Response to interpellations 2023/24:271, 299 and 310 on household finances
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that the government is reducing cost increases by prioritizing inflation control, lowering taxes, and increasing housing allowances 1. M believes that an enhanced job tax credit and lower taxes for pensioners help households with scarce resources 1. M argues that a bank tax is irresponsible as the cost is passed on to the customers 2 3 4. 5 S argues that vulnerability has increased and that the government is not doing enough for the most vulnerable 6. S proposes a bank tax on excess profits, extra child allowance, increased maintenance support, and debt forgiveness 7 8. S wants to invest in welfare and infrastructure 9. S argues that the government prioritizes high-income earners 10.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (27)
- Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
- Eva Lindh (S)
- Linus Sköld (S)
- Åsa Eriksson (S)
- Zara Leghissa (S)
- Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)
- Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)
- Sofie Eriksson (S)
- Sofia Amloh (S)
- Yasmine Bladelius (S)
- Jan Ericson (M)
- Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
- Eva Lindh (S)
- Linus Sköld (S)
- Åsa Eriksson (S)
- Zara Leghissa (S)
- Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)
- Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)
- Sofie Eriksson (S)
- Sofia Amloh (S)
- Yasmine Bladelius (S)
- Jan Ericson (M)
- Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
- Eva Lindh (S)
- Linus Sköld (S)
- Åsa Eriksson (S)
- Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Against the background of households being pressured by inflation and higher interest rates, Eva Lindh has asked me if I share the view of how the economic situation in the country looks. She has also asked how I intend to act as Christmas and the year's economically most difficult month, January, approach, and if there is any plan for people who are now living in economic vulnerability to receive any additional support.
Linus Sköld has asked me how I will ensure that it is not those with the smallest margins who have to bear the entire economic crisis, what measures I intend to take to strengthen the finances of the most vulnerable households, and how I will act to stop the skyrocketing cost increases for households in Norrbotten.
Åsa Eriksson has asked me what I intend to do to reduce the number of families with children in need of charity.
Inflation and high interest rates hit households hard, and hardest against those who already have small margins, from Skåne in the south to Norrbotten in the north. The government conducts a policy for the whole country and works to reduce cost increases for families in Linköping, Norberg, Älvsbyn as well as Örebro. The fight against inflation has begun to yield results, but inflation is still too high. Combating inflation is therefore continued priority for the government, while we support households and welfare.
Many households with weak finances have received compensation for the high inflation through price-indexed grants and transfers. Increased housing allowance for families with children, electricity support, increased unemployment insurance, and reduced energy tax on fuels are measures that have been particularly significant for households with small margins. At the turn of the year, the reduction obligation was also lowered, which contributed to reducing the diesel price by over 4 kronor per liter. The budget for 2024 contains important structural reforms while we support households and welfare, including through an enhanced job tax credit for low- and middle-income earners, reduced tax for pensioners, and a further reduced tax on fuels. This gives households with scarce resources more in their wallets.
In the longer term, the best way to reduce the risk of poverty is to get more people into work. To strengthen the work line, the government is implementing a number of measures that make it more profitable to move from benefits to work. In order for more people to enter work, more companies also need to start and grow in Sweden. The government will therefore pursue a policy that lays the foundation for higher growth.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! We have a welfare society in turmoil. That is the picture we now see of Sweden. The economic situation hits ordinary people hard, and inequality is increasing.
We have heard from several aid organizations that the number of people seeking support has more than doubled. The queues to get a food parcel are long. One in four single parents has had to borrow money to be able to buy food for their children. Debts are increasing, and it naturally affects people now but also for a long time to come. Pensioners who have worked a whole professional life now cannot afford to go and visit their grandchildren. People who cannot work, i.e., persons with some type of disability, are becoming increasingly poorer.
It is also actually more and new groups that are seeking support. It concerns the single mothers, as said, who cannot put nutritious food on the table for their children. What has been the case in other countries we now also see in Sweden - what is called working poor there, people who have several jobs to manage the finances but still cannot make ends meet. So that is how reality looks in Sweden today. It is undignified.
Many of us see and actually believe that this government is not taking the situation seriously. It seems that there is no plan to facilitate things for all those who are now struggling and who feel the inflation and increased interest rates on their very skin. The economic crisis is hitting ordinary Swedes very hard right now.
But this crisis does not seem to affect everyone. While ordinary people struggle and toil, the big banks are making record profits in the tough economic situation. They are not just profitable, they are taking out record profits.
The government's policy means that high-income earners are protected against inflation. The tax cuts that the government has implemented benefit high-income earners most of all. They receive more money in terms of kronor, and this furthermore increases inequality in Sweden. This is something a responsible government should address.
There is, however, a question where the Minister for Finance and I agree, and that is that inflation must be fought. It is harmful to the economy, and it also hits us all hard, and especially those who are struggling financially. But the fight against inflation does not mean that the government cannot do anything. We also simultaneously have a recession, even though inflation is on its way down, with continued high inflation.
Politics can actually take action. We have shown that in our budget. It means that one can support the families and the individuals who are having a very difficult time financially, but also can support the welfare, which is so enormously important, especially in these times.
It is tougher now than it was a year ago, and I think the government should take this situation seriously. This is not worthy of Sweden.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Elisabeth Svantesson for the opportunity to debate this incredibly important issue for so many households.
It concerns in particular the households in Norrbotten, I would like to say, which I base on a report that we Social Democrats in the Norrbotten parliamentary group produced this summer. The report shows a number of household expenditure increases over the last five years. The costs for food, electricity, and fuel for a typical household may have increased by up to 86 percent during the last five years. This development has since continued during the autumn.
When I wrote the interpellation, it was relevant to talk about the costs of the Christmas buffet, and it may perhaps sound irrelevant here on the penultimate day of January. But inflation and price increases on food continue to dig large holes in the wallets of not least the most vulnerable. The Christmas buffet was 18 percent more expensive in 2023 compared to 2021, according to matpriskollen.se.
