Response to interpellation 2025/26:575 on tax cuts for high-income earners

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is nice to have so many Social Democrats in the audience when I speak!

Against the background of the government's tax policy during the past parliamentary term, Mattias Vepsä has asked me if I intend to take the initiative for further tax cuts and how, if so, I intend to finance such tax cuts.

What the tax policy will look like during the next mandate period will be decided by the government that the voters give their confidence to in the autumn election.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats agree to continue strengthening the economy for hard-working people, and we agree that we will not raise any taxes on work or savings during the next mandate period if we receive the voters' confidence.

During this mandate period, the government's focus has been to strengthen the economy of hard-working people, accelerate Swedish growth, and take Sweden out of the recession. We have lowered taxes on work and pensions, on fuels and electricity, on food, and on savings. We have lowered employer contributions for young people so that the cost of employing young people has become lower, and we have lowered the preschool fee. Thanks to the government's policy, an ordinary family with children has approximately 5,000 kronor more in their wallet this year compared to 2022, and an ordinary retiree has approximately 2,200 kronor more in their wallet. That makes a real difference. It has been possible because we have reprioritized nearly 50 billion kronor in the state budget during the mandate period. We have thus financed large parts of the income tax cuts.

At the same time, Sweden, despite an uncertain global situation, has good conditions for recovery and is expected to grow faster than the EU average, according to the European Commission's forecasts. At the same time, we have been able to make historic investments in defense and support for Ukraine – investments that the Social Democrats have also stood behind.

The government's reforms have not primarily benefited those with the highest incomes. On the contrary, distribution analyses of the government's policy show that the greatest improvements have gone to persons with low and medium-high incomes. Income inequalities in Sweden are also judged to have decreased since 2022 after reaching record-high levels during the previous Social Democratic-led government.

At the same time, the national debt is lower today than it was in 2021. The government's policy has therefore both strengthened household finances and safeguarded sound public finances.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer and for the opportunity to have this important debate in the final stage of the election campaign – or the start of the final sprint!

In the spring, a high-profile report was released regarding the economic situation for families with children. Hyresgästföreningen, Rädda Barnen, Majblomman and Röda Korset pointed out that the economic vulnerability for the country's families remains very high, especially among single parents with low incomes.

The proportion of single people with low incomes who have become liable for payment after missing a bill has increased from 13 percent in 2023 to almost 30 percent in 2026.

Every third single parent and every fifth cohabiting person with low incomes has had difficulty paying the rent or the mortgage at some point during the last few years or the last half year. Among other families, the figure is 3 percent.

Almost half of all single parents with low incomes have had to borrow money from a relative or from the bank to pay for basic expenses. Every other single parent with low incomes has had difficulties buying nutritious food every day of the week, and among cohabiting parents with low incomes, just over one-third state that they have had difficulties with this.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is being torn apart, and this debate is about the fact that the Finance Minister and the government are going to the election on continuing to present proposals that tear Sweden apart and increase people's vulnerability. During the cost-of-living crisis, the government has chosen to lower taxes most of all for those who have the most.

The Minister for Finance argues in her response that inequality is now decreasing, but she refers to the government's own model regarding how the reforms affect the income group. The actual development, however, gives a different picture. When capital income is included, income inequalities increased from 2024, and the richest decile has received the most and increased its income the most.

The government has chosen a side. They are implementing enormous tax cuts with borrowed money – 200,000 kronor per minute – and the Prime Minister himself has received 6,000 kronor more per month as an effect of his own tax cuts. It has become luxury-rot and an exclusive tax bonus for those who earn over 66,000 kronor per month.

At the same time, unemployment has increased by almost 100,000 people. It has been made more expensive to pick up medicines, fees in dental care for young people have been raised, and the welfare system has been worsened. This has occurred despite the fact that the government side's largest party, Sverigedemokraterna, promised that they would not do so.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, the welfare system is being pressed very hard. Healthcare staff are sounding the alarm about pressured operations, classrooms are overcrowded, and staff in elderly care are having to run faster and faster. Just as in the report I previously quoted, the situation for the country's families with children has become increasingly tough. Rents and interest rates have increased, food has become more expensive, and leisure activities cost more and more. It is therefore ordinary households and ordinary families who have had to pay for the high-income earners' tax bonuses, and future generations have been saddled with debt.

