Certain proposals regarding compensation etc. for persons born in 1957 and 1959 due to the increased age limit for the increased basic deduction

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate concerns the proposal for compensation to persons born in 1957 and 1959 due to the raised age limit for the increased basic deduction - the Committee on Taxation's report 23. There is an agreement in the sense that we have no reservation in the matter. We do, however, have a special statement, Madam Speaker, which I intend to return to.

To provide some history regarding the matter, I thought I would briefly go through the background. The so-called Pensions Group agreed in December 2017 on a number of measures aimed at securing long-term increased, sustainable and secure pensions. The agreement involved changed age limits in the pension system. The raising of the age limits, Madam Speaker, was combined with transitional provisions which mean that persons born in 1957 or earlier still have the right to, for example, guarantee pension and housing supplement from the age of 65.

Simultaneously with the changes in the Social Insurance Code, the age limit in the Income Tax Act for eligibility for the so-called increased basic deduction was also raised from 65 to 66 years on 1 January 2023. Persons who are liable for tax during the tax year and who have had an earned income are entitled to a basic deduction. The basic deduction is calculated at a higher amount for persons who have reached a certain age. The increased basic deduction aims to improve the economic conditions for pensioners.

The amendment to the Income Tax Act was made to adapt the age limit to other changes within the pension and social security systems. Since the age limit applies to the age at the beginning of the tax year, the amendment means that persons born in 1957 are entitled to the increased basic deduction starting in 2024.

The increase of the age limits in the pension system and in the tax legislation has thus meant that persons born in 1957 end up in a situation where they are not covered by the age increases in the pension system and in surrounding security systems but are covered by the provision on the increased age limit to 66 years for the increased basic deduction.

The difference that has arisen in the different regulatory systems in connection with the raising of the age limits in the social insurance system and the raising of the age limit for the increased basic deduction in the tax legislation as described above will also occur in 2026 for persons born in 1959. This is because the pension-related age limits in the Social Insurance Code and in surrounding security systems from 2026 onwards will be linked to the target age for retirement, while the age limit in the Income Tax Act to be eligible for the increased basic deduction this year will be raised from 66 to 67 years.

This is an omission in the proposal from Pensionsgruppen, and this omission is now corrected. We Social Democrats support the proposal and therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in the report, Madam Speaker. As I said initially, we do, however, submit a special statement where we argue that the government could have reacted faster.

We Social Democrats pointed out the issues when the deficiencies in the proposal were discovered, and we have for a long time urged the government to act. Now the government is reacting with this bill, and better late than never.

We have, however, noted that the government's proposed solution does not address the issue that self-employed individuals and companies have paid a too high self-employed contribution and employer contribution respectively for persons born in 1957.

With this said, it is important for us Social Democrats to be clear that there is much left to do to get our pensions in order. We want to take back control of the welfare and ensure that everyone has a pension that it is possible to live on.

We have clear goals regarding the pension that apply to both current pensioners but above all to future employees and pensioners. One goal is that the total pension for ordinary employees shall be at least 70 percent of the final salary.

We Social Democrats want to expand the supplementary pension to make it more profitable to have worked during working life. It is an important principle in our pension system that everyone should receive at least 70 percent of their final salary in pension. We Social Democrats want to increase the contributions to the pension system. We want the contributions to increase so that they correspond to the 18.5 percent that was the intention when the pension system was introduced. We want to reduce the economic gaps and increase equality among pensioners.

Madam Speaker! There is, of course, much that must be done when it comes to equality for pensioners. Much also lies outside the tax system itself; it naturally has to do with how we manage the parental leave and equality in the labor market - the entire gender-segregated labor market. There is much that lies outside the tax legislation itself, Madam Speaker, which is important for us to achieve equality among pensioners. It is something that we Social Democrats, of course, want to work on in all different areas. In this specific report, this matter, we are, however, discussing the tax legislation.

We Social Democrats also want to introduce a gas in the pension system, that is to say that the pension becomes higher when there is a surplus in the pension system, in the same way that the so-called brake makes the pensions lower when there is a risk of a deficit in the system. The pensions simply must continue to improve, Madam Speaker.

Far too many of Sweden's pensioners have too low a pension. Those who have been involved in building up our country and who, through their work, have laid the foundation for our common welfare have a right to security in old age.

We Social Democrats want a sustainable pension system so that both current and future generations receive sufficient pensions. But we also realize that we are living longer, which means that the pension must last for more years than before. This means that we need to work longer, otherwise the pension will be too low. The retirement age must be raised, because what we pay in when we work simply does not suffice when we need the pension for more years. This is the background to the agreement within the Pensions Group, Madam Speaker.