Furthermore, reports came out last week that Swedes' debts to the Enforcement Authority are reaching record levels. Swedes' debt amount to the Enforcement Authority increased by 50 million per day during last year. A record number of families with children are being evicted. Today, PRO Norrbotten published a debate article where they accounted for the results of a member survey, and 42 percent of those who responded to the survey say they are worried about their finances. A standard mortgage interest rate has more than doubled in the last 18 months. Wage earners have seen inflation eat up ten years of real wage increases.
Fighting inflation, Svantesson answers - yes, fighting inflation is important, but how is it going? Compared to our closest neighboring countries, the price development has been much higher in Sweden, where Svantesson is responsible, than in the neighboring countries. Now, of course, inflation is turning downward, but the price increases will, as stated, persist.
At the same time, the food giants are making huge profits. Last spring, when the price increase on food was at its highest, this became palpable. Then Svantesson felt compelled to act; she called the food giants together, so it was reported in the media. She said she would put pressure on them and emphasize the seriousness. One might wonder how it went after that. Yes, the largest grocery retailer distributed a profit of up to 3 billion a few months later, and the Konjunkturinstitutet stated in the follow-up that the overall assessment is that consumer prices on food over the studied period have increased more than what is explained by the increased costs.
That Elisabeth Svantesson shouted about calling in the food giants and putting pressure on them had, therefore, little effect. Therefore, I think the question is relevant: What is Elisabeth Svantesson going to do to protect the finances of the most vulnerable households through this crisis?
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance has repeatedly said that many Swedish households are having a very tough time right now, and I believe many of us agree with that.
I and many others would like to know what the government intends to do to support the most economically vulnerable households. As we have heard Eva Lindh and Linus Sköld say here earlier, it is tough because food prices have risen, because interest rates are sky-high, because rent increases are the largest in a long time, and so on. It is difficult for many families with children to make the money last for food the whole month. Is that really how it is supposed to be in the Moderaterna's Sweden?
Madam Speaker! Stockholm City Mission reports that they are meeting more and more families with children living in poverty. These are children who, due to their parents' meager economic conditions, risk falling into social exclusion. These are families who cannot manage basic expenses: rent, food, and bills.
Madam Speaker! On the gallery here today sit representatives from SSU Västmanland. When we had lunch together earlier, a girl, Erisa, told us about an acquaintance of the family—a single father—who has a job but still finds it difficult to put food on the table for his children all month. Despite having a job to go to, he finds it difficult to do so. Should he lose his job, which there is a risk of, he finds it difficult to see how he could even continue to live. Is that how it is supposed to be in the Moderaternas Sweden?
Madam Speaker! If there were no resources in society, that would be a different matter, but just as Eva Lindh and Linus Sköld have accounted for here, we have a situation where, for example, the big banks together are making record profits. During only the first three quarters of last year, they made a combined profit of 153 billion kronor. It was 153 billion kronor in profit in three quarters - at the same time as Swedish families with children seek out charity to get food for their children. That we Social Democrats can never accept.
We have instead proposed a tax on the difference between mortgage interest rates and savings interest rates, Madam Speaker, which constitutes the largest part of the banks' excess profits. The proposal is to tax the difference so that the money can go back to Swedish households and so that we can press down mortgage interest rates. Elisabeth Svantesson's party comrades and others in the Tidögänget have unfortunately voted it down.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister for Finance what she wants to say to all those families who are now forced to queue for food bags while they read in the newspaper about the banks' record dividends. What is the message to the economically vulnerable families with children? Are the banks' profits more important than the children?
Zara Leghissa (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for all these important interpellations.
January is the year's poorest month, and it hits extra hard against those who already live on the margins. The debts to the Enforcement Authority increase, and more and more are evicted from their homes. The SD-led government's policy does not do much either to alleviate the Swedish households' economy.
Madam Speaker! When households find it increasingly difficult, the government chooses to put welfare on a starvation diet while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This has serious consequences. The class divide in our society is increasing. Sweden has become poorer and more dangerous.
Consumption is decreasing, and bankruptcies and layoffs are lurking around the corner. In the workplaces, the working environment is getting worse; fewer people are expected to do more, and insecure employment is becoming more common. Ill health, diseases, injuries, and work-related deaths are increasing even further. Workplaces are becoming quieter, and incomes are decreasing.
When healthcare, school, and care fail, relatives are often forced to reduce their working hours to take care of their loved ones. People in Sweden and in Norrbotten are having a very tough time now, especially pensioners, single guardians, and the sick. Where is the equal and egalitarian policy? Where is the limit for the SD-led government? Norrbotten demands answers.
Madam Speaker! In Norrbotten, there is faith in the future. It is there that everything that moves Sweden forward is happening, but it is not enough to place all the responsibility on the people of Norrbotten and on Norrbotten's municipalities and region. I would like to assert that it is unreasonable. All of Sweden shall live – city, country, and rural areas. In that case, it is not enough to urge households to put on undergarments and bite the bullet and to buy falukorv and cook porridge, or to urge the public sector to break the law.
Madam Speaker! What message does the Minister for Finance want to give to the people of Norrbotten now that the SD-led government has failed and is creating ever wider gaps in society? What message does she want to give to the people who take part in the activities of the educational associations, the folk high schools, and the associations, which promote community, democracy, culture, education, and that life between the houses? What message does she want to give to all the young people who are at the starting blocks to become independent and see it come to nothing?
What messages does she want to give to the municipalities and regions that risk not meeting their mandates and to all those who are forced into lower wages, worse working environments, more insecure employment and layoffs? What does the Finance Minister want to say to all those who will face poorer quality in healthcare, school and care and to all those who struggle to be able to have food on the table and a roof over their heads?
The Minister for Finance and the government owe the people of Norrbotten an answer.
Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)
Madam Speaker! During the autumn, I have several times submitted interpellations to the Minister for Finance regarding household finances and increased debts. More recently, however, she has chosen to pass the questions along, first to the Minister for Justice and then to the Minister for Finance Markets. Now that Elisabeth Svantesson is in the chamber to discuss precisely household finances, I thought I would take the opportunity to repeat my question.
