Response to interpellations 2024/25:52 and 77 on the government's tax cuts

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Kalle Olsson has asked me how lower taxes for the wealthiest contribute to increasing growth in the Swedish economy. Mattias Vepsä has asked me why we have decided on tax cuts, whether an analysis has been made of who receives a share of the tax cuts, and what trade-off I have made between lower taxes and increased resources for school and healthcare.

The budget bill for 2025 focuses on investing in a wealthier and safer Sweden. An important part concerns implementing reforms that increase Sweden's growth. With increased growth, we will become wealthier together and have more tax money to spend on, for example, welfare.

To increase growth, the drive for work and education needs to increase. The Government has therefore proposed a reinforcement of the job tax credit by 11 billion SEK with a focus on full-time working low- and middle-income earners. In order for education and increased responsibility at work to pay off more, lower marginal taxes are also required. Sweden today has one of the highest marginal taxes in the world, which, according to both the OECD and the Productivity Commission, hampers the will to educate oneself. The Government has therefore proposed that the tapering of the job tax credit be abolished. Equivalent measures are proposed for pensioners.

The effects of the tax cuts have been analyzed. The consequence analysis in the budget bill shows, for example, that approximately 6 million people are affected by the proposal for an enhanced job tax credit and the corresponding adjustment for our pensioners. The government's budget therefore entails broad tax cuts for low, middle, and high-income earners.

At the same time, the government prioritizes investments in both school and healthcare. The government, for example, increases the sector grant to healthcare by 2 billion kronor, strengthens the state grant for quality-enhancing measures in preschool, and increases the state grant for teaching materials. In this way, we take responsibility for securing the needs of the welfare system here and now, while simultaneously investing in a richer and safer Sweden moving forward. Moving forward, the situation of the regions is also expected to improve thanks to the fact that inflation is now being combated.

When Mattias Vepsä (S), who presented one of the interpellations, reported that he was prevented from attending the meeting, the second deputy speaker granted that Björn Petersson (S) instead participated in the interpellation debate.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister for Finance!

It is not so long until we write 2025, a year that for a small group will mean a significant boost in personal finances. The explanation for that is that the government is removing the tapering of the job tax deduction for those with the highest incomes. For a person who, like the Finance Minister, earns around 150,000 kronor a month, a tax reduction of 3,000 kronor a month awaits. For a person with Sweden's most common job, a nursing assistant, a tax reduction of 150 kronor a month awaits.

It is grotesque differences, Madam Speaker. We are, therefore, talking about several thousand kronor every month.

Even with a moderate Finance Minister at the helm, one could think that there would be a different sense of what is reasonable and decent, especially when considering how harshly the high prices of recent years have hit – not against the small group that the Finance Minister now chooses to throw billions at, but against ordinary people. Rising interest rates and high food prices have swept away ten years of real wage increases.

Against the dark background, it is in and of itself not difficult to see a need for economic stimuli for pressured households. In other European countries, we now see how governments choose to proceed with increased pensions, reinforced child allowances, and investments in housing construction to get the jobs moving. In the Social Democrats' budget motion, we propose, among other things, increased child and study allowances, reinforced housing allowances for pensioners, and a tax cut that hits the mark. But for the government, it is therefore the high-income earners who are to be compensated the most after the inflation shock, despite the fact that they are the ones least affected by it.

The question is how one arrives at the conclusion that it is a reasonable prioritization that the person with 150,000 kronor needs an additional 3,000 kronor every month.

From the government side, somewhat different arguments have been put forward. Here in the chamber during the morning, we have heard about the principle of half remaining. The Finance Minister has otherwise focused a lot on the fact that this is growth-driving – that it speeds up the economic wheels, as Elisabeth Svantesson usually says.

Growth is indeed an important area, not least against the background that Sweden today has the highest unemployment in ten years. We have a growth that is at the bottom among Europe's countries. There are, however, Madam Speaker, completely different and significantly more accurate measures if one wants to get the economic wheels turning.

If the government had seriously wanted to take growth-promoting measures, it would have invested these billions in the public sector, in public consumption, and directed them towards groups where we know that one would probably have spent every single krona - not because one is wasteful, but because there are large, repressed needs. It would have given a significantly greater return, just as the National Institute of Economic Research has shown in its models, than tax cuts for a small group that already has its feet dry.

