Response to interpellation 2025/26:66 on the government's expectations for the unemployed
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that extensive exclusion and a lack of economic incentives mean that many do not work 1. L advocates for a benefit reform with benefit ceilings, activity requirements, and a job premium to strengthen the work line 1. L wants to invest in language training and vocational training to increase matching in the labor market 2. L wants to lower the tax on work and ensure that it is not possible to live on benefits with a higher income than from work 2. L considers it important to pursue a strict asylum migration to manage unemployment 2. L argues that the current system has passivized people 3. 4 MP argues that the government does not trust people and that the unemployed want to work but need tools 4. MP claims that it is tough to live on social assistance and that the government ignores experts who say that there is no lack of incentives to work 4 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.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Malte Tängmark Roos has asked the Minister for Finance what she means by her statement regarding the racism of low expectations, as well as whether she considers that there are those who are unemployed of their own free will in Sweden today and, if so, what measures she intends to take within her area of responsibility. The interpellation has been handed over to me.
I would like to start by thanking you for the interpellation.
For many people, it does not pay to work. At the same time, there is an extensive exclusion that must be broken. Everyone who can work shall do so. The Government and the Sverigedemokraterna therefore intend to implement a comprehensive benefit reform so that more children see their parents go to work. In the budget bill for 2026, the Government intends to allocate approximately 1.5 billion kronor to implement the benefit reform.
A comprehensive sense of exclusion has emerged in Sweden, and people who can work do not do so when it pays too little to take a job. Therefore, it needs to become more profitable to move from benefits to work. In order to build a Sweden that holds together, those who risk a long-term dependency on benefits and a life of exclusion must be met with the support of society but also with clear requirements to do what is necessary to enter work and become a part of the community.
The benefit reform consists of a benefit ceiling that makes it more profitable to work than to live on benefits, a qualification for certain social insurance benefits for persons who settle in Sweden, and an activity requirement for persons who receive social assistance but can work. A temporary job premium for those who leave social assistance for work is also included in the benefit reform.
It is also important that the compensation systems for newcomers provide incentives to take a job. The Government therefore intends to reform the compensation for participants in the establishment program, which is judged to strengthen the incentives for women who have children to participate in establishment measures and to start working.
In order for more people to get jobs and have the opportunity to contribute to the common good, more people need to educate themselves to be able to take the jobs that exist. Therefore, the government proposes several initiatives in the budget bill for 2026 to strengthen vocational training. Within regional vocational adult education, the government plans a number of changes, which among other things aim to increase the number of actually completed educations, to achieve more educations in the areas where the educations cost more to organize, and to ensure that educations can be carried out with maintained quality.
Against the background of high unemployment, there is a great need to improve the matching of job seekers in order to shorten the duration of unemployment. In the budget bill for 2026, the government therefore proposes funds for Arbetsförmedlingen for improved matching and monitoring of job seekers. The government proposes that the appropriation for Arbetsförmedlingen's administrative costs be increased by 100 million kronor for 2026; 200 million kronor is estimated for 2027 and 300 million kronor from 2028 onwards.
For a long time, the benefits have passivized instead of activating. Through the benefit reform and other measures that I have mentioned, the government is taking further large steps to strengthen the work line and address the great exclusion in society.
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister for Employment Johan Britz for the answer to my question.
The government has worked hard during this mandate period to make it tougher to manage as an unemployed person in Sweden. On October 1, the allowance was significantly worsened, and now the government is planning to implement a major poverty reform with, among other things, restrictions on the social assistance for larger families with children and qualification requirements for welfare for immigrants.
The criticism against the reforms has been massive. The government's own investigator assesses that the proposals would have very limited effect on employment, but that poverty, vulnerability, and crime risk increasing significantly. Civil society points out that child poverty and exclusion will increase. The police authority, the bar association, and several others point out the risks of people falling into crime. These are just a few of all the critical instances.
In an interview with Svenska Dagbladet on October 5, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson called this criticism "the racism of low expectations." According to her, pointing out the negative consequences of similar reforms, which have been implemented in places such as Denmark, would imply that the people they affect can only either end up in crime or become long-term benefit-dependent.
During the question period in the Riksdag on September 18, Minister for Employment Johan Britz answered a question about the reform: The more it pays to live on benefits and not work, the more people will live on benefits. That is a reasoning that the minister repeated just now. During the question period on September 25, Minister for Elderly Care and Social Insurance Anna Tenje said: By making it more profitable to work than to live on benefits, more people will leave benefits and go to work.
In short, the government means that many of those who are unemployed are lazy and that they could have worked but choose not to. Then the question we must ask ourselves becomes very simple: Who is it that actually has low expectations of the unemployed and new arrivals? Is it us critics, or is it the government itself?