The Red Cross's mapping shows that vulnerability has increased in all of Sweden's 21 counties as a consequence of the economic crisis. The Red Cross, the Church of Sweden, Stadsmissionen, and many other community organizations testify that more and more people are turning to them for support with the most basic needs. At the same time, the total debt at the Enforcement Authority is now 119 billion kronor. This is an increase of 17 percent since the turn of last year. The number of people in debt has increased across the entire country and in all age groups.
When I have been in contact with local debt counselors, they have testified to an increase that they have never experienced before. They have also told me that they have been contacted by several debtors who have already undergone a debt restructuring and who have now become indebted again and want to apply a second time.
This is problematic. It is clear that many households are being left behind and that more targeted support is needed for those who are hit hardest by the cost crisis. It is also clear that larger preventive measures need to be prioritized to reduce both over-indebtedness and economic inequalities.
The total debt at the Enforcement Authority is, as stated, 119 billion kronor, which is the largest amount ever. It is an increase of 18 billion, or nearly 50 million kronor a day, since last year.
This week we could see new worrying headlines in the news. These were about families with children who have started shoplifting. Of course, theft is always wrong, but this is also a symptom of the uneasy times we live in.
What does the Minister intend to do to reduce over-indebtedness and the economic inequalities in society?
Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)
Madam Speaker! This is an incredibly important debate. I would especially like to thank members Lindh, Sköld, and Åsa Eriksson for raising these questions. The Minister for Finance said in his response to the interpellants that inflation and the high interest rates are hitting households hard and hardest against those who already have small margins, from Skåne in the south to Norrbotten in the north. I believe we can all agree.
My colleague Linus Sköld referred to the report that the Riksdag's investigation service has prepared. The high inflation and the high - and increased - interest costs have hit very many hard. This is an economic vulnerability that very many households in my county, Norrbotten, and in the rest of the country live in. The risk is that the children become the government's crash pads and that they have to bear the vulnerability and this economic situation through a childhood in poverty.
I have heard what the Minister for Finance has said in the debate, but I am not satisfied. It is not enough in this situation. It is not just about that it is insufficient and that too few measures are being taken, but the truth is also that very much is words but not actual action. It is not enough that we have a Minister for Finance who is upset that the banks are paying out billions in profits or that food giants are doing the same. Politics is about wanting, prioritizing, and actually making a difference.
In his response, the Minister for Finance highlighted the importance of having a job to go to. I share that view - parents' opportunity to have a job is essential for combating poverty. At the same time, this clashes very poorly with the fact that we have a government that is cutting back on labor market policy and is not investing more in what is needed in this situation.
My question to the Minister for Finance is in line with the interpellants'. It concerns what more the Minister for Finance should do to protect the most vulnerable households.
These interpellations have come in during the end of December and the beginning of this year. The Minister for Finance pointed out much of what she considers makes a difference, but the reality is that very many live in vulnerability, despite what the government has done. This applies in my county, Norrbotten, and all around the country. It is important that the Minister for Finance takes the opportunity to account for the government's measures moving forward. How do we ensure that these households in our country do not need to live in growing poverty?
Sofie Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! The questions here are about how the government intends to act so that it is not the most vulnerable households and children who are hit hardest now.
I would like to take the opportunity to speak about some who find themselves in a completely opposite situation. A single bank, SEB, is making a distribution of 27 billion kronor. That is more than the healthcare system's total deficit. The doctor and writer Fanny Nilsson pointed this out, and it is probably not possible to highlight today's completely unreasonable policy in a better way – on one hand a single bank, on the other hand the entire healthcare crisis. Even Swedbank's shareholders are doing well today. They are sharing approximately 17 billion kronor. Collectively, the four Swedish major banks are judged to be making distributions of 90 billion kronor. This is significantly more than the deficit that plagues Swedish healthcare today. The profits have been made on the Swedish households.
It is very fun that our Moderate Finance Minister is here, and it is very good that we have this discussion. But this situation stands out, and what the eyes see, one can also do something about. To refrain from measures is also to act. The government could adjust the return requirement for state SBABs to increase competition and press the interest rates.
Another measure we Social Democrats have proposed is to introduce a bank tax on profits. It can be structured in a good way so that the costs are not passed on to households. It is possible to fight inflation without feeding the banking sector to the max. The money from a bank tax could be used, among other things, to support households through an extra child allowance or increased maintenance support.
Madam Speaker! In the latest party leader debate, my party leader Magdalena Andersson asked the leader of the Sweden Democrats why they voted no to a bank tax. Since the Sweden Democrats cannot be held accountable, I intend to take this up now. Why did they vote no to a bank tax? Why do they prioritize the bank directors over the families with children? The answer from Jimmie Åkesson was that the budget negotiation had not for one second been about bank directors. We have heard that the four Swedish major banks made 153 billion in profit. At the same time, heavy economic burdens are placed on mothers, fathers, children, workers, and pensioners.
What Åkesson, and some others, on the other hand have had time for is to try to create culture war number 456, 457, and 458.
As we have already heard today, the debts at the Enforcement Authority have increased to 119 billion kronor and are higher than ever. The pawn shops are doing well; the number of customers has increased by 20 percent. It is almost a record there too. It is an all-time high, I saw in a segment on TV.
Every third adult in Sweden has difficulty making ends meet, the costs of children are increasing rapidly, and the healthcare crisis is becoming more concrete every day. Politics is about money, about mothers, fathers and children and, yes, also about bank directors, who are now well, laughing all the way to—yes, what do you think?—the bank.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! Throughout all of last year, we heard how tough it was for households, and just as we have described and continue to describe, food prices have increased and interest rates and rents have soared. Throughout all of last year, people testified that they turned their wallets and their savings accounts inside out, and now after Christmas and New Year, we are reached by reports that a third of all adults in Sweden have difficulty paying ongoing expenses such as rent and food.