If Elisabeth Svantesson, as she says, wants to get the economic wheels turning, why does she then not direct the resources to those who can truly contribute to an injection into the economy and who also need them the most – families with children, poor pensioners and single parents? Why do these groups only get crumbs while high-income earners get so very much more?

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Madam Speaker! My party colleague Mattias Vepsä has, in his interpellation to the Minister for Finance, wondered partly whether there is any analysis of who receives a share of the tax cuts from the government, and partly what trade-offs have been made between tax cuts and resources for schools and healthcare.

In his response, the Minister for Finance points out that one prioritizes school and healthcare with 2 billion kronor in his budget. At the same time, we are talking about tax cuts of up to 28 billion kronor for the well-off. The question from Vepsä is, as stated, about how the trade-offs were made.

In Vepsä's question, there is also a reflection on whether everyone really gets to share in the government's tax cuts. I am surely more than just Mattias Vepsä and I who have heard the Finance Minister speak about everyone getting a share of the government's tax cuts.

I am replacing Tomas Kronståhl today, who is on sick leave. Do those of us who have had the misfortune of being struck by accident or illness receive a share of the government's tax cuts?

I come from the construction industry, an industry with thousands of bankruptcies in the ripples of the inflation fight. Does my comrade Kalle, who literally is part of building our society but is currently unemployed because investments are missing in the construction industry, get a part of the government's tax cuts?

Madam Speaker! A simple question to the Minister for Finance: Do all parts receive the government's tax cuts?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! When the autumn budget was submitted to the Riksdag, it was clear that of a large reform space of 60 billion, nearly 45 percent went to tax cuts.

The Minister for Finance has on several occasions presented an argument that one should not have higher taxes than what is needed. In that case, Madam Speaker, I wonder how the Minister intends to act to ensure the financing of the welfare system when taxes are lowered by 28 billion for 2025.

Should we interpret that no more money is needed for healthcare, even though the Finance Minister's own party comrades are pleading for more money in the regional boards, but now instead need to lay off healthcare staff?

Should we interpret it as that no more money was needed for the preventive social interventions to break the new recruitment of children and young people into crime? Or should we interpret it as that the implementation of the new, comprehensive Social Services Act does not need more money?

Should we perhaps interpret it as that it is the elderly care and the preschools across the country that do not need more resources, or that the welfare workers everywhere in society have sufficiently good working conditions?

Does the Minister for Finance think that there is too much money in the state's finances and that taxes therefore need to be lowered even further in the future, based on the reasoning previously presented – that one should not have higher taxes than what is needed?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Now I have sat for an entire forenoon and listened to Social Democrats who have very great difficulty with tax cuts for wage earners. It is interesting to listen to the debate.

I have also heard the Minister for Finance - from the same party as I, so it is perhaps not surprising that we agree with each other - describe how, during the tough years with high inflation, which we inherited from the previous Social Democratic government, we have prioritized those who have had it toughest with increased contributions and increased benefits and ensured that healthcare and schools receive sufficient resources. All of that has the Minister for Finance described.

Now that the government, together with the Riksbank, trade unions, and others, has succeeded in fighting inflation, there is room for wage earners, hard-working people all over our country who have now lost ten years of purchasing power, to also be able to receive tax cuts. And we hear Social Democrats stand up and recoil in horror at this. That is what this morning has largely been about.

When the Social Democrats lowered the wealth tax, it gave a lot to the Social Democratic cabinet ministers. We have heard nothing about that in this debate, but what is being raised is once again a discussion about whether it would benefit the cabinet ministers from the parties that are now in government if we do a slightly smaller tax cut for them with the highest marginal taxes.

For the Social Democrats, it is always in such a way that what they themselves do is fully and correctly and reasonable. When someone else does the same, it is never that. But, regardless of what one thinks about it, if you have marginal taxes over 55 percent and lower them to 52 percent, it still means that with the tax cuts that are now being made, doctors, lawyers and many other wage groups still pay more than half of what they earn in direct payroll tax. For that hundred kronor that disappears for more than half, they then have to go and buy something that there is VAT and additional tax on. They get to keep very little of that last hundred kronor.