There are many issues that coincide in such a matter. An important issue that we Social Democrats push hard is, naturally, that if everyone is to be able to work longer, the working environment must also be improved. We must have a policy for the labor market and the working environment. There must be a protection for those who, for various reasons, cannot work all the way until retirement. One of these protections is the so-called security pension which we introduced in government.

It is important to remember that this is a multifaceted issue that must be handled in several different ways in several different areas. It is a policy that we Social Democrats have good control over and see at all times, and we fight together with, for example, the trade union organizations to handle these issues on a broad front.

I also want to remind that we Social Democrats during our last government period did a lot to improve things for pensioners. We raised the guaranteed pension and the housing supplement for both single and cohabiting people. We improved the premium pension and introduced a pension supplement of up to 600 kronor per month for those who have worked a full professional life but still have a low pension. I was also involved in that we introduced the security pension, which means that those over 60 years old, who have worn themselves out in work and cannot manage to work until retirement age, can more easily receive sickness compensation.

We Social Democrats want to improve the pension systems and will not give up until all of this becomes a reality, that is, what I began by saying about that one should have at least 70 percent of one's final salary and that the contributions to the system shall be raised. A good pension is part of the Social Democratic basic idea of a secure and solidary society. It is an idea that we will never give up.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I actually had not intended to request the floor, but my party colleague Cecilia Engström asked if I wanted to take this debate for the simple reason that it is an issue that I have championed intensively. It is about the 57s being compensated and that we get changes on the ground that ensure the 59s are not affected by the same thing. Furthermore, we are in agreement here today, which I think is good and positive.

I am one of two members who have remained in the Pensions Group since the bill on the target age was tabled in the Riksdag in 2019. It is because of that we have this debate. We were forced to make this decision because it was not handled correctly when the target age was adjusted.

The reason I requested a reply to Patrik Björck's speech is the specific statement that the Social Democrats have chosen to formulate themselves. It is, at best, a statement formulated out of pure ignorance and, at worst, a political sandbox and disinformation. The Social Democrats write, namely, that the government has handled this issue slowly and further that: "The Social Democrats pointed out the problem and urged the government to act when the circumstances were discovered." That claim is false, and anyone can verify that.

A suggestion to those of you sitting at home and perhaps listening to this debate is to google "Ardalan Shekarabi", "Almedalen" and "Expressen". There, one can hear how the then responsible minister was asked if he intended to do anything. Ardalan Shekarabi's answer was that he would take the question with him.

Is it ignorance or disinformation when you choose to formulate yourselves as you have done in your statement?

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! I would probably be careful about putting the word disinformation in my mouth if I were part of a government basis where the largest party devotes all its strength to troll factories, disinformation, and dishonest political debate. It is just a small tip to the member.

If we then move on to the question itself, we Social Democrats have pointed out to the government during the nearly two-year period that Hans Eklind's government has been in power that it is time to introduce legislation that corrects the errors that everyone agrees have arisen regarding the raised retirement age.

We have had to wait; it is not difficult to check. The government took office in the autumn of 2022, and we are now in the summer of 2024. It is good that the report is coming now, that the legislation is being put in place and that the 57:s receive compensation for what they should have had. But they would not have had to wait for almost two years if Hans Eklind's government had acted faster.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Faced with the question of whether it is ignorance or disinformation, the Member of Parliament chooses to start talking about SD. I suspected that this would happen, so I wrote this down: Disinformation is intentionally false or misleading information that is spread in a planned way with the aim of reaching a certain target group. Disinformation differs from incorrect information, which is an unintentional error where the sender is unaware of the information's inaccuracy.

I must return to the Social Democrats' specific statement and hope that the member still dares to address my question. It says: "The Social Democrats pointed out the problem and urged the government to act when the circumstances were discovered." But they were discovered in the summer of 2022! Anyone can see that in the interview with Ardalan Shekarabi. It was there at least as late as last night.

The Social Democrats say that they did this as soon as they received the information. But they had it themselves when they sat in government! They did nothing, and that is my point. Has the specific statement been formulated on the basis that one did not know that the government knew? In that case, it is a mistake and ignorance. Or has it been formulated in this way despite knowing that the Social Democratic government, which submitted the bill, was pointed out this just a few months after the bill was passed? Then it actually becomes disinformation, because in that case, information has been intentionally withheld from the reader.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! I can almost take for granted that what Hans Eklind is engaging in here in the chamber today is disinformation, because I assume that the member is aware of the situation, especially since he has participated in the work in the Pensions Group.