The Fiscal Policy Council, the government's own expert agency regarding economic matters, has several times stated that there is no lack of incentives for the unemployed to take a job. The same assessment is made by the government's own investigator of benefit ceilings. The fact is that regardless of whether one asks authorities, researchers, civil society, social workers, or the unemployed themselves, one gets the same answer: People want to work. People want to contribute and feel that they are making a difference. They just need to be given a fair chance.
We in Miljöpartiet understand that. We have confidence in people. We want to see an active labor market policy with reforms that actually benefit people, which give them the tools to enter the labor market. It is the government that does not trust people and does not have confidence in the unemployed's will to take a job.
I think it is important that we realize that it is no bed of roses to receive social assistance. It is extremely demanding. You lose control over your own finances. You cannot save money for the future, and social services often have full insight into your bank accounts. No one wants to live long-term in that way. It should be obvious even for the government.
My request to the minister will therefore, of course, be that he states how many of Sweden's unemployed are by their own free will, according to the government, and what source the minister has for that claim.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Again: Thank you, Malte Tängmark Roos, for the question!
It is a very important discussion. We have far too many unemployed people in Sweden. There are too many who live on benefits or welfare. They often do so for too long. I am very concerned about the development we have seen over the last ten years or so. I believe that is a concern that the interpellator shares.
We are going to work through some things. The member mentioned the tax credit. It is a component in this. The reform of the tax credit that is now being carried out is based on an investigation that was commissioned by the previous government. It is about moving to an income-based system.
It means that more people will qualify for akassa. It will cover more people. I believe we all think that is good. There will be higher compensation at the beginning but also a clearer tapering off. It will also be a simpler system for companies, public employers, and individuals. Akassa shall be a security between jobs. It shall not be a long-term, long-lasting livelihood. There, I hope we are in agreement.
Then we come to the subsidy reform, which consists of the parts that the interpellor raises and which I also raised in my response. There is a component concerning the subsidy ceiling that is particularly highlighted in the discussion.
There are two aspects that it is nevertheless important to take away. The first aspect is that there are cases where it pays more to live on benefits than to take a job. In that case, the logic is in a way simple. If it is the case that it pays more to live on benefits than to take a job, more people will live on benefits. I believe that most people agree on that.
The second aspect concerns the question of justice. Those people who set the alarm every morning, get up, make breakfast for themselves and their children, drop off their children at preschool and school, and then leave for a job should not earn less than those people who do not make the same effort.
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Minister for Employment!
There are many different parts of the government's arguments over the past months that I could have focused on criticizing in this debate. I could have focused on how the government performs numerical tricks like a tax-planning corporate auditor.
One day, an unemployed family of five children receives 46,500 kronor in benefits per month today. The other day, an unemployed person will be able to receive it in a few years when the benefits have been adjusted upwards. One day, one only counts tax-free benefits. The other day, one counts tax-liable compensations such as unemployment insurance and parental leave, which, moreover, are not even benefits but state insurances.
One day, the unemployed can receive that amount every month. The other day, one counts people who have received it for some months. Then we should be clear that if a family has received compensation at that level for one month and then no more, well, then we do not have a problem. It means that people are not long-term benefit-dependent but have returned to work again, i.e., that the system works.
I could also have focused on the fact that it actually pays off to work today, compared to being unemployed. Wage earners have wage development, occupational pensions, security in the social insurance, and access to tax-funded resources such as rut and rot. All these are things that people with subsistence support do not have the right to. It therefore pays off to work.
Even if we were to accept the premise that it does not pay to work, which it does, then the problem is that the wages and the state compensations to people with jobs are too low, not that the benefits are too high. We do not solve that by making poor people even poorer.
Mr. Speaker! I could have focused on this. But I intend to return to what was my main point in my first contribution, namely the expectations of our fellow human beings.
We agree, the Minister for Employment and I, that it is not good when people are unemployed for longer periods. We agree that it is important that everyone who has the ability to work finds a job to go to. But that is what the unemployed think too, and that is what the government does not seem to realize.
People want to work, want to feel needed and feel that they contribute. I think it shows a very dull and outdated view of humanity to believe that people would rather sit at home and chill than go to work and feel that they contribute and are good role models for their children.
That the government totally ignores both its own experts, who say that there is no lack of incentives to work and that the reforms will not lead to any significant difference in employment, and the research, authorities, and civil society, who warn of a sharply increased poverty and crime if the proposals are implemented, is serious in itself.
But that the government also repeatedly paints a reality that does not exist, where people who receive social assistance live in luxury and are doing so well that they can choose not to work, is equally serious. It fuels a polarization in society and a contempt for society's most vulnerable.
It is tough to live on social assistance. It is means-tested so that you cannot receive more than the absolute minimum to cover the most necessary expenses. Every income is deducted from the social assistance, so that you cannot receive more than the minimum to support yourself and, for example, your children. You cannot save anything, and the social services have full insight into your bank accounts.