Sweden is one of the countries in the world with the highest marginal taxes, and that is why research clearly shows that it does not cost anything in the long term to lower marginal taxes because you get more hours worked in the economy.

One might think that is good for the individual. It is good for the country and for growth. But do you know who it is also good for? All those people who are standing and waiting in healthcare queues, especially in social democratically governed regions. All those who are standing and waiting in healthcare queues will benefit from us getting more worked hours of doctors. All of that is good, because there is a shortage of people in healthcare. More worked hours mean that more people will receive healthcare. It is good in every way.

This morning, Madam Speaker, is ultimately about what the Finance Minister has pointed out time and again: We need more growth in Sweden. We do not need Social Democrats who tell us how a shrinking cake should be distributed. The cake must grow, because that benefits everyone. It will mean more money for good compensation and good social security systems. It will mean more money for the common welfare where our children shall have a good education, where our elderly shall receive good elderly care, and where healthcare can take care of everyone. All of that is good when it works, and it requires economic growth.

That is why I am glad that we have a government that has fought inflation and is now prioritizing growth.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for these two interpellations. It is a good and important discussion that we have also had earlier this morning, but I am happy to continue it.

When I got this job and when the Moderate-led government took office in October 2022, we inherited high inflation of 9-10 percent, low growth, and very high unemployment. For us, the focus from day one has been on making Sweden safer - I won't say much more about that right now - but also on making Sweden wealthier.

The first thing that needs to be done then is to dampen inflation, and we have done that through responsible budgets while we have been able to strengthen households and welfare. Despite the fact that the economy has been weak, we have not pursued an expansive policy, because then inflation would have continued to increase. It has been an important priority.

Now we are focusing on the low growth. Now we have a recession together with other countries in Europe, for example Germany and France. We have it because Swedish households are interest-sensitive - when the interest rate goes from 1 to 5 percent and one has high mortgage loans that one has not fixed, it quickly becomes increased housing costs - and our construction sector has had it incredibly tough. Here it has also been important to fight inflation. Yesterday, the Riksbank again came with a double cut, and it will benefit households and companies and, in the long run, also the construction sector when demand returns and we will have a different situation.

Madam Speaker! Why do I think growth is important? Well, just as Edward Riedl just said, the economic cake must grow. I see that there is an opportunity to make the Swedish economy grow more for many years to come by doing different things in different areas. I have mentioned it before; it is about infrastructure and energy systems. It is about education. It is about taxes and regulations. We have started that work, and the budget for next year is an important step there. We are making historical investments in several of these parts. We do it so that the economy will grow, so that we do not have to do as in Region Stockholm or the City of Stockholm and raise taxes in order to be able to finance the welfare.

One can also prioritize. We have done that time and again. We have said no to some increases in various expenses and placed it on what is important.

For those who are listening or reading the minutes: Municipalities and regions have the primary responsibility for their own operations. But the state shall take and does take a responsibility - 288 billion in targeted and general government grants will be provided to municipalities and regions next year. That can be good to know. Supplements are one thing - many of the supplements we made for this year are permanent and continue, so the state chips in 288 billion, and I am very happy that the lowered inflation now also means that municipalities and regions receive 50 billion lower pension costs.

We focus on growth in the short and long term. We focus on doing what is required for Sweden to become wealthier. The starting point can never be to always raise the tax as soon as one needs to do more, because if one continues to raise the tax as the members here want to do, it will be tough for those who have the lowest incomes. The municipal tax is, after all, what everyone who works pays, and it is very bad that one chooses to raise it.

The question is whether we have done anything more for Swedish households during these years. Yes, during the first autumn and the first year, we introduced a large electricity subsidy. The reduction obligation was changed, which at the turn of the year made it 4 kronor cheaper. The price of diesel has fallen by almost 10 kronor since we took office. We are lowering the tax for everyone for two years in a row - everyone who has worked and everyone who works.

We are doing a number of things to strengthen the purchasing power of households, and we intend to continue doing so. We want not only Sweden as a country to become wealthier but also for households and their purchasing power to be strengthened.