If Hans Eklind means that the government was supposed to have carried out what it found out in the summer of 2022 – that is, that a proposition should have been written and a report submitted during the Riksdag's summer recess – and passed before the 2022 election, then Hans Eklind is engaging in pure disinformation. The Social Democrats found out in the summer of 2022 that the government had to act when it was given the opportunity to submit a proposition when the Riksdag convened in the autumn of 2022. But, Madam Speaker, Hans Eklind's government waited for almost two years to handle this issue, which is important for the pensioners.

Madam Speaker! What Hans Eklind is engaging in now is pure and utter disinformation. It may possibly be due to ignorance of how the government works; how the Riksdag convenes; how a bill is produced; how a committee report is produced or when, where and how one convenes a summer session during an ongoing election campaign. I assume, however, that Hans Eklind is knowledgeable about this, Madam Speaker. There is, of course, a small possibility that the member does not know the government's or the Riksdag's working methods, but that would be astonishing. Therefore, I would still like to assert that pure and utter disinformation is coming from Hans Eklind in the chamber of the Riksdag today.

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to ask Patrik Björck how the member believes this could have been done in some other, faster way. The cost, which is now estimated to be over 3 billion kronor, one does not simply pull out of a hat. It must be included in the budget. It is therefore not a matter of any sluggishness, but about handling the budget process in a correct manner.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Crister Carlsson has a much more realistic attitude towards the government's and the Riksdag's working methods than the Christian Democrats' Hans Eklind. Crister Carlsson and I can surely agree that, based on the question he just asked me, it would not have been reasonable for the Social Democratic government to have submitted a bill, had it passed through a committee, and had it been passed in the chamber during the summer of 2022 before the change of government in September 2022. Crister Carlsson and I agree that it would have been an unreasonable working process to squeeze in over a period of a few weeks. There, Crister Carlsson, Madam Speaker, confirms Hans Eklind's obvious disinformation in his claim that we should have been able to carry this out during the short time that our government had knowledge of this before the 2022 election. There we agree, Crister Carlsson and I.

Crister Carlsson had a reflection that a few weeks of action during the election campaign had not been enough to get this through. But almost two years and two budgets - we Social Democrats consider that sluggish. This could, of course, have been presented immediately. It could, of course, have been resolved a year ago. Not in a few weeks, but the government surely could have managed it in a year, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind that the exchange of remarks is with Crister Carlsson and not Hans Eklind.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Speaker for pointing that out.

I want to assert that it was the Social Democratic government that submitted the proposal - in the summer of 2022 if I remember correctly; I was not there - but missed the consequences for those born in 1957. The great responsibility lies with the previous government. I also want to mean that the situation was known and nothing was done. Why?

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! We agree, I hope and believe, that the proposal agreed upon by the Pensions Group is being presented by a Social Democratic government. That is the case. That is something we agree on. We were also jointly in agreement on that proposal.

Then we come to the realization, collectively, that this is not complete and needs to be adjusted. At that point, we Social Democrats point this out, and the incoming government waits for two years to handle the issue. We think, which we also say in our special statement, that this is sluggish.

It is very difficult to imagine that one can describe that situation in any other way. I think it is a rather diplomatic and restrained way to describe the slow handling of this matter.

(Applause)

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! Then we shall finally get down to business with the proposal on compensation for people born in 1957 and 1959, something that has undoubtedly been long-awaited by tens of thousands of people across the country. The proposal will repair the unfortunate side effects that resulted from the previous reform with the raised retirement age.

We Sverigedemokrater were not part of the Pensions Group at the time of the decision on this. We were opposed to the proposal on increased retirement age from the beginning and had therefore not let the proposal through. Since 2023, however, Sverigedemokraterna has been part of the Pensions Group, which we see as a great asset for future decision-making.

We have now, together with the government, proposed a compensation to the 57s. In the referral to the Council on Legislation, an increase of the age limit for the increased basic deduction is also proposed so that persons born in 1959 will not be affected in the same way. The proposals were announced in the budget bill for 2024.

I can state that no follow-up motions have been submitted on the bill. That a unanimous Riksdag can stand behind the proposal testifies to the fact that it is well-formulated and thoroughly worked out. It also hopefully provides an extra sense of security to the affected persons to know that the Tidö parties and the opposition are in agreement and that there is no risk of changes in the event of a future change of government.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating an issue of great importance for many: the compensation for the 57s. I wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

This is not only an economic issue but also a question of justice. We must ensure that we as a society rectify previous mistakes and stand up for those who have been treated unfairly.

