Response to interpellations 2025/26:511 and 539 on the distributional effects of economic policy and the state's finances

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Niklas Karlsson has asked me if I assess that the government's economic policy is compatible with the Instrument of Government's formulations that the public shall work for social care and security and if I intend to take any action based on my assessment. Patrik Björck has asked me what reasons underlie the fiscal policy pursued by the government and if I consider that the policy contributes to strengthening the state's finances. Patrik Björck has also asked me if the government's current policy will in the long run achieve a stable economy in Sweden and if not, how I intend to act to achieve a stable economy in the country.

To answer Patrik Björck's question, I would first like to clarify that Sweden has a low public debt and world-class public finances. Sweden's public debt amounts to 35 percent of GDP, which can be compared with the average in the EU, which exceeds 80 percent of GDP.

The global economy remains uncertain, but Sweden's strong public finances and low debt provide good resilience. At the same time, the serious security situation requires increased defense investments. There is broad political agreement on this, including on temporary debt financing, with the goal that the financial savings shall be in balance by 2035 at the latest. It will require financing during the next and the following parliamentary term.

Against this background, it is crucial that the economy is not weakened by increased taxes that hinder growth. The government has reprioritized up to 50 billion kronor and shown that it is possible to combine reforms with strong public finances. We will continue to take responsibility for public finances while simultaneously strengthening the Swedish economy.

In response to Niklas Karlsson's question, I would like to point out that the government's economic policy is, of course, compatible with the formulations in the Instrument of Government. We inherited high inflation and low growth. Now we have growth above the EU average and are expected to have the lowest inflation in the EU in 2026. During the mandate period, the government has focused on supporting households and welfare. A typical family with children receives 5,000 kronor more per month thanks to our budgets during the mandate period.

The government's policy has, over the entire mandate period, given most to those who earn the least. The income inequalities, measured by the Gini coefficient, have decreased since the government took office, as has the economic vulnerability. Child poverty, measured by SCB's measure for low income standard, has also decreased and is the lowest in ten years.

The government continues to work so that hard-working people will get it better through increased growth and a strengthened work line. Thus, we take important steps to build a wealthier and safer Sweden.

The other deputy speaker announced that Niklas Karlsson (S), who submitted one of the interpellations, had reported that he was prevented from attending the meeting.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! It was an exciting interpellation answer we received from the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance began by clarifying that Sweden has a low public debt and public finances of world-class standard and that we are in a good position compared to other EU countries. That is, in itself, true. But the question is how we ended up in that position.

Madam Speaker! In modern times, Sweden has been struck four times by the fate of being governed by right-wing governments. It was the Fälldin and Ullsten governments 1976–1982, the Bildt government 1991–1994, the Reinfeldt government 2006–2014, and now the Kristersson government since 2022, which we will hopefully replace after the election. This is important information in order to be able to comment on the answer from the Minister for Finance.

Every time the right has been in power, Sweden has namely received poorer growth, higher national debt and higher unemployment. A friend of order then becomes a bit thoughtful and wonders: If the right every time delivers unemployment and skyrocketing national debt, how can it then be that Sweden has, to quote the Finance Minister, "low public debt and public finances of world-class"?

For the friend of order, it is then important to point out that between the right's periods of government, Sweden has had social democratic-led governments, which each time, with tough, wise and rational policy, have had to clean up after the right-wing governments and ensured that wealth was distributed more fairly.

Yes, compared to other EU countries, Sweden actually has a lower public debt, and yes, globally speaking, we have fairly good public finances. But that is not due to the four occasions when Sweden has been hit by the right-wing governments' economic policies.

It is impossible to make this equation work.

It is very important to see the connection between the right-wing governments' economic policy and how the economy develops, and the connection between social democratically governed governments and how the economy and unemployment then develop.

Listeners and TV viewers! Many times when one hears a Social Democrat or a Moderate speak, one might think they sound quite similar. One might get the impression that it could go well with either S or M; it doesn't matter that much because they want the same thing and want us all well. But then one should check what their respective policies have led to previously.

If the right, every time they have governed, has left behind higher unemployment and higher national debt, how can it then be, Finance Minister, that Sweden despite that has reasonably good public finances? Could it have to do with that Social Democratic governments have governed between the right-wing governments?

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer to Niklas Karlsson's interpellation.

Niklas Karlsson refers to Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Instrument of Government. It reads as follows: "Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all human beings and for the freedom and dignity of the individual. The individual's personal, economic, and cultural well-being shall be fundamental goals for public activities. In particular, the public shall guarantee the right to work, housing, and education, as well as work for social care and security and for good conditions for health."