Madam Speaker! Last week, the Swedish Enforcement Authority reported that new levels of credit have been measured. Swedes' debts have reached historical levels, moreover in a generation that is raised to save first and buy later - but that is not possible in today's Sweden. We are reached by these catastrophic news at the same time as the banks take incredible profits, the size of which is incredibly difficult to grasp.
The organization Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar reports that only one in three single parents can afford to let their children participate in an organized leisure activity. Six out of ten women feel anxious that they cannot separate or divorce for economic reasons.
How does the Minister for Finance mean that she is supporting Swedish households during the current crisis? I believe few experience that the Minister for Finance is doing this. I agree that inflation should be combated, but it cannot be allowed to cost people whatever it takes. The consequences extend beyond the fight against inflation. Increased economic inequalities and worsened public health are losses that are not automatically recovered just because inflation goes down. These are social consequences that are so far-reaching that they should make even a moderate Minister for Finance hesitate. Where is the Minister for Finance's limit? How poor must the Swedes become before the Minister for Finance considers taking action?
Yasmine Bladelius (S)
Madam Speaker! In addition to having this fine parliamentary mandate for the Social Democrats on loan, I have also for a number of years been the national chairperson for Unga Örnar, otherwise the world's best children's organization. Together with Tankesmedjan Tiden, we released the report Children and the Crisis - so children are affected by inflation - in March last year.
Madam Speaker! Let me read the introduction to the report: "Beatrice in Hässleholm dreams of being able to take her six-year-old daughter to a playground. Ali in Borlänge has friends who no longer come to school because they lack winter jackets. At Nydala Square in Malmö, volunteers are alerting that more and more children are coming to their free breakfast distributions. Many bring bread, toppings, and vegetables in bags for the rest of the day's meals. At Blombackaskolan in Södertälje, they need to cook more food - the students are hungrier and eat significantly more, especially before and after the weekend."
Madam Speaker! This is only a selection of testimonies. Almost daily we, not least I as the union chairman for Unga Örnar, receive calls and reports from children who are hit hard in the wake of the economic crisis. Nine out of ten municipalities state that primary school students eat much more school meals since the economic situation for households has worsened. They come to school hungry after the weekend and eat themselves extra full on Friday, because the weekend means hunger. At the same time, many schools have demands for savings. The school meal is to cost less and the milk is being withdrawn. It is naturally an equation that does not add up at all.
Madam Speaker! The analysis of the economic vulnerability of families with children in the cost crisis, which Kantar Public has produced for Majblomman, the Red Cross, Save the Children, and the Tenants' Association, shows that children's needs and well-being are hit hard and in several ways by the families' strained finances. They are affected by the increasing anxiety in the family that the finances do not add up. They are affected when there is no money to buy new clothes for the change of seasons or when the sneakers have become too small and the family cannot afford to buy new ones. They are affected when leisure or holiday activities are taken away because there is simply no money left for them. Majblomman also testifies that more and more people are seeking their grants for completely basic things, such as children's clothes, diapers, porridge, and shoes.
Madam Speaker! At this moment, many families with children are having difficulties meeting the most basic needs. The right to a decent standard of living, the right to health, and the right to meaningful leisure time are affected. The geopolitical unrest, the energy crisis, inflation, and shock-increased interest rates are hitting families with children in Sweden.
Children should not have to suffer from a lack of food and clothes in Sweden. It does not have to be like this. It is possible to prioritize. What is the Finance Minister's answer to the vulnerable children in Sweden?
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! When one sits and listens to this, one cannot help but enter the debate. There are quite a few things to question in what has been said, I think.
What I react most to is the criticism that the government should not have tried to ease the burden for our households. It is quite interesting to look at the budget and go through all the proposals and everything we have decided in the budget to support the households. You see how many things there are when you start breaking it down.
The fight against inflation is the absolute most important issue, just as many have mentioned here. It has been the government's priority to hold onto the money and take well-balanced measures so that we do not fuel inflation, for what is the point of raising benefits and compensations to people if one simultaneously has an inflation that is spiraling and eating up everything? That is where we must not end up, but that is where I am afraid we would end up with the Social Democrats' policy.
We have prioritized lowering taxes on both work, pensions, and fuels. We have removed the reduction obligation. We have increased the housing allowance. A long series of compensations to people have been automatically increased with the index quite a bit this time. We have increased the social assistance, and we have paid out electricity support to households. All of this combined is actually a quite substantial investment in our households to help them out of this situation.
The Social Democrats talk a lot about bank tax. It is perhaps the most reckless proposal in the S budget. It competes with other reckless proposals, but this probably takes the prize. The Social Democrats budget for 10 billion from January 1 of this year through a proposal that was not even realistic to implement. You didn't even have any concrete proposal on how it would be done. As a former governing party, you know that such a thing must be investigated thoroughly and that it is quite complicated matter. To then budget for those funds already from January 1, I think is extremely irresponsible.
One can discuss the banks' profits. I have personally worked at a bank for 20 years, so I know how banks work. I belong to those who are actually quite critical of the banks, and I have received a fair amount of criticism for that. I think that the banks have large margins on their loans, for example. I have a good deal of criticism to direct at them for that. But one must also be honest and say that much of the profits you are talking about now actually go straight into our pension funds. The pension funds are major shareholders in the Swedish banks and receive a very large part of these dividends. Much of this money actually goes back to our pensioners.
As a former bank employee, I know how banks work. I have myself sat as a lawyer at a bank, and I have myself been involved in writing documents and agreements and such to manage the banks' risks and the banks' handling of various issues. I know that if one were to introduce such a bank tax, those funds would land on the customers' invoices. Everything is always passed on to our customers in the banking world - that is how it looks. Therefore, a bank tax is an incredibly bad proposal. It would only make it more expensive for households. It will not help the banks' customers, I can guarantee that.