The 57s, that is, our citizens born in 1957, have been hit hard in recent years by changes in the pension system. These changes have led to this group receiving a significantly lower pension than what was intended. They have ended up in a difficult situation where they, despite many years of hard work and contributions to our society, find themselves in economic insecurity.

It is of great importance for us Moderates and the government that it should always pay to work and to have worked. It is our duty to acknowledge the mistakes that have been made and to take measures to rectify them. The compensation shows that we take responsibility for solving these problems and that we safeguard our citizens' welfare for those who have long contributed to maintaining it.

Madam Speaker! In the bill we are discussing today, it is proposed that the 57s shall be compensated for the economic losses they have suffered due to the changes in the pension system. This compensation is designed to provide these individuals with the economic security they deserve. It is not just about money, but also about restoring the dignity and security that these citizens are entitled to after a long working life.

The proposed compensation involves a payment aimed at covering the lost pension income. This is an important step towards restoring confidence in our pension system and showing that we stand up for our citizens.

Madam Speaker! It is important to understand that the problems we are now solving are a result of decisions made by the previous government under the leadership of the Social Democrats. Their reforms and changes in the pension system have created the situation that the 57s are now in. We must be clear that the responsibility for these decisions lies with them and that our government is now working to set things right.

During the Socialdemokraternas time in power, several reforms were implemented that led to these problems. Their decisions have resulted in an entire cohort being affected by economic injustice. Our government has therefore prioritized to quickly and effectively, I would argue, rectify these errors and give the 57:ras the compensation they are entitled to.

By approving this bill, we show that we not only recognize the problems but are also willing to take responsibility for solving them. It is a matter of giving back the economic security and dignity that our citizens deserve. We also send a strong signal that we value justice and that we are ready to act when injustices arise.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Now Crister Carlsson returns to not wanting to take responsibility for his agreements. The proposal to raise the retirement age, we submitted jointly. When we jointly concluded that there were gaps, we pointed that out to the government, and now the government is coming with a proposal that corrects the problems that arose in our joint proposal.

But that wasn't actually it – for that we cleared up during the previous exchange – which I requested a reply on from Crister Carlsson for, Madam Speaker. I just want to ask a quiet question to Crister Carlsson about how he views small businesses' share in this. Many small business owners whom I have met are requesting compensation also for the self-employed contributions. Now Crister Carlsson has chosen not to accommodate the small business owners. Can Crister Carlsson reason a bit with us and explain how he thought when he left the self-employed owners under the bus?

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I will honestly say that I am not completely well-versed in that issue; we are currently discussing the compensation for the 57s. What I understand is that there is some compensation somewhere for these entrepreneurs, but as I said, I am not completely well-versed in the issue and must therefore, unfortunately, pass on it.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! If Crister Carlsson does not quite know how the proposal came to be, despite the fact that Crister Carlsson represents the government base and the party that holds the position of Minister for Finance, I have no further questions to ask.

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I have nothing more to say either.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I reacted a bit to Crister Carlsson saying that the government has acted quickly and effectively.

It is the case that both SPF and PRO already in 2022, i.e., before the budget work for 2023, wrote to the government and pointed out the tax injustice. At that time, the government and the government basis replied: No, we do not intend to do anything about this - we are raising the job tax deduction for pensioners so that it will pay to work.

What the government should have done – and we are talking about the bourgeois government, the right-wing government – is to answer "Thank you for bringing this to our attention!" and include it in the budget for 2023 so that pensioners born in 1957 would have paid the correct tax already in 2023. I therefore really do not think it has been handled quickly and efficiently. They simply brushed off the pensioners' organizations and said that they do not intend to care about what they say.

I also want to remind of a debate that I and Crister Carlsson had in March 2023. At that time, Crister Carlsson spoke about how it was an unfortunate decision but that the previous government should have informed about this change. I want to point out, therefore, that what those from the government parties did in 2022 and 2023 was to blame the Socialdemokraterna and say that they should have informed more. It was the issue of information that was discussed, not that pensioners born in 1957 would receive fair tax. It took time before you reacted, Crister Carlsson. That is not fast and efficient.

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to such large sums and when one has largely managed to get it under control, it takes time to get it into the budget. There is simply no room to, so to speak, just whip out 3 billion kronor, and as I said, it takes time. I don't really understand how the Left Party intends to do this. Are there suddenly funds to just inject?