Madam Speaker! Eurostat measures material and social poverty in Europe every year through the EU-SILC survey. In that survey, people are asked if they can afford things that are considered to be part of a basic standard of living. The questions concern, among other things, the possibility of paying for unforeseen expenses, taking one week of vacation per year, paying bills on time, and keeping the home sufficiently warm. The survey covers a total of 13 indicators. If a person states that they cannot afford at least five of these, the person is classified as materially and socially poor.

In Sweden, 6.9 percent of the population reported that they lived in material and social poverty in 2025. This corresponds to 729,000 people. The EU average for the proportion of the population living in material and social poverty was 12 percent in 2025. The highest proportions were in Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria. In Greece, 30 percent of the population lived in material and social poverty. The lowest proportions were in Croatia, Poland, and Slovenia, with the lowest being in Croatia at 4.4 percent.

Since 2016, material and social poverty in the EU has decreased from 16.4 to 12 percent. The development can largely be explained by the fact that several member states have had a strong economic development during the period.

Sweden, however, has developed in the opposite direction. The proportion living in material and social poverty increased from 3.0 percent in 2016 to 6.9 percent in 2025. The largest increase occurred during this parliamentary term in connection with the inflation and energy crisis in 2022. Between 2022 and 2025, the proportion living in material and social poverty rose from 3.5 to 6.9 percent.

Madam Speaker! In this situation, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson and the Tidöregeringen have prioritized lowering taxes for high-income earners. The rather special family Snutsyrra, who has two children, a villa and large loans and who consumes 1,000 liters of gasoline a year, has received approximately 5,000 kronor more per month – that is correct. Most of it has been received by the family Prästminister and Mr. and Mrs. Riskkapitalbolagsdirektör.

How can this design of the tax policy be compatible with the provisions of the Instrument of Government regarding what the public sphere in particular shall strive for? I do not understand it. Elisabeth Svantesson perhaps can explain?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! What is the difference between the Moderates and the Social Democrats? Patrik Björck touched upon it. The difference is, among other things, that the Social Democrats have completely abandoned the work line and that in every situation they put increased taxes and increased benefits ahead of prioritizing and strengthening hard-working people.

Madam Speaker! I had the pleasure of entering the Riksdag at the same time as Patrik Björck 20 years ago. Since then, I have had the opportunity to participate in passing ten tax cuts for the metalworker, the white-collar worker, and the baker. Ten times we have lowered the tax for those who work. It has been good, not only for the individuals but also for the work line, for purchasing power, and for development.

Sometimes reality is still the Social Democrats' worst enemy. When I became Finance Minister four years ago, inflation was at 10 percent. Then we presented a restrained budget. We received criticism for that, but it was precisely so that we would not drive up inflation but fight it, for the simple reason that high inflation is a poison not only in household finances but also in the Swedish economy. This year, inflation is expected to be the lowest in the EU.

No matter how much Mikael Damberg and Patrik Björck reuse their talking points from previous years and say the same thing, it is still the case that Sweden was at the bottom of the growth league when we joined, but now the growth rate is expected to be one of the highest in the EU.

It is also the case, Madam Speaker, that during these years we have invested in infrastructure, and we continue to do so. We have doubled the defense appropriations. We have done what the Social Democrats did not do, namely creating and building safety and security for people. Therefore, the deadly gang violence and the shootings have been halved in three years.

Are we finished? Are we perfect? No, is the answer to both questions. But we have now led Sweden, and are leading Sweden, in the right direction and are doing what we have promised. We have begun the journey towards building Sweden much safer, stronger and wealthier.

Madam Speaker! I believe that many people may not have fully recognized themselves in Patrik Björck's description of reality. During these years, which have been very tough for many, we have supported families with children with 5,000 SEK a month. As far as I know, the Social Democrats have never done that. They have never lowered taxes on so many occasions for workers as we have.

What I know is that the Social Democrats here in Stockholm have raised the tax. In this speaker's chair stand Social Democrats and blame me for conducting a policy that hits ordinary people, but the municipal tax in Stockholm hits every person who works there. Most of all, those who earn the least are hit, and it hits hardest those who have the lowest incomes.

I am glad that our four parties have stuck together in a tough time. We have had four state budgets that have received a majority here in the Riksdag. It is now almost unusual. It creates stability and calm in an otherwise turbulent world.

