Response to interpellation 2025/26:550 on the government's economic policy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the government's economic policy. M argues that the policy has strengthened the household economy for families with children 1 2 3, been transparent 1 2 3 and used the strength of the public economy to break the recession and combat inflation 3. M emphasizes that they have lowered taxes on work, pension, savings, and fuel 2 3, strengthened the work line through a benefit reform 3 as well as lowered public transport fares and raised the ceiling for the housing allowance 3. M argues that they are building a fairer Sweden where effort should pay off 3 and that Sweden can become the richest country in the EU within ten years 4. S argues that the government's figures are difficult to see through 5 and that they do not correspond to the reality for many families 5. S argues that the actual money in the wallet is significantly lower for single parents 6 and that their own economic policy would have benefited more 6.
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)
Madam Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me what assumptions underlie the claim that the government's policy has resulted in a family with a police officer, a nurse, and two preschool-aged children receiving more than 5,000 kronor more per month in 2026 compared to 2022.
In the 2026 budget bill (prop. 2025/26:1) and in the latest spring bill (prop. 2025/26:100), there is detailed documentation of the assumptions on which the calculation rests. This concerns, for example, average monthly salaries for a full-time working police officer and a nurse – figures that have been obtained from the structural wage statistics. The documentation also shows, among other things, that the effect on household finances of reduced value-added tax on food is based on the Consumer Agency's assumptions regarding a reasonable consumption standard, while the effects of reduced fuel tax and reduced electricity tax are based on reasonable assumptions regarding households' gasoline and electricity consumption.
Adrian Magnusson has also asked me what part of the reported income increase is a direct consequence of the government's political decisions, and what part is explained by wage increases and other factors that are not dependent on the government's policy.
The answer is that the family with children in question receives 5,000 kronor more per month thanks to the government's budgets during the mandate period. Wage increases and other factors are not part of the calculation.
Adrian Magnusson has further asked me if the government has made any calculation of how the same family's purchasing power has developed after taking into account inflation, interest rate developments, and increased living costs.
No, the calculations focus on the effects of the government's measures on the household economy. In the latest spring bill, however, it appears that the household with a police officer and a nurse has received a significant real income increase during the mandate period – the household is estimated to have received a total nominal increase of its household economy of 21 percent during the years 2023–2026. During the same period, the total inflation was 12.5 percent.
Adrian Magnusson has finally asked me if I consider that the government's communication gives a representative picture of the economic situation for Swedish families with children in general.
The example of a police officer and a nurse with medium salaries is an example of how the government's policy has supported ordinary families with children. It appears from the 2026 budget bill that even a single low-income earner with children has received a significant reinforcement thanks to the government's policy.
So yes, the government's communication gives a good picture of how the government's policy has contributed to strengthening the household economy for ordinary families with hard-working parents of small children.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Finance for the answer to the interpellation! It was as expected, an answer that was positive towards the government's policy which has been driven during the mandate period, and it would otherwise be strange.
The communication from the government and the Moderaterna has revolved a lot around the 5,000 kronor that a family is claimed to receive in their wallet every month. One becomes a bit curious about how this has been calculated, because if there is one thing I have not heard in conversations with people all over the country, it is that they have received a lot more money in their wallet. Rather the opposite, Madam Speaker.
I have thought it has been quite interesting how they have arrived at that amount. On repeated occasions, I have requested help from the Riksdag's investigation service to calculate what figures and underlying data the Moderaterna and the government have used to arrive at their example.
It has turned out to be not a completely simple task. I have received references to the distribution policy report in the spring budget bill. I have read that, just as I have read what the minister read out here.
The question could perhaps have been left there. But then I saw the moderate communication increase, and that it also had to be taken back once. Then I became even more curious about what figures have been used.
It is mentioned, among other things, that part of the amount consists of "adjustments of job tax credit etc." I asked the Riksdag's investigation service what that could be. They replied: "It is difficult for us to confirm or refute the items you presented as we cannot find information on what, for example, 'adjustments of job tax credit etc.' consists of or how the other items have been calculated."
This is what makes it interesting. It is difficult to refute the information. But when you are out and talking to people all around in this country, there is nowhere you notice the reinforcement in the household budget that the government and the Finance Minister claim has occurred.
In conversations with people I have when I am in town, knocking on doors, or when I talk politics in certain social contexts, which one has to expect, it is rather the increasingly smaller margins that are brought up, despite the claims the government makes about income supplements.
Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar had a debate article in Aftonbladet at the end of May. They base their argument on the premise that those who receive more money in their wallets are those who are above the threshold for state tax. I do not know if that is how the government has calculated it. The Finance Minister can certainly confirm or deny this here in the debate today.
Regardless, Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar write in their article that a single mother with an income of 25,000 kronor who lives in a rental apartment and uses public transport has not received any 5,000 kronor more in her wallet per month at all. According to the article, that person instead goes into the red by over 3,000 kronor per month.