The Minister for Finance does not want to answer this simple question: Will this unjust tax policy remain in place if there is a Moderate Finance Minister after the election?

Nor neither could the Prime Minister in P1 last week explain or present a plan for the Moderates' election promise to strengthen families' finances.

The Social Democrats' plan involves, among other things, a stop to tax bonuses for the very wealthiest, a fair economic policy, an abolished karenz deduction, and a doubled child allowance for the country's families with children at Christmas and during the summer. That is where the political dividing line lies.

Shall we continue with tax cuts that benefit those who already have, or shall we strengthen the finances of families with children and ordinary families? The question must be answered: Will moderate tax cuts also in the future be paid for with weaker safety nets, poorer welfare, and a tougher everyday life for the country's families?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by thanking Mattias Vepsä for this question.

When I became Finance Minister nearly four years ago, Sweden had an inflation of 10 percent. It hit ordinary wage earners extremely hard. We were in 22nd place in the EU's growth list. We had high unemployment as a result of both high migration and failed integration, and unemployment was high even in a boom. There were also enormous investment needs in defense, in infrastructure, and in the justice system.

Being able to reverse this was a priority for the government and, of course, for all four Tidö parties. The task was to reverse the crime development, strengthen the Swedish economy, and ensure that Swedes' finances became more stable.

It has been four tough years with a turbulent world and unpredictable leadership in, for example, the USA. In the midst of all this, we have done a cleanup job that I am fundamentally proud of, but which I want to continue because it is not finished.

According to the forecasts, Sweden will have the lowest inflation in the entire EU this year, and today 100,000 more people are employed than during 2022. Yes, we are in a recession, but it is turning now. It is also the case that Sweden in this recession has very strong public finances and one of the lowest public debts in the entire EU.

To tackle the challenges, work with them and clean among them was important. For example, we had two restrained budgets during the first two years because we did not want to drive up inflation.

The second part, which I am happy and proud of, is that we have addressed the work line. We are now launching the largest subsidy reform ever, or at least in modern times. It means that one must qualify for welfare when coming to Sweden, and what I perhaps think is best is the activity requirement – that all people who receive subsistence support must be active. We also have a subsidy ceiling that ensures it will always pay to work for all families. These are important parts for us and for me.

Of course, the tax system is also completely central, and therefore I appreciate this question. Something I may have touched upon earlier is that I think the Social Democrats and other parties have a talking point that is always used, namely that we favor high-income earners.

It is 20 years since I entered the Riksdag, and I have had the pleasure of lowering the tax ten times. It has always been the case that it is mostly for those who earn the least. If one, for example, has a salary of 25,000, one pays approximately 4,500 kronor in tax per month.

Regarding the question the member poses, I would like to know how much a person who earns five times as much – 125,000 – pays. What tax rate does she have compared to the one who earns 25,000 kronor? I think one should be able to answer that question if, in every breath and every sentence, one speaks about how high-income earners are practically not taxed. So that is how it sounds from the Social Democrats' side.

It is important that everyone participates and contributes and pays tax, and it is important that everyone does what they can. However, it is not the case that a person who earns 125,000 pays no tax, so I would very much like to get an answer to this in a short quiz this Tuesday morning.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the opportunity to engage in a political sparring match! It is not every day of the week that one has the wonderful opportunity to come to the Riksdag to be part of such a thing.

I think directly of when I went and bought milk yesterday. A liter of milk costs about 14–15 kronor, and it does so regardless of whether you have 125,000 kronor a month or 24,000 kronor a month. This means that it will be more important for those who earn very little, and that in the final analysis, one wins from a society that holds together and where one can afford to pay both the rent, which has shot up in price, and the food, which has become more expensive. It is also about all the fees that exist in the welfare system or in the security systems being calculated and following the income development so that one can actually afford that milk in everyday life.

