty is not higher general grants. The long-term way is that more adults get into work and that it pays to work. That is why the Sweden Democrats and the government are strengthening the work line, lowering the tax on work, and directing the support to the families who need them most. It is a good policy that strengthens household finances here and now and creates conditions for the future.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! During an election year, as it is now, when there are not so many days left until the election – 33, I believe – it is extra important with this form of debate. It becomes a bit of consumer information.
When the Social Democrats say that they want to strengthen the economy for households with children and increase growth, it is appropriate to see what they actually propose. In their latest budget proposal, i.e., in practice their choice budget, they write about increased child allowance, but they do not put any money into their proposal.
Increased child allowance, which the Social Democrats propose, costs, as the member said earlier, 4.5–5 billion per year, and it goes to everyone, regardless of income – billionaires as well as low-income earners. Quite regardless of this, Mr. Speaker, whatever one may think about it, the Social Democrats have thus zero kronor allocated in their reform table.
If one is to be completely honest, the budget gap in the Social Democrats' election budget is significantly larger than that. Various calculations have been made, but approximately 50 billion is missing. And if one is to be completely honest, the gap is significantly larger than that given that the loyalty of the Left Party and the Green Party will hardly come for free.
This will therefore be expensive and very harmful for Sweden. Then one can ask the question: Who is going to pay for the party? It will be the companies, as usual, that have to bear this. Then we know that growth will be lower, jobs significantly fewer, and wages definitely not higher. Or it will be – also as usual – hard-working people who have to foot the bill.
During this parliamentary term, we have ensured that families with children get 5,000 kronor more in their wallets every month. They are not high-income earners but normal-income earners in Sweden. They will now get significantly less money in their wallets. Instead, they shall – possibly, maybe, potentially, if one pushes it – get higher child allowance; it might be 400 kronor more in the wallet.
I think this becomes a rather clear and good illustration of the Social Democrats' entire political idea. They are happy to speak in big words about investments and that they certainly want to strengthen families with children, but it does not happen through lowered taxes on labor but through increased benefits. It is not the work line that applies, but the benefit line, which they defend with tooth and claw.
I think this falls quite flat given that the proposals are not funded. I think that a government-capable party should do that. If one lays claim to the Prime Minister's post, one should definitely fund one's proposals. It is simply a matter of promising a lot but delivering little.
We in the government have instead many times proven that it is possible to create growth, fight inflation, create jobs and reduce exclusion without penalizing the single mother who works overtime, the student who works extra, or the family who saves for the future in an ISK and owns their own home. All of this can be done without tearing down, limiting, or stopping hard-working people. I believe that it is precisely this that the Swedish people will embrace and also appreciate when they head to the polls in September.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! Whether the Social Democrats finance their proposals or not, I think I will let the voters decide. Increases in child allowance we have always financed. Every time an increase in the child allowance has occurred, it is because the Social Democrats have financed it. I believe that the vast majority are quite calm in that respect.
We have had the Riksdag's investigation service analyze our economic proposals, and it is quite clear: Nine out of ten Swedes benefit from a Social Democratic economic policy. Those who do not are the richest tenth. That is where the difference lies. The way the government chooses to finance its proposals we also know now: They borrow over 200,000 kronor per minute to finance all their election messages, which were very late and clear.
I want to devote my last minute to looking forward and raising a clear warning finger for what the government may do if they continue to receive confidence. A couple of weeks ago, a government inquiry was presented on how to make preschool better. There were many good proposals regarding smaller child groups and better quality. But when the investigator came to the question of how it should be financed – on the topic of financing – the proposal was that it should be done by lowering the parental leave pay from 80 to 67 percent of the income.
Furthermore, it is proposed that the multi-child supplement to the child allowance should be abolished. For a nursing assistant with a salary of 34,900 kronor, this change would mean that the parental leave benefit is reduced by around 5,000 kronor per month. One would never allow a sick person to pay for investments in healthcare with their sickness benefit, but here there is the risk that those on parental leave will pay for investments in preschool with their parental leave benefit. That, Mr. Speaker, would be devastating for the country's families with children.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Allow me to briefly carry out an educational effort for the members. I understand that you have been on summer break and may be a bit rusty, but let me underline this once again, especially for any listeners and voters, because the members are whipping up quite a lot of anxiety and perhaps fear – consciously or unconsciously – regarding what is to come.
I am not familiar with the investigation, but what I do know is that investigators are not the government's representatives. Nor are they the parliament's representatives; at least very rarely. You have no idea, Mr. Speaker, how often I receive proposals from investigators that point out different ways to finance things and matters.
The multi-child supplement, especially the one for the second child, has been pulled at many times. It corresponds to 2.3 billion, and it is used frequently by investigators to finance various different proposals that fall within the framework. The member is now trying to make it so that this should be an opinion that the government stands for or a proposal that the government shall present. It is very wrong and actually also, Mr. Speaker, a bit ugly.
With that said, I will do everything in my power to continue driving Sweden in the direction that allows more people to feel economic security at the end of each month. That is achieved through hard work, diligence, and saved wages, and this shall pay off even more. Above all, it is about more children seeing their parents go to work, for that is the single most important measure to take children out of economic vulnerability and break exclusion. We shall ensure that they do not have to inherit the exclusion that their parents are in. It is something that inspires me.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.