According to the same article, food prices have increased by 26 percent since 2022, and the same family that Sweden's Flawless Parents mentions in the example I have just described pays 2,000 kronor more per month for food than they did at the beginning of this parliamentary term.
The government's communication that is issued says nothing directly about the housing type. One might perhaps guess what it is. But is it a villa or a rental apartment that this police officer and nurse lives in?
The high-cost protection for medicines has also been increased, so one can assume that the family used for the communication is perfectly healthy. Or is it something I have misunderstood?
It is somewhere here that the question marks get stuck and are not resolved. The government can, of course, communicate this however it wishes, but where are these people who have received 5,000 kronor more per month in reality?
Where is this family that has received 5,000 kronor more to move with and feels it in their everyday lives? It does not become any easier for a member who belongs to the opposition, as parts of the government's figures are incredibly difficult to penetrate. It raises more questions than answers in some parts.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Adrian Magnusson, for allowing me to be here and speak about our initiatives for families with children!
It has been an incredibly tough time for many Swedes. It has been difficult, with high inflation. Even though inflation is now being fought by the government, the Riksbank and the parties together, it is still the case that prices are and have been high for a long period. If one lives, for example, as the interpellor mentions, in a rental apartment with higher rent, it has become and been tough for many.
The whole point of what we have done during the last few years – to lower taxes on work and pension, and now also to halve the food VAT for a year and nine months and much more – is to be able to support and be a buffer from the position of strength that the Swedish economy has. One cannot compensate for everything. It is not possible, but we have supported and facilitated for many. That said, there are still many who are having a tough time.
Let me mention a few things. We have, as I mentioned, lowered the tax for working people. We have also, as the interpellator has surely noticed, changed the reduction obligation quite significantly. While the Social Democrats drove up the price of fuels, we brought it down.
We have also now lowered the tax on savings and investments with ISK. This means that people, whether they voted for the left or the right, get to share in the returns and save to have a buffer for the future or for whatever may be needed now.
That questioning of 5,500 kronor does absolutely nothing. It is quite obvious that this can be derived. The Riksdag's investigation service is welcome to call one of my officials, and they can resolve it. There is no secret or anything non-transparent.
The budget bill is a large product. But it is also very clear how we report. Also, do not forget that the Ministry of Finance's officials, for example, report the distribution in exactly the same way today as they did 5, 10, and 15 years ago.
It is not politicians who decide, for example, how the distribution diagrams should look. They show answers in white that it is most to those who earn the least, percentage-wise. That is always how we measure, and that is how it has been measured also under previous governments.
Now we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. In an unpredictable and uncertain world, we have had the opportunity to strengthen the Swedes' economy. We, the Moderates, want to continue to do that during the next mandate period. We have also presented the financing for how it is to be done.
That people de facto have received more money in their wallets can Adrian Magnusson, if he does not trust the Ministry of Finance, also see from other forecasters and experts. A typical family has received a boost in their finances. It is thanks to this government.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I have also noted what the government sometimes communicates. It is argued that in percentage terms, those who have earned the least have benefited the most from the government's policy. Now, one does not pay bills in percentages, Madam Speaker, but one pays with actual money. That is what has any significance. There could have been significantly larger effects in actual money if one had not only looked at percentages.
With the Social Democrats' economic policy, nine out of ten would have had more in their wallets. There are clear figures on this from the Riksdag's investigation service for those who wish to study it.
Let us go back to the distributional policy account that the Minister for Finance refers to. There are examples listed, just as the Minister for Finance mentions, and it is in order.
One becomes a bit interested in the police officer and nurse mentioned in the example, because it is probably not exactly the ordinary police officer who patrols the town. It is probably a police officer who earns quite well in money, who probably lives in a larger city in this country and who also drives a lot. That is how it seems given how the tables are set up.
It is also interesting when the government talks about 5,000 kronor and that it would be a direct effect of the government's policy.
If one looks at table 5.4 on page 35 in the distribution policy report, one sees that it says as follows: Nominal reinforcement of the household's economy – and so on – of which the effect of annual indexations in the tax system, given unchanged rules, i.e., such as occurs with some kind of automaticity, constitutes 1,650 kronor for this police officer, who one must assume is in the higher income bracket among police officers, and the nurse.
If the government now wants to communicate these 5,000 kronor and says that it is correct, one can therefore subtract, in large terms, 1,700 kronor at once.
One can compare these 5,000 kronor with what applies to a single healthcare assistant with two children, who also appears in the table that the Finance Minister refers to. Two children are for a single healthcare assistant just as many children to support as for the family with the police officer and the nurse. The amount to support is the same.
In the table, one can see that the nominal reinforcement of the household's economy 2023–2026 has been 13,330 kronor for a cohabiting police officer and nurse with two children who are three and five years old respectively. One must assume that the parents are in the higher income bracket regarding these occupational groups. The single care assistant with two children aged three and five respectively has received 4,890 kronor. It is a significant difference – almost 10,000 kronor or at least almost 9,000.