The greatest effect of an unfair tax policy is surely the gaps – the cracks – in the welfare system, and it is for this that the government must be held accountable.

In my speech, I raised how things are moving faster and faster in elderly care and how in healthcare in Region Skåne – where one suffers under both a bourgeois government and a bourgeois regional government – they are forced to give the newly born babies straw paper. They are cutting costs on colleagues so that they do not have the possibility to offer newly made beds, and instead people are forced to sit in an armchair.

These are direct effects of a tax system that favors the person who has 125,000 kronor a month because it is considered that the person should be able to have a little extra to put aside in their tax-protected savings account – for which they have also received larger deductions than the average income earner has received.

It is important to have a system that holds together. I raised a number of examples in my speech, and colleagues have also discussed in previous interpellation debates during the morning that our tax system must hold together and that we must remove the profits in the crazy market school, stop the waste of taxes, and hold together as a country so that we can have a future that everyone can look forward to. It should not only be those who are well-off from the start who should be able to look forward to setting the clock, waking up, and hopefully going to work and living a decent life. For us Social Democrats, it is that simple.

When it comes to our security systems, I have also pointed out a clear dividing line in my speech. We are going to the election on a plan for the families' finances, and in that, a supporting part is that the child allowance will be strengthened with two reinforced payments: one in the summer, when it is toughest of all, and one at Christmas, when we know that very many suffer during the weeks leading up to it and have a hard time making ends meet.

The point of this is to make it easier for all those whom I spoke about initially and who are having a very tough time. The point is that society actually says: We can together help everyone live a good life by keeping the idea of equality alive.

The Moderates and the Finance Minister have avoided raising the child allowance and lowered taxes in an unfair way. I think, in my naive world, that one could have made a different prioritization. We have a tax policy that nine out of ten benefit from. We have ruled out the tax bonus for the very richest in order to be able to afford investments in the country's families with children. We are also going to the election on a plan that is funded and ready. I wonder: Where is the Finance Minister's plan for the families with children who continue to have it incredibly tough in this country?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the interpellor for the question. My and the Moderates' plan is to continue to ensure that the finances of families with children are strengthened, both by ensuring they keep more of their salary and through a parental deduction that ensures that specifically parents who work keep more of their salary.

It is also about what we have just done. We have, among other things, lowered the preschool fee; it is I, as the Moderate Finance Minister, who has done that. To break the recession and truly accelerate the recovery, we have also, for example, halved the food VAT, which is very good for many families with children. We have also made it cheaper to use public transport.

This is my focus, that is to say that a family with children shall have 5,000 kronor more left over per month during the next parliamentary term. I have shown that I can prioritize in the state's finances, and I will continue to do so. My plan is that more of this shall come to those in need, and I want two things with that.

One thing is that a family with children who are having a tough time – not everyone is having a tough time, but there are many who are struggling – should be able to say yes a bit more often than they say no when their children ask for or want to do something.

The second point concerns the slightly longer perspective, that is to say that a young family with children should actually feel hope about being able to buy their own small house. I want, therefore, to keep the house dream alive, and we do that both through taxes and, of course, through changed mortgage rules and other things.

So, it is my vision for Sweden: We strengthen the economy, especially for hard-working people. It is no stranger than that, and it is very important.

I definitely share Mattias Vepsäs' basic stance, which is that the fundamental protection we have in society – a strong social safety net – is very important. It must be there for those who need it the most.

For many years, however, it has been the case that, for example, social benefits, i.e., social assistance, which is intended to be a temporary relief and help for people who are in various kinds of distress, have become a livelihood for very many. They have been stuck in it year in and year out. Therefore, the government has now introduced an activity requirement: From July 1, the person who receives social assistance and has the capacity to work shall be active full-time. It is indeed important that one actually gets closer to the labor market.