Finally, something about over-indebtedness. We have had an over-indebtedness in Sweden for quite some time, and we have received warnings from, among others, the EU that we have too high a level of debt. For eight years, we have had a government, with the Social Democrats and partly the Green Party, that did not act at all on this issue. Now we finally have a government that is tackling this. Therefore, I would like to conclude by asking the Minister for Finance to mention something about the government's strategy against over-indebtedness.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the great commitment to Swedish households that are struggling right now.
We find ourselves in a very difficult and troublesome time when so many things are hitting Sweden and confronting Sweden at once. We have a war in our immediate vicinity - a war that we are even involved in. That has not happened for a very long time. We have an elevated terror threat level in the country, which is serious. The tragic thing that happened in Brussels just a few months ago shows how vulnerable our democracy is. Furthermore, we have gang violence and shootings and a lot of insecurity that has emerged during the last decade. Added to this is what this debate is about: a very tough economic situation with an inflation that during 2021 began to pick up and which has been brutally high, higher than in several decades, while Sweden finds itself in a recession.
All this together means that we as a country are being tested. But those who are tested most severely are, of course, those that many here have mentioned: those with the smallest margins, those who have difficulty making the finances work, those who do not have money left to buy milk and butter in the middle of the month and who are waiting for the child benefit on the 19th. All of them - and they are many - are struggling very hard.
Madam Speaker! Let me be clear: Since I took this job in October 2022, my focus and my absolute priority has been to push back inflation so that these price and cost increases do not continue. It has been a prioritized task precisely because I know what inflation does to people, wage earners, and to the economy of the society.
What we, together with many actors, are doing and have done, is working. Even though the last round is not over, inflation has now seriously begun to fall. It is a very good message that shows that what we do works. If inflation were not to be dampened, costs would increase and interest rates would continue to rise, and this would expose many to a tough situation.
Together with this fight against inflation, my other important priority has been – you have heard me say it many times – to support households and welfare in a difficult time. No one here can fully compensate for what high inflation entails, but this government paid out a large electricity subsidy last year and has ensured a tax cut for everyone who works and everyone who has a pension. This government has lowered the tax on fuels for two years now and made the diesel price decrease by 4 kronor from New Year's Eve to New Year's Day. I know that many in Norrbotten and Västerbotten and in other places around the country are happy about that.
We have thus facilitated, and will continue to facilitate, for people in different ways. It was also this government, Madam Speaker, that ensured the housing allowance for families with children was increased and extended – it was no other government and no other majority in here.
Am I satisfied and happy? No, I will not be satisfied and happy until inflation is down to the levels it should be. I will not be satisfied and happy until we see real wage increases rise again. If anyone has been hit the hardest in this inflation environment, it is ordinary wage earners. Many of our systems, such as guaranteed pension, student grants and others, are indexed, as you know – the person who a few years ago did not know what indexing was has now become well aware of it – they are indexed and compensated. But ordinary wage earners have not in that way received back what they have lost. Therefore, it was so important for us to lower the tax for low- and middle-income earners, because they need to receive a reinforcement.
I thank you for the debate. We will continue it for a while longer, and then I will have the opportunity to tell more about how I see the situation.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! It is quite interesting. Here, a number of difficulties are listed that many ordinary Swedes out in Sweden are experiencing right now. I truly think it is unworthy of a country that is to be a welfare state that people must beg for support and must borrow money to buy food.
I want to comment on part of what Jan Ericson took up here in the speaker's chair. We are in complete agreement that we must handle inflation. Inflation is bad for the economy. It is bad for families. It hits those who are already having a hard time.
When it comes to how one handles inflation, it is obvious that there are great differences. Apparently, it works very well to lower taxes significantly for high-income earners while simultaneously fighting inflation, but one cannot help those who are having a hard time right now. This is strange. This is the difference. Politics makes a difference. We have a different way of handling it. We believe that a more equal society is what we should strive for.
We receive support in this from many sides, also from many economists. OECD says, for example, that it is much better with equal countries because it is good for growth. People feel better, but it is also good for the economy. Therefore, we should agree that we should strive for a society where everyone becomes more equal. Right now, the gaps are increasing. LO's report Makteliten, which has been compiled since the 1950s, shows how the gaps have increased from 1980, when they were at their lowest, until now.
I want to say something because we have different perspectives on how reality looks. For many years, I have worked with people who have it difficult and tough financially, in the normal situation. Every time I read a report on how the situation in the country looks today, I hear one of all those I have met who said this: The person who says that money doesn't matter has never had trouble with money.
It is not just about managing to put food on the table, which is tough enough, but it takes over one's entire life when one ponders how to get through the month and make it all work out. Yasmine mentioned very well how this affects the children in Sweden. We must remember that. We must hear these voices. We must understand what lies behind all the reports. Only then can we perhaps truly want to make a difference.
I do not experience the SD-led government feeling that way. One still has a part of the policy that we had in our budget for the autumn of 2022, but the situation is completely different now than when the government took over. More interventions were needed to help the families who are having a hard time now.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! The report that I mentioned in my previous contribution and which we on the Norrbotten Social Democratic parliamentary bench have prepared points out that household purchasing power is declining for the first time in a very long time. Last week, SCB published statistics that confirm this picture. SCB states that the economic standard of households is falling for the first time since the 90s crisis.
At the same time, as several here have pointed out, it is going record-well for the banks. The four major banks made 153 billion in profit during the first three quarters of last year. When Elisabeth Svantesson held a press conference last week and was asked what she thought about the announcement that two of them will distribute 17 and 27 billion respectively, she answered that a distribution is a result of the profit and that the profits sting the eyes when borrowers are having a hard time.
But what is Svantesson doing about the matter? She at least tried to call in the food giants, but it perhaps went so poorly that she now realizes it is not even worthwhile to try to call in the big banks. It is clear, at least, that neither Jan Ericson's criticism nor Svantesson's complacent statement that it stings the eyes will remedy the banks' excess profits.