The national debt is lower now than when Magdalena Andersson left the position of Finance Minister. That is a fact. One can paint whatever picture one wants, but please read the budget bills! There you see the distribution and the tax cuts for people who work. Then you see a different picture than the talking points from Bommersvik.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance says that the difference between Social Democratic and Moderate policy is that we have abandoned the work line. I would be careful if I were a representative for a government that had failed in the fight against unemployment. If one leaves behind a much higher unemployment rate than the one that prevailed when taking office, one gets problems with that type of argumentation.

Then it naturally depends on how one defines a term like the work line; it may be done. Ordinary people, I was about to say – the vast majority who are listening to this debate – probably mean that the one who wins when it comes to the work line is the one who succeeds in combating unemployment. There is no labor market policy under the sitting government at all – it does not exist.

What I am describing is reality. The difference in outcomes for the four parliamentary terms with right-wing governments – the four economic catastrophes that have hit Sweden – have each time, after the summation of the parliamentary term, been a higher unemployment and a higher national debt. These are facts that anyone can verify.

What is the difference? Why does it arise here? Well, it naturally depends on what policy is being pursued. It does not depend on temporary, random events in the outside world, but it is about fundamental policy. The policy being pursued depends on what ideology one has, and what ideology one has depends on which voter groups one represents.

The Moderates primarily represent those who are rich and powerful – those who had the money and the power before democracy was introduced. We Social Democrats primarily represent ordinary people, who had neither money nor power before we ensured that democracy was implemented and prosperity was built in this country. Every time we have tried to improve this country, we have done so by our own strength, sometimes together with the Liberals, but always with the right and the Moderates as opponents. That is a fact. It is easy for anyone to state.

The Minister for Finance said in his response: "Against this background, it is crucial that the economy is not weakened by increased taxes that hinder growth." The Minister for Finance then explained how taxes have been lowered. The concern is, however, that the tax cuts are being made with borrowed money.

These tax cuts have primarily been given to those who have the most, i.e., the groups that the Moderaterna represent: the rich and powerful, those who had the power and the money before prosperity was built and democracy was introduced – the politics that the Moderaterna have constantly opposed.

It is the rich and the powerful who have been allowed to take part in the Moderates' policy, and that is not so strange. They are their core voters. They are their voter groups. It is no more strange than that we Social Democrats – who represent ordinary people, hard-working people – know that order and stability in the economy is absolutely crucial if we are to manage to handle economic cycles, if we are to manage to handle pandemics, and if we are to be able to manage to handle security policy crises in our surrounding world.

This is what we Social Democrats know, in exactly the same way that ordinary people who have a household economy know that you cannot borrow for consumption. You cannot borrow for vacation trips; instead, you build a stable economy for yourself and your family. In that way, we Social Democrats do exactly what ordinary people do: We build a stable and secure economy, we borrow for investments, and we ensure that consumption is financed. This government is not managing to do that. That is why things are going very poorly for the country right now.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I could not perceive any answer to or any reflection on the question that Niklas Karlsson and I, on his behalf, have posed regarding the serious developments concerning social and material poverty and high unemployment in Sweden and its compatibility with the provisions of the Instrument of Government regarding what the public, in particular, shall strive for.

Madam Speaker! Niklas Karlsson, the chairman of the Committee on Taxation, wrote on Facebook after the latest party leader debate: ”Are we seeing a new Cossack election? Today's party leader debate in the Riksdag is reminiscent of the historical election of 1928, where the right went on a full-scale attack against the social democrats. The accusations had no restraint – the decay of the socialists, a vote for Moscow, the dissolution of family ties, and so on.” The accusations had no restraint that time and perhaps not now either – increased taxes on everything and everyone.

I welcome tough debates, Madam Speaker, but I also welcome answers to questions.

Citizens! Vote with the Social Democrats on September 13, so we can build a Sweden where the public guarantees the right to work, housing, and education, and works for social care and security and for good conditions for health – for everyone! A Sweden where we invest in welfare, housing construction, and the climate transition and invest in labor market policy. A Sweden where high-income earners contribute more – a little more – to the common good, where we stop overcompensating profit-seeking schools for missions they do not have, where we raise child, housing, and maintenance allowances, make medicines cheaper, and invest in the school, the healthcare, and the elderly care. A stronger, more just Sweden.

Thank you for the debate and happy summer, Finance Minister!

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to wish Markus Kallifatides a happy Midsummer.

I would like to mention a few things.

Patrik Björck is more than welcome to paint a black picture of me. I expect that he will continue to do so. He has a few months left in the Riksdag. But it is unnecessary to paint a black picture of what actually works and is good in Sweden, for the simple reason that one of the causes of the recession having set in – even if we are now seeing the end – is the unpredictability and uncertainty all around that causes many people to hold back. If one is then told on a daily basis that everything is going to hell with the economy in Sweden, it does not create security, directly. So feel free to paint a black picture of me, but not of the Swedish economy, because the Swedish economy is brutally strong.