(Applause)

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Elisabeth Svantesson says in the interpellation response and in the debate here in the chamber that one does both – one makes efforts for low and middle-income earners and for high-income earners. The thing is only that the emphasis in what we are talking about lies on the strong focus that the government in this budget has placed on the country's high-income earners and that this has consequences. There will be significantly less money for healthcare next year, despite the record-breaking warnings hanging over the sector. And those who have the very smallest margins and perhaps have struggled the most through these expensive times – I am thinking of those who were the subject of a previous interpellation debate here today, people with sickness and activity compensation – get virtually nothing in terms of kronor in this budget. Instead, the funkisskatt is increased.

I wanted to come back a bit to the question of growth. When the government, in its budget, announced that they would lower the tax for the richest, they cited exactly the growth argument and stated that Sweden and Europe have fallen behind in relation to the USA. We must catch up, and the way there is, if one is to believe the government, that there should be more left over for those who already have a lot.

One can sense the underlying ideology behind the government's economic policy here. It sounds like an echo from Thatcher and Reagan's 80s. Give a lot to the rich, and we shall see how it trickles down to the ordinary people on the street. This is a policy that has been tested again and again throughout history, with increased inequalities and societies being torn apart as the lasting result.

Sweden is unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, not unaffected by this development. Even here, the gaps have increased too much. But the question is whether we, through active political decisions, want to ensure that Sweden continues in an Americanized direction. It is certainly true that the USA is a wealthy country, but the wealth is extremely unevenly distributed. The American middle class is shrinking - it is smaller than in many comparable European countries. That is how it usually looks in countries with large income inequalities. At the same time as the middle class in the USA has shrunk, wealth has been concentrated among a small elite in a completely extreme way.

The question, then, is whether it is a type of American growth that the Finance Minister has as a target when she presents her tax cuts, where wealth is concentrated among a small elite while income inequalities widen. Is it such a social development that the Finance Minister wants to see in Sweden as well? I believe that, in that case, is an important message. I do not believe at all that particularly many Swedes long for a harder, brutalized class society, characterized by increased fragmentation, where a few pull ahead. The question is what Elisabeth Svantesson sees as so inspiring in such a social development.

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister for Finance! The Minister for Finance answers the question by stating that it is broad groups that receive [the benefits]. I interpret that as a no, Mr. Speaker. Not everyone receives, even if the Minister for Finance does not want to say it. I have the greatest respect for the fact that it can sometimes go wrong and that one can stumble. But I note that not everyone receives a share of the tax cuts, which is evident from the Minister for Finance's interpellation answer.

In his answer, the Minister for Finance focuses heavily on increasing growth and the drivers for work and education. Here I agree. I think that our parties, the Moderates and the Social Democrats, have always welcomed growth. However, we have slightly different views on how we achieve that growth.

With its tax cuts, the government prioritizes the well-off, just as my party colleague Kalle just preferred. One can compare with the nursing assistants, who receive some hundred kronor instead of us, thousands. My colleague Jill is a nursing assistant, and her food bag costs as much as mine. I do not know why growth would increase more from the food bag I buy, or if I buy more food than Jill does.

Handels has conducted a major survey among its members who are employed in stores. A third of them live below the poverty line. What would they do if they received a few thousand kronor more per month? The answers are heartbreaking: not borrow money every month, pay for my prescription medicine, eat until I am full.

Mr. Speaker! Growth - yes. But my question to the Minister for Finance is: Does the government believe that 2,000 SEK in tax cuts for me increases growth more than, for example, 2,000 SEK in wages for an employee in healthcare, which could have been prioritized instead, based on a Social Democratic model for increasing growth?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by stating that the tax cuts that are now being made erode exactly that which we would need to give to the common good – to the school, elderly care, the preschools and the regions when it comes to healthcare and to raising the child allowance for those parents who live with the smallest margins. We would like to raise it by 200 kronor. But what the government is doing is to give the nursing assistant some hundred kronor more in tax cuts, and then we have not factored in that one might also have been able to retain colleagues and get better working conditions.