At the same time, several heavy-hitting economists have pointed out recently that up to half of the inflation is due to companies' profits. Things are going terribly for households while they are going record-well for banks and companies. What then is Svantesson's solution? One answer from her here in the chamber is, for example, the electricity support that the government arranged. The electricity support was a formidable catastrophe. It almost never came out, and when it finally did come out, it was those who consumed the most who received the most money. It had no balancing effect whatsoever.
Svantesson refers to the increase in the housing supplement and to that the reinforcement shall be extended by six months. But what happens when the six months are over? Well, then the reinforcement disappears, and Svantesson exchanges it for instead giving targeted support to high-income earners who want to hire home help or renovate the bathroom.
Svantesson refers to an increased job tax credit and reduced tax on pensions. "It gives households with tight resources more in their wallets," she said verbatim. But does Svantesson believe that people who are permanently unable to work as a result of illness or disability have large margins?
We would have prioritized in a different way. We would have introduced a bank tax, and I would call it unimaginative of Jan Ericson not to be able to think of how such a tax could be constructed to reach the enormous excess profits without it being shifted onto the customers. We Social Democrats are creative enough to find such a solution.
We would have liked to see other supports as well, for example an extra child allowance that could have been paid out during the year's poorest month, reinforced maintenance support for single parents or a debt relief. Yes, we can continue.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Many of the children who grow up in poverty end up trapped in a way that they cannot influence themselves, as it is a matter of their parents having meager economic conditions. It can lead to a feeling of loneliness and insecurity, and it can cause them to isolate themselves or, even worse, try to find other solutions.
The Minister for Finance, in her response, raised several things that she believes the government is doing and major challenges that Sweden faces. One of these, which the Minister for Finance mentioned, is gang crime and the spiral of violence it brings with it. It is an enormous problem for Sweden.
To watch while economically vulnerable families suffer under the burden of costs, so that children and young people growing up feel that they must help to fix the family's livelihood, because they know that the little sister must have a winter overall when it gets cold or because they themselves need a pair of new shoes because there are holes in the old ones or something else, and then resort to other methods - illegal methods - to get money and are lured into the gangs' claws, I mean is counterproductive to what the Minister for Finance says the government is trying to do.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have a different answer. We do not in any way defend choosing illegal methods to support oneself, but we know that more are lured into the gangs' claws because one belongs to a financially vulnerable family or is children and youth of parents who do not have enough money for the most basic needs. This is what we want to counteract.
We mean, for example, that the state grants need to be inflation-proofed so that the municipalities get the opportunity for another type of activity for children and young people. We want to create opportunities in different ways to obtain the money one needs to support one's family and children, so that one does not feel forced or lured into something else.
Madam Speaker! It is not worthy of a country like Sweden to have families with children standing in line to ask for a food bag from charities. I heard no answer from the Minister for Finance to those families. I heard that the Minister for Finance thinks that she and the government have taken measures. But we can all see that it is not enough.
I ask again: What does the Finance Minister want to say to all the families with children who turn to charity to get food for the day while they see the big banks making excess profits?
Zara Leghissa (S)
Madam Speaker! Record profits for banks or support ordinary people through the crisis? Division or cohesion? A healthcare crisis or healthcare for each according to need and from each according to ability?
Politics makes a difference, and there is a difference in politics. The SD-led government is unable to take Sweden and Norrbotten out of the cost crisis and alleviate it for ordinary people. They let the people take the hit while they protect those who are best off.
We Social Democrats want something different. We want something else. We see the needs of people who are in a difficult situation. We also see the need for investments in welfare, in children and young people's leisure activities, in housing construction, in the climate transition, in the labor market, in education and in infrastructure. Support is needed for ordinary people in the country, in the city and in rural areas. Investments are needed in people and their everyday lives. One needs to believe in people's abilities instead of letting the bill fall and dividing us from within. It should also be in the government's interest. It is the only right thing for Norrbotten and for all of Sweden.
Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)
Madam Speaker! Vulnerability in Sweden is increasing, and the cost crisis hits families with children particularly hard. 40 percent of single parents are completely dependent on the child allowance to make ends meet. We Social Democrats proposed in our budget proposal an extra payment of the child allowance to all families with children and a temporary increased maintenance support of 500 kronor per month for single parents. We believe, namely, that those who are hit hardest by the skyrocketing costs in society need to receive financial relief.
Madam Speaker! The Red Cross's appointed Secretary General, Anders Pedersen, said the obvious last week: "The Red Cross's mission is to alleviate and prevent human suffering and distress. Of course, we act when people cannot afford food for the day. But it is not the responsibility of voluntary organizations to be society's safety net when Sweden faces a new vulnerability."
I and many others wonder how it can be right that the banks can make record profits while large parts of Sweden's population need to beg for food. Here, politics has a responsibility, and ultimately it is the government and Elisabeth Svantesson, as Sweden's Finance Minister, who is held accountable.
Finally, I want to point out that it was the Social Democratic government that appointed the Over-indebtedness Inquiry. I hope that the current government returns to the Riksdag with proposals for concrete measures. It would truly be needed.
Fredrik Lundh Sammeli (S)
Madam Speaker! Nothing indicates that the burden on the finances of Norrbotten households will be eased in the near future. We can state that the government is doing and has done too little, while simultaneously saying no time and again to the proposals that we Social Democrats have put forward and which could have made a difference.
In the situation we find ourselves in, with many households being pressed hard, we politicians have a special responsibility to safeguard the finances of the most vulnerable households. This applies in particular to families with children. We Social Democrats choose to prioritize protecting the finances of the most vulnerable households and the funding of the welfare state in times of economic crisis. The Government and the Sweden Democrats instead prioritize protecting the purchasing power of high-income earners through targeted tax cuts for those who earn the most.
I will continue to be critical of the government's priorities this far into the mandate period. But we are in a new year. The Finance Minister has every opportunity to look back at the work that she and the government have done and conclude that it is too little and insufficient. In this situation, she can clearly prioritize measures, reforms, and investments to strengthen the most vulnerable households.