To claim, as the government does, without any evidence whatsoever, that we have a large number of unemployed people who voluntarily avoid taking jobs in order to live on benefits instead, is to insult all those who struggle day in and day out to find a job but who do not receive the help and support they need. I would once again like to see an actual figure and a source from the minister regarding how many of Sweden's unemployed he believes are unemployed of their own free will.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! The Government is working on several fronts to address the great debt that we in Sweden have with all too many people who are unemployed for long periods and who have been passivized by the benefit systems that we have had.
The first point that I want to bring up here and which I think is most important is that we invest in education that leads to employment. Since half of the unemployed are foreign-born and almost two-thirds of the long-term unemployed are foreign-born, it is clear that a part of this is about language.
It is very difficult to get most jobs in Sweden today if one does not speak Swedish. Therefore, we are investing in language training. We will certainly need to do more there.
We are also investing in vocational training. There are quite a lot of vacant jobs in Sweden. There are not as many vacant jobs as there are unemployed people, but there are quite a lot of vacant jobs. Companies, organizations, and public employers are crying out for a certain type of labor. In that case, we try to focus our educational initiatives on that type of training.
We have, over the recent years, allocated funds to vocational training within Komvux so that more people can undergo such training. Also this year, the government proposes an addition of 138 million kronor including student grants. That is one thing.
The second thing is that we are investing in labor market training. We want to increase the volumes within our area, where the labor shortage is particularly great. In addition to this, Arbetsförmedlingen has developed a concrete plan for how more unemployed people can undergo labor market training. They are often shorter, maximum six months long.
We also need to improve the matching in the labor market by increasing the professional and geographical mobility of the job seekers. Therefore, we are also improving the control and follow-up of this. This means, among other things, that people take the responsibility one has as a job seeker to undergo training that leads to jobs or to move if one has skills that are in demand in a location other than where one is currently located.
The second point in the three-point plan the government has to handle the situation we find ourselves in is precisely about what the subsidy systems and the compensations look like. We are lowering the tax on work to make it more profitable to work.
We ensure that it is not possible to live on benefits and have a higher income than if one has a job. I find it surprising that there are parties in Sweden that consider it an acceptable arrangement. That is how I perceive the interpellor; he thinks it is okay that there are people who are better off living on benefits than if they had taken a job. I do not think those are the right drivers, but it is a component. Education is most important, but this is, therefore, a component.
The third point in the government's three-point plan is that we need to see unemployment and the challenge as it is. It is very much linked to previous high levels of asylum immigration or asylum-related immigration to Sweden. Therefore, we will also need to continue to drive a strict asylum immigration forward.
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I want to draw the attention of the Speaker and the audience to the fact that the Minister for Employment once again repeated the claim that there are those who choose not to work despite being able to work. But he did not state how many it is who do so.
The reason the minister does not say how many choose unemployment over work is that he cannot say it, because there are no such figures. It is a smokescreen – an argument based entirely on what feels true, so that the government and the Sweden Democrats can be able to dismantle our general safety net with minimal resistance.
They have already worsened the unemployment insurance. And now comes their big poverty reform, which all judges agree will lead to increased poverty, increased segregation, higher crime, and increased exclusion. It is the government's own investigators who say this.
When the Minister for Employment says that the reforms will ensure that more children get to see their parents go to work, it runs counter to what the experts say. On the contrary, more children will get to see their parents go to church, to Stadsmissionen, and to the Red Cross to afford food and rent. These are the consequences of the government's poverty reform.
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Employment asks what the justice is in that a few unemployed people in some very specific cases can receive as much compensation as someone who works. I think the much more relevant questions are: What is the justice in forcing children to grow up in poverty because their parents have difficulty finding a job? What is the justice in that children of immigrants should grow up without access to the same security that Swedish children have during the time it takes for their parents to learn Swedish and find a job? What is the justice in implementing reforms that we know increase poverty, exclusion, and crime but which will not get more people into work? That is what I would like to know.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! It is both a matter of practice and of principle. I find it difficult to understand why Malte Tängmark Roos thinks it is reasonable that someone should be able to receive more in benefits than they would be able to receive if they took a job. It creates incorrect incentives, we believe, but it is also a matter of principle.
The view on the compensation and social insurance systems that we have in Sweden is that they should be robust and that they should be perceived as fair.
I appreciate the discussion very much, and I believe we share the commitment against unemployment, against benefit dependency, and against exclusion. But those who believe that we can continue as we have done in recent years – which has led to large numbers of unemployed people in exclusion, for a long time, who have been passivized by the systems we have – will be held accountable regarding how we are to handle the situation Sweden finds itself in.
It is very serious to be unemployed, and it is very serious to be unemployed for a long time. It affects socially, it affects economically and it affects physical health. This is something we need to fight.
I believe we are in complete agreement on the basic prerequisites for what we want to achieve, but then I think we have slightly different views on what needs to be done. I thank you very much for the discussion.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.