It is clear that one can stand here and talk oneself into a lather about percentages and so on, but as I said at the beginning of the debate: Bills are not paid in percentages. They are paid with actual money. And one can therefore see that some of the government's policies have not to the same extent benefited the group that, for example, Makalösa Föräldrar mentions: single parents with two children who live in rented apartments and travel a lot by public transport. What I can see is that it does not appear in the tables how these people live otherwise, but one can probably assume that they do not live in a villa.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Adrian Magnusson, for the opportunity to speak about the economy of hard-working people!
Through four budgets here in the Swedish Riksdag, the government has had a majority to lower taxes for hard-working people and let people keep more of their own wages in their pockets. It has been extra important in a time when the effects of inflation have hit so very many in Sweden. The government wants to continue on that path.
I partially understand, Madam Speaker, why the Social Democrats are trying to turn this around and make it some kind of exercise about how we at the Ministry of Finance would not provide, show, or report figures in a transparent manner. Sweden is probably one of the countries in both Europe and the world that is most transparent with decision-making bases.
The figures for an average family with children, of course, depend on exactly where one lives. The point is that the government, through the policy we have pursued, has strengthened the economy when calculated against how it would have been if we had not implemented all the policy that we are now implementing.
I would like to, on this day before Midsummer, take the opportunity to tell a little bit about what the government has done for the Swedes in a difficult time by reprioritizing in the state budget. We have been able to lower the tax, as I said, step by step on both pension and work. We have changed the fuel prices, and we have lowered the tax on ISK. On July 1, if not too long from now, we are lowering the preschool fee. A month or two ago, we halved the food VAT, for example.
All of this is important for building protective barriers around the Swedes' economy. But it is also about using the strength we have in the public economy to break the recession that we find ourselves in. Sweden stands out compared to many other countries. We have a stable foundation. We have strong public finances, and we can facilitate things for people.
It is perfectly clear that it is this government that has done all of this that I have just said and much, much more. It is this government that fought the inflation that stood at a little over 10 percent when I became Finance Minister. It is this government that strengthens the work line and ensures that the benefit reform we have decided on is implemented so that more people can work. They should not only be able to benefit from the tax cuts but also have a job and an income to live on. Their children shall see their parents go to work.
Step by step, we are building a fairer Sweden. We let people keep more of their own wages. Effort shall pay off. At the same time, we shall, of course, have a really good safety net for those who need it the most.
But – or – facilitating things for Swedish families in a difficult time will not happen by itself. In other places, for example in this municipality, the Social Democrats have raised the tax on a couple of occasions for hard-working families with children and single mothers, while the government has lowered it.
We have also ensured that the leisure card, which has been of benefit to many single parents who have had it the toughest, has been a help. It is also very clear that what we are doing now by halving the public transport fee for half a year is important for very many. Finally: We raised the ceiling for the housing allowance. It had not been done since 1997.
All of this, Madam Speaker, the government has done. More needs to be done, and more can be done by us moving forward if the Swedish economy continues to be in a recession and the crisis in the Middle East does not move towards the end that we hope for.
I thank you for the debate and wish you a happy Midsummer while I listen to the closing remarks.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance would like to have this into a discussion about transparency at the Ministry of Finance and that I should question the Ministry of Finance's figures. But it is the National Association of Sweden's Peerless Parents who states that a common family with children does not get 5,000 kronor more but instead goes into the red by 3,000 kronor, according to the example in the association's article.
I do not quite know what the Finance Minister means. If she wants to claim that this is a Social Democratic campaign, she is welcome to do so. It is not I who have written the article, but as was said, it is an association that works with single mothers, above all, who are struggling financially. The Finance Minister may well have a discussion with them in that case.
I listened a bit to the debates here this morning. If the Minister for Finance wants to continue to push the thesis that this policy aims to strengthen the work line, she should really sit down and review the policy that has been pursued. Sweden has more unemployed people today than we had in 2022. I actually think it is quite brave to say that the policy aims to strengthen the work line, because in that case, it has not succeeded.
It is also about politics in some way combating the recession. It strengthens the thesis that people do not notice these 5,000 kronor more in their everyday lives, because if it is something that holds back the Swedish economy, it is that households are not spending enough. One can truly question whether it is the case that ordinary people all around in this country really feel that they have received 5,000 kronor more in their wallets.
In the conversations I have had with voters across the country, I have not received the impression that people are walking around thinking: I have received 5,000 kronor more in my wallet! They probably think instead that the margin is even tougher than it was in 2022.
I suppose I must thank you for this debate and see if the Minister for Finance uses his final contribution.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I will keep it very brief, apart from wishing you a happy Midsummer.
Yes, I know, and that is why the government has worked so diligently to facilitate things for people. These have been tough times; many feel it. Therefore, it has been important to provide support, and the government has been able to do so. That is what I want to continue to do. Sweden and the Swedes shall become the richest country in the EU within ten years, that is to say, have the highest prosperity. That we can reach.
Now I wish a happy Midsummer once again and thank you for the debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.