My question is actually a follow-up: In what ways does the Finance Minister intend to change the policy to meet the reality where many, despite what the Finance Minister himself highlights, have not fared better but are having an extremely tough time?
Sofie Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's richest countries. We have more billionaires per capita than both the USA and Russia. But at the same time, inequality is increasing. Ordinary people see their real wages being eaten up while high earners receive tax cuts and deductions.
It is well-balanced priorities, says the member from Moderaterna. Then he speaks about what I would call the banks' morality. He says that whatever we implement through democratic decisions and whatever intentions we have, the banks will dump it onto the customers. They will always line their pockets, at any cost. I welcome the honesty from Jan Ericson on this point. "Such is capitalism. Ingratitude is the poor man's wage. They are the rich man's paradise."
What we need is decisiveness from politics. But does Jan Ericson mean that politics cannot solve problems in society? What is he doing here, then?
An example that I have raised is that the state can use SBAB to increase competition and press down the interest rates. And regarding the inflation, which is raised here, it was the companies' profits that drove it the most. Here we hear nothing about decisiveness.
The Minister for Finance speaks about lower taxes for those who have it toughest. But apparently, people with sickness and activity compensation are a group that has it too easy. The "funkisskatt" is being raised. Can the Minister for Finance tell me why my sister is to receive a tax increase while I have received a lower tax with this government's policy?
Another example of how the economic situation in the country is unfair is that the food giants are making billions in record profits. Is it a well-considered priority, under skyrocketing inflation, to let 13 billion go to the high-paid, to let the billions roll out in deductions for high-income earners? Is there really nothing more to be done?
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! This government said no to extra child allowance. This government said no to an extra student grant. This government says no to taxing the banks' excess profits.
Madam Speaker! Now the savings account is empty and the wallet is empty. Now one has sold what one can sell, and now one has pawned what one can pawn. Still, one cannot afford to pay for either food or rent. I do not believe one understands that anxiety and that panic unless one has been there oneself.
We have never said that we demand that households be fully compensated. What we say is that the fight against inflation cannot cost households any amount at all. How deep will child poverty become? How poor and indebted will the Swedish people become before the Finance Minister acts? Those questions remain.
Yasmine Bladelius (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance wants to fight inflation. We have heard it time and again, and on that point, we do not disagree. But in other respects, the Minister for Finance and I do not agree on much.
The Minister and many of Sweden's economists are also not particularly in agreement. If one does not want to vote for the Social Democrats' proposals regarding, say, extra child allowance, increased maintenance support, leisure activities with paid lunch, increased student support, and so on, one can for God's sake invest in struggling regions and municipalities? Because besides many households—not least the families with children—struggling with increased food costs, interest costs, electricity costs, fuel costs, and rents, they also in large parts of Sweden are struggling against smaller and poorer school lunches, increased costs for public transport and healthcare, and the risk of layoffs.
The government prefers to invest in high-income earners and bank directors rather than in ordinary wage earners and families with children. The question remains, Madam Speaker: If the Finance Minister and the right-wing government do not want to invest in the struggling families with children, why not at least invest in welfare?
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! First, I would like to make a small correction. I have heard several say that we are lowering the tax for high-income earners. But we chose not to raise the threshold. We received some criticism for that, but we lowered the tax instead for people with low and normal incomes. In this situation, I think it was a wise decision.
Social Democrats! Your policy actually left its mark. You left behind the EU's fourth highest unemployment, a heavy over-indebtedness, and the almost worst economic growth in the entire EU. The serious crime and the fatal shootings increased. You caused electricity shortages. You shut down nuclear power against better judgment, which drove up household electricity prices. The reduction obligation drove up fuel costs significantly while the healthcare queues grew, school results worsened, and the migration policy collapsed. That is what we inherited. These are serious fractures in our society. Now you pretend that you suddenly have answers to everything, but when you governed, you prioritized away everything that was important and invested the money in something else.
You have no answers. The only thing you have had to offer in this debate is a misguided bank tax, which would directly hit highly indebted households. I think you are naively trusting to imagine that a bank tax on some kind of very vaguely formulated and calculated excess profits could be introduced without burdening the banks' customers. Now we are there again. Highly indebted households would have even worse finances because of your bank tax.
The difference is enormous compared to this government with our Finance Minister at the helm. We prioritize the justice system and defense, allocate 16 billion more to welfare, and provide strong support to households in a multitude of different ways that I have enumerated before. It is politics that makes a difference.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the interpellators and all other debaters on this very important issue!
Sweden has truly become more dangerous and poorer. That was the Sweden we inherited in the autumn of 2022. I am determined that Sweden shall become safer and wealthier again. We are building a safer Sweden, bit by bit, and have a high tempo in crime policy. We turn over every stone to break the gangs and their economy.
We will also build a wealthier Sweden. Right now, the country is in an economic winter. Inflation picked up in the autumn of 2021 and has continued. Now we are finally starting to get a grip on it by having done what we can with fiscal policy. It is not about individual proposals but about a budget that is not expansive despite the recession. It is not easy, but it is important so that it does not become even tougher for those who have it hardest.
We also support the households that have it toughest; I just want to repeat that. It has been important. The best and most accurate is the increased and extended housing allowance, but we also lower the tax on ordinary incomes. Do not also forget that many benefits are indexed, for example, the sickness and activity allowance. It is completely reasonable, but they do it, and then it is also important that the wage earners – the caretaker, the administrator, the electrician, and the mechanic – get a share of it and feel that purchasing power does not completely disappear into the basement. This is important to make things easier for people.
How would it have been in the Social Democrats' Sweden? There, the fuel would have cost several kronor more in Norrbotten today. The taxes would not have looked the same. The fuel tax would not have been lowered a couple of times but had been much higher. One should probably be honest about that.
Then we can have different measures to support households. It has been important for us to ensure that we dampen the cost pressure for all people who struggle and go to work every day but still have small margins.