This is a debate that I nevertheless appreciate very much, because it is a classic debate between Moderates and Social Democrats about what we should do with the common good. It becomes so incredibly clear in the budget for 2025 what the differences are in Swedish politics: Those who have the most and earn the most shall get even more, and those who live on the margins shall get some crumbs. It is like that every time. It will always be like that and has always been like that. It still feels somewhat safe to get something that is very predictable with this government. I appreciate this debate, therefore.

What makes me incredibly concerned is that many people who have paid a very high price will continue to do so and live with the consequences of the economic crisis for a long time to come. That is what I am very concerned about.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! This government inherited 10 percent inflation and one of the EU's lowest growth rates. Everyone who has ever traveled knows the value of the Swedish krona. During two terms with Social Democratic governments, the krona was almost halved against the dollar. It became much more expensive. The Swedish people became, Mr. Speaker, poorer during those years, and there was a lack of reforms for jobs and growth.

We had some of the world's highest fuel prices. The justification was that it would secure environmental and climate commitments.

We can observe that a little over halfway into this parliamentary term, our Finance Minister and this government with the coalition partner have actually fought inflation, and many have contributed to this. The trade union organizations have taken a great responsibility in Sweden. We also have a central bank that has done its part. All of this combined now means that interest rates are going down faster here than in many other countries. It eases the burden for hard-pressed Swedish households.

We have gone from having almost the highest fuel prices in the world to having Western Europe's lowest. All of this combined now means that it becomes better for very many people.

Mr. Speaker! I think we sometimes end up in a vulgar debate here, where some crown that is said to be invested wrongly implies ruin. That is not the case.

What we need is to ensure that growth increases and that the cake grows. Then we can continue to build strong social security systems and ensure that ordinary wage earners actually manage.

At the beginning of this debate, I heard Social Democrats express that the wage earners certainly have not had it particularly tough. But I would say that very many people all around the country have had it very difficult.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is in many ways a worrying time that we live in. In that case, it can be good to know that Sweden stands on a very steady economic foundation and a steady political foundation. We have a steady economy because we have a low national debt and strong public finances, and we also see that what we do together affects the Swedish economy in a macro format.

But we also stand on a firm political ground, because we are four parties who have decided to make Sweden both richer and safer. In the budgets that we have presented - we have presented three here in the Riksdag - we have been able to push back inflation and at the same time support households. Two times we lower the tax for everyone. We also ensure that we lower fuel prices. We also lower the tax on savings, so that more can save and also have their money grow. We want Sweden to become safer, and we want Sweden to become richer.

I received a question from Kalle Olsson about the USA and productivity. Let me put it this way: I think Sweden is the land of opportunity. Here in Sweden, you can get an education for free. You can do it regardless of what kind of wallet or background your parents have. Here in Sweden, there are good conditions to actually grow. Someone who has immigrated here can study Swedish for free and even receive compensation for doing so, and you can come here and pursue further education. It is the land of opportunity.

When it comes to the USA and competitiveness, I must say that I and my colleagues in the EU have had large and long discussions every month over the past year regarding precisely competitiveness. We see that the USA is running ahead.

Productivity is thus the basis for having growth, and the USA's productivity has increased significantly. There are things to learn from here and to see how Sweden and other countries in the EU should not fall behind. But Sweden is Sweden, and we have our institutions and our model. But one can always learn from others.

It is with concern that all of us 27 see that the EU is falling behind. We have constant discussions about how this should be solved and some different approaches. Some countries think that we should have more joint borrowing to get the economy moving, while others think that other things are needed for the economy to grow. This is a discussion that is ongoing powerfully in the EU.

Yesterday, I received questions, among others, regarding Trump and what will happen now. But I think we also have our own homework to do. What happens in the USA affects us, absolutely, but we can also influence our own economy. This is something I have a very great focus on, specifically when it comes to growth issues. Even if the EU does not do enough together – if that becomes the case – we in Sweden must do what we can. It is about education systems, tax systems, skills supply issues, and investments in infrastructure and energy systems. All of this and even more needs to be improved, so that the Swedish economy can grow moving forward.

For me, this is also important for distribution. Fiscal policy has an important role when it comes to structure, that is to say achieving growth, stabilization, so that inflation does not run away, and distribution. Sweden has also been built by the fact that we have not had as large gaps as many other countries and, for example, by the fact that the welfare systems have been accessible to everyone. We do not have expensive healthcare and so on.