When it comes to that quiz, I naturally understand if one is not in the mood for a quiz in the Riksdag on a Tuesday morning like this, but I say this: I completely agree that the tax system should be fair. One can observe there that the person who earns approximately 25,000 pays 4,500 kronor in tax, while the person who earns five times as much, that is 125,000, pays 50,000 in tax. That person therefore pays eleven times as much in tax as the person who earns 25,000.

It means that the person who works and strives, who educates themselves and works extra – who adds many values both in the public sector and in our companies – today pays significantly more in tax both in kronor and ören and percentage-wise. It is still an important basic picture, I think.

Then one might think that it is too little. I have great respect for the fact that Nooshi Dadgostar wants to raise taxes even more, because I have great respect for parties that tell what they want to do. I find it harder to understand why the Social Democrats do not tell about the tax increases they will need to make to finance everything they want to do. Together with the other parties' policies, there will be higher taxes in Sweden; there is no doubt about that. One only has to go back and see what track record different parties have.

For me, it is important to maintain the strong finances and ensure that we have a policy and a tax system that makes effort pay off. Everyone should also ask themselves whether they can afford a red-green government after the election.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! In which part shall we take up this debate?

I think that there has been a crossroads through these tough years. I agree with the Minister for Finance that the whole world has gone through an enormous cost crisis, but that is exactly what the core of this debate is about: Who has been inflation-proofed in that situation? What has been done to protect households, families, the very weakest, or the welfare from being hit extremely hard by the cost crisis?

I know that the Minister for Finance in other speeches, for example, has attacked Region Stockholm. Let us therefore look at Region Stockholm. With the Moderaternas policy, Region Stockholm's state grants decreased by 3.6 billion kronor over two years. They then chose to raise the tax in order to be able to safeguard welfare. The Moderaterna go to the election on a platform of imposing a penalty on regions and municipalities that raise the tax. That is the first problem. They also go to the election on a platform of not retaining these tax revenues but instead lowering the tax.

The question therefore becomes: In what way shall the welfare be financed? 2,500 nurses have been hired in Region Stockholm, which has strengthened the care and shortened the care queues. The wait for surgery has decreased by three weeks, and the time in the emergency departments' waiting rooms has decreased to be among the country's shortest. Which colleagues shall have one fewer colleague? Which hospitals shall receive fewer resources? Which operations shall be cancelled? Which care beds shall be closed? This is, among other things, what it is about.

At the other end: Is it not time to let families with children stand in the center? Is it reasonable to have a situation where so many of the country's families with children cannot put nutritious food on the table so that a person who earns 125,000 kronor can get a few thousand kronor to put into their savings account? For us, it is important that those funds are converted into food, clothes, and a reasonable upbringing for the country's children.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the speech on choices of paths, it is clearly a choice of paths. When I got this job, I put pressure on that we, of course together with the Riksbank and other responsible parties, would push down inflation. That was, in fact, the worst poison for the families with children that you left behind, Mattias Vepsä.

We also pushed down the fuel costs significantly. That was, in fact, another clear poison for many people's finances. Those who are dependent on the car must be able to refuel from time to time, even if one has a low income, and then one must be able to afford to do so. That was why we lowered the fuel prices.

When it comes to families with children, I completely agree, and that is why we want them to be able to keep more money in their pockets. The difference between our two parties is precisely that we have the ability to prioritize. I think one of the sentences the interpellator said is very clear. On one hand, members of Parliament ask questions about waste of tax money, and on the other hand, Mattias Vepsä just mentioned that Region Stockholm had to raise taxes in order to safeguard the welfare.

Region Stockholm is a very large region that turns over many billions. Has anyone ever thought that there are things that can be done in a different way? Must you raise the tax as soon as you have a challenge? Maybe that is how it is; I am just asking the question. Sometimes it is actually possible to reprioritize and ensure – which you yourselves have touched upon, Mattias Vepsä – that waste of tax money shall be combated.

Those who vote for us on September 13 can be one hundred percent sure that we work for fair taxes where effort pays off, that we do not collect more tax than is required, and that we hunt down waste. That will be the case. I have some difficulty seeing that that would be the case, for example, with Nooshi Dadgostar as Finance Minister.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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