Madam Speaker! I want to say something briefly about the food giants and the banks. I will come to the banks soon. I will take the food giants first. In March 2023, I met the three food giants, each one individually, and spoke quite seriously with them. In April, the trend was broken where food prices drove up inflation. Since then, that share of inflation has decreased. Energy prices have contributed negatively, and the contribution of food prices is very small in relation to certain other goods and services. It had an effect.
I just want to say one short thing about the banks. I completely agree that the image is provocative, and I have said that many times. But who thinks that an additional bank tax would make it easier? We already have a bank tax – remember that! And what does it lead to? Well, that it becomes even tougher for mortgage customers.
I call it a mortgage tax because they shift the cost onto those who are already struggling. But, as Jan Ericson pointed out, the Social Democrats are throwing in a proposal in the Committee on Finance that is impossible to implement. I expect more from Social Democrats in opposition. It must actually be possible to implement the policy one puts forward.
I must also say that I have spoken with the banks, especially when the deposit and lending rates did not move in sync. I would like to recommend, since I mentioned Swedbank, that Social Democratic members speak with both the chairman and the CEO. One has been Prime Minister in Sweden and is a Social Democrat, and one has been Secretary of State for the Social Democrats. We must all do our part. I expect you to do yours. But I am sorry – a bank tax, I believe, would only make things harder for people, and therefore I believe it is a bad idea.
With that said, one can still do things and improve competition. There is too little competition. We are working on the interest rate differential compensation so that it will become cheaper to change banks. It should also become easier to change banks, thanks to the introduction of digital tools instead of having to wait two weeks for an envelope. The banks sometimes want to make it complicated. We must make it easier to change banks. That is what I do, concretely, and I hope that the Social Democrats also want to do concrete things that work.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Absolute measures are required to strengthen competition in the banking sector in the long term, but it takes time. What I am talking about is what needs to happen now.
What we in our social democratic government did was to introduce a temporary tax on the electricity producers' excess profits. Likewise, we can now introduce a tax on the banks' excess profits so that it also goes towards something important. What we see in Sweden today, what is the reality, is that high-income earners have been protected while the wage earners have had to pay for the economic crisis. Those who are having it economically tough right now are truly vulnerable and must borrow money to buy food for their children. It is not worthy of Sweden.
In our budget, we have a large number of concrete proposals on what we would like to do, in addition to what we did in the autumn of 2022 – the situation looks different today. We want to strengthen through a temporary child allowance and a tank discount and have many other proposals for measures to help those who are economically vulnerable, because they need it.
We have actually not received any answer from the Minister for Finance. Will this SD-led government make any efforts to support the families and individuals who are particularly vulnerable in the difficult economic crisis that we have in Sweden today? I want an answer to that question.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! Jan Ericson demands answers from the opposition. It is quite obvious that he has made himself too comfortable in the role of the opposition. He must realize that it is now his party that is governing and that he must therefore also take responsibility. But he does not need to worry – by 2026 at the latest, we will ensure that he is back in the role where he feels comfortable.
The Minister for Finance, on the other hand, urges us to speak with our party comrades who hold decision-making positions in individual banks. But the Minister for Finance must take responsibility for the systemic issues and not that type of personal issues.
Things are going record-bad for households, with record debts to the Enforcement Authority, record evictions of families with children, a declining economic standard for households for the first time in around 20 years, as well as skyrocketing food prices and interest rates. At the same time, things are going record-well for the banks and the food giants. The Finance Minister has shown herself unable to do anything about food prices and the food giants' profits, and she does not want to do anything about the banks' excess profits. She wants to place that responsibility on the customers by making it easier to change banks. It is clear that the government's efforts to support the economically vulnerable households are insufficient.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the debate on this so very important issue, which I believe we will have reason to return to.
To both Jan Ericson and the Minister for Finance, I want to say: If you distrust proposals from us Social Democrats, you can look at, for example, the Czech Republic, Spain, Italy or Latvia, which have all now taken measures to tax the banks' excess profits and interest net. It works for them, and I believe it would work well here in Sweden too if we had a Social Democrat-led government.
Madam Speaker! Children living in poverty risk falling into social exclusion due to the family's tight economic conditions. Every child who grows up in poverty is a failure for society. These children may not have the opportunity to participate in football practices in the club because it costs so much with football boots and membership fees etc. They may not be able to keep up with friends at the cinema or go for a coffee. Instead, they risk, for example, being drawn into the gangs' clutches. Every child who grows up in poverty is a failure for society.
I want to ask the same question to the Minister for Finance that Member Eva Lindh asked: Will the Minister for Finance and the government take measures so that children growing up in poor families will receive support and help now?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the debate. Many are struggling now. It is January, one of the absolutely toughest months of the year, now additionally after the toughest years in a very long time for many. It is precisely for that reason that the budget that took effect 30 days ago targets and supports households and welfare. At the same time, we are building Sweden safer and more secure, both against crime and against other countries, especially Russia.
Madam Speaker! What is the government doing then? I have answered that question several times. My most important task has since day one been to both combat inflation and ensure that households are supported. Obviously, the Social Democrats do not think we are doing the right things, but we are doing what we believe is right, namely to support them with minimum margins, lower the tax on incomes, and ensure that the indexations that we fundamentally have can also support those who have it the toughest.
Madam Speaker! I have said it many times: When it comes to those who stand furthest from the labor market, who were forgotten and hidden in the statistics for many years, who do not have a job to go to and who feel even more abandoned, we continue the work of encouraging and supporting with educational initiatives and other parts. Above all, those women who do not have their own economy and who did not even have it during a boom must be allowed to enter the workforce and experience economic freedom.
There are many children and adults who are having a tough time now. I have spoken with many. I have them in my proximity. For my part, I am privileged now, but I myself had it very tough in the 90s. Just as you, I know many people who are having an extremely tough time. I have them in front of me every day. That is why I now both have a responsibility and take responsibility together with others in the Moderate-led government.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.