Sweden is fundamentally a fantastic country. But Sweden has problems. The moderate-led government is tackling those problems step by step.

No, Sweden is not to become the USA, but Sweden must become more productive in various ways, so that even more Swedes and those of us who live here can become wealthier.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! No, this is not about any crown, as Edward Riedl said. I am talking about 3,000 kronor in further reduced tax for a person who earns 150,000 kronor a month.

When the Minister for Finance was asked what she herself would do with this money, she became evasive. I am not in the least interested in what the Minister for Finance does with her private finances, but I thought the answer was telling in the context. If one earns these sums, the basic needs are met. The golden edge of life is there. The buffer is secured. It is not a question of whether there will be a holiday during the summer break, and the football boots are standing in the hallway.

If, on the other hand, we asked the same question to pressured households, we would not have to wait for answers. We would get answers, growth-driving answers. It would be clothes and food and outings with the children. It would be more money into the business sector, more jobs and increased growth – exactly what Sweden needs right now.

Or if we had asked the corresponding question to the country's municipalities and regions, what would they have done? They could have started by withdrawing the record-high warnings that now hang over health and medical care and which will lead to more unemployed, poorer accessibility and longer queues.

In conclusion, one must at least concede that the Minister for Finance is clarifying to such an extent that she shows what this government prioritizes and values most. She clarifies who is important and who is industrious, a word the Minister for Finance often returns to. The one who is industrious in the Minister for Finance's Sweden is not the bus driver who gets up at 04.30 to drive us others to work. It is not the nursing assistant who takes the night shift at the elderly care home. The industrious are a small group of people, many of whom sit in front of computer screens and move around other people's money. They are the pillars of society in this government's Sweden. Apparently, just because they get it better, we all others must also get it better.

This is not only an incomprehensible policy, but it is also deeply provocative.

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the Minister for Finance, for the answer! But I became a bit confused when the Minister for Finance repeated that everyone gets a tax cut. I simply have to go home and study the figures one more time, because I cannot find this either in the written answer or in the debate earlier today.

In any case, I think, just as my party colleagues have said earlier, that there is a clear ideological dividing line. That prioritizing tax cuts would drive growth better than investments from the public sector is an ideological dividing line. I am grateful that we can debate it and stand for our different opinions.

I am personally driven by the idea of burden according to capacity. I have no problem personally paying a higher percentage in tax than Jill or Kalle who work in healthcare or on construction sites.

I thank the Minister for Finance for the debate and welcome continued debate from an ideological point of view.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps this debate may feel vulgar in the sense that we are now entering the Social Democrats' favorite scene, where it is about views on humanity and one gets to use the same lines as one has used since attending courses at Bommersvik. But let me tell you what drives me, Mr. Speaker!

Since I got this job, I am driven every day by the fact that the Swedish economy should grow. We are doing a lot of things for exactly this. The budget that we have presented is growth-promoting, everything from what was mentioned by previous speakers to taxes. That we have very high marginal taxes is hindering growth. We must remember that we today have a progressive tax system which means that those who earn the most also pay very much more in tax, percentage-wise.

I will return to the basic question. I heard that it is suggested that I answer strangely to the question of what I will do if I get more money. Yes, but I am not thinking about that, because every day I think about how the Swedish economy should grow and how we can improve things for people.

That is why we, the Moderate-led government, are now presenting a dental care reform that the Social Democrats have never managed to achieve. There, we truly facilitate access to dental care for those who are 67 years and older. We know that this is one of the biggest problems for many elderly Swedes.

That is also why we are now powerfully increasing the sickness and rehabilitation allowance in special cases - no one has done so in twelve years. It is increased by 2,100 kronor per month for those who have it the toughest, and one can receive a housing supplement of 1,700 per month.

This is what a moderate-led government does. We do it at the same time as we lower the tax for everyone who works and has worked, because it should pay to work and have worked. During these years, our benefits have been increased for those who have not worked. It is reasonable that they are compensated. But we truly believe that it is also reasonable to look out for all wage earners - the hardworking bus driver, the nurse, the nursing assistant, and many more.

Have a nice weekend, Mr. Speaker!

(Applause)

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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