The Social Democrats and the Moderates and other parties here in the Riksdag have agreed to strengthen the defense. We have agreed to contribute in a good way to Ukraine. That constitutes over half of the deficit that the state will have this year and next year. That is what we agree on, so I must ask a question back. We have a strong economy and a low state debt. We agree to make these defense investments. As far as I know, the Social Democrats also stand behind our investments in infrastructure and the justice system. What is it then that is to be removed?

One stands in the chamber of the Riksdag and says that this is going downhill and that this government is leaving large deficits when one oneself has almost an identical size of the budget. It is not credible. I think one should take responsibility for what one does and describe what one does, comprehensibly but also truthfully.

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, our economic policy, that is, the government's, has benefited those with the lowest incomes the most. We report this in the same way as all governments before us.

The Gini coefficient might not be something one thinks about every day, but some of us do. It is the most common way to measure economic inequality in the form of income distribution. It is calculated to have decreased over this parliamentary term. Sweden has thus become a more equal country since we took over.

Hasn't it been tough for many? Yes, absolutely. That is exactly why it has been so important to support households and lower taxes on work and on pensions. Now we are also ensuring temporarily to stimulate the economy, for example with a reduced food VAT and by making it cheaper – half the cost – to use public transport. All of this is good for people, and if I understand correctly, the Social Democrats also stand behind it. Or is it something Patrik Björck would gladly remove from these large investments that we are now making?

Turbulent world, unpredictable world, unpredictable American leadership – I have said many times, here and in other places, that it will come with a high cost for Sweden and the Swedes. But we will manage it better than the vast majority of countries for two reasons – just now because we have a much better energy mix than many other EU countries, but also because we have a low national debt that allows us to act where other countries would get skyrocketing national debts if they do.

We are thus on the right path, Madam Speaker, but we are not there yet. There is much more to be done. Just as the members have said before me, there is an election soon, and then one must, of course, choose. Will there be higher taxes or lower taxes? Will there be a strengthened work line or a strengthened benefit line? I would gladly continue to strengthen the Swedish economy and the economy of the Swedish people.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! No, I am absolutely not blackening the Finance Minister. I am, however, telling what right-wing politics does to the economy and unemployment. If one is a right-wing politician, one can of course experience it as being blackened. But it is the policy I am blackening, just so we are in agreement on that.

What is it that is to be removed? asks the Minister for Finance. Yes, it is the right-wing politics that are to be removed. If one fails with growth and fails with the fight against unemployment, then a smaller cake is baked. If one simultaneously borrows for tax cuts, the now decent public finances will slowly but surely get worse and worse.

The Minister for Finance has one last chance to answer my question.

It is a completely correct description of the results of the four right-wing governments regarding national debt and unemployment that I have given. The national debt has gone up and unemployment has gone up all four times that the right has governed this country in modern times. It is just facts, and anyone can check that.

If we now have a reasonably good economy in Sweden, can the Finance Minister tell us what that is due to? I believe that the vast majority understand that it is because, between these four disasters with right-wing politics, we have had Social Democratic-led governments that have cleaned up. And we stand ready to clean up again.

How then shall we clean up? Yes, we shall build the welfare. We shall fight unemployment. We shall have a policy that promotes growth. Then the cake grows. The cake becomes larger. We shall then distribute it more fairly, because the smart thing about social democratic policy is that it is not only good for the heart. It is also smart and rational for the brain. Heart and brain, that is social democratic policy.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Patrik Björck, for this discussion!

I completely agree that heart and brain are important in politics. When I go to work every morning, I actually have the Swedish people in mind, even if Patrik Björck does not believe it. I also have in mind that Sweden should become a better country also for our grandchildren, not just tomorrow but for the generations to come.

Now I have received some input here from Patrik Björck. I will leave them. But if I have understood the matter correctly, Patrik Björck will not be returning here this autumn, so I want to take the opportunity to say a few words.

It was 20 years ago that Patrik Björck and I entered the Riksdag together. We sat in the same committee. Patrik Björck's passion has not diminished. It has been constant at a high level for the issues and the Sweden that he works for. I just want to thank him for the cooperation, for the debates, and for the efforts here. Being a part of Sweden's Riksdag is an incredibly important deed for democracy, whether one stands here at 21:07 and discusses a report that one perhaps does not wish to discuss or something else. But thank you for good debates, high tempo, and great energy! I also wish Patrik Björck both a happy Midsummer and a happy autumn.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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