Of course this should be included in a budget, but it takes time to get it into a budget. It is the same as with so much other thing that should be included in a budget. We have large investments in the police and against crime, and we give a lot of aid to Ukraine, for example. We give a number of billions to healthcare. We therefore have a lot to handle at the same time, so I actually think that this has gone relatively quickly.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I actually do not know what to say.

There was a letter from the pensioners' organizations that addressed this injustice. Naturally, the right-wing government could have secured 3 billion to rectify it. For example, one could have ignored lowering the tax for high-income earners by 14 billion; then one would have had 3 billion for this and could have spent 11 billion on something else. I would have very gladly waived my tax cut so that pensioners born in 1957 would receive the tax cut they deserve and should have received.

This decision - which all parties in the Pensions Group, including the Moderaterna - made, you are jointly responsible for, Crister Carlsson. Vänsterpartiet was not involved in making that decision. You stand here and say that nothing could be done, but you could have. You knew about this. You knew about it in 2022, but you were not interested then. Say that instead of pretending that this is something you have wanted all along! Say it as it is: the pressure became too great, and you had to back down. Admit it!

(Applause)

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

Crister Carlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is not about backing down or anything of the sort, but this is a budget process that takes time.

Speaking of lowering taxes for high-income earners, the previous Social Democratic government also did quite well. They, for example, removed the wealth tax, which really is the tax for the highest paid.

I think, as I have said, that we have done this in a correct manner. We have included it in our autumn budget and will now compensate the 57s. We are satisfied with that. With that, I thank you for the exchange of remarks.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Now we are rectifying an injustice that should never have occurred.

It is about the fact that the Riksdag early in 2022 voted for raised age limits in the pension system and then also decided to raise the age limit for the increased basic deduction. This meant large tax increases, from almost 1,000 kronor to 3,000 kronor per month, for those born in 1957. These were tax increases that were not known to these people when they retired or even when they were preparing for their retirement.

Those who were unemployed or received sickness benefits also had no choice but to retire, often with a low pension but with higher tax. In total, we are talking about approximately 112,000 people, and the average tax increase for these people is estimated at 26,100 kronor in a year. This corresponds to approximately 7 percent of the average income.

I raised this in the exchange of remarks, but it bears repeating: Already in 2022, before the 2023 budget, the pension organizations pointed out the injustice and wanted the government to do something. But the right-wing government chose to do nothing. Instead, the government and the government base responded that they did not intend to make any changes because the job tax credit was increased and the 57s could therefore continue to work – this despite the fact that many of them had already resigned or wound down their companies when they realized they had been hit by an extra tax.

The government and its government base, Sverigedemokraterna, also did not take into account that, for example, the unemployed, the sick, and others with different insurances had been forced into retirement and did not have the opportunity to extend their working lives. It was only one party that reacted to the pension organizations' letter and submitted a motion in the autumn of 2022 regarding reduced tax for the 57:ors, and that was Vänsterpartiet.

The Left Party's motion was debated by the chamber, and only MP supported it. Initiatives were taken in both the Finance Committee and the Tax Committee, but the government parties continued to look the other way. A spring amendment budget and a spring budget were drafted, but nothing was said about compensation to the 57s.

Only when the 57s began to organize and form an opinion did the other parties wake up – at different paces, with the governing parties being absolutely last in line. Until then, they chose to blame each other. This is what the Social Democratic government should have changed or clarified, replied the governing parties. This is what the current government must now change, replied the Social Democrats.

I recounted some of what Crister Carlsson said in the exchange I had with him just now, and I will recount a bit more of what he said. He said that one must rewind the tape and see where this unfortunate decision comes from, and that he truly regrets the decision. He also said that the previous government actually should have informed about this change at an earlier stage. Note that Crister Carlsson said "informed," even though all the government parties at that time, all the current government parties, and the Centerpartiet voted for this so-called unfortunate decision. Everyone called it unfortunate, but no one wanted to take responsibility. Initially, it was also spoken of more as an information failure than as a tax injustice.

From the Left Party's side, we rejected the raised age limits and therefore voted no to the Pensions Group's proposal in early 2022. The parties that voted through the raised age limits should have introduced transitional rules for persons born in 1957 already then to ensure that they would not fall between the chairs.

It is pleasing that we are now deciding to repay the excess amount to the 57:s, who have paid too much in tax during 2024. I therefore support the proposal. But during 2023, many of them have had difficulty making their finances work, and for a year they were forced to live in uncertainty about whether they would receive compensation or not.

This situation should never have arisen - the 57s should have had the same tax as older pensioners already during 2023. The government could have arranged it in the 2022 budget, but instead of lowering the tax for the 57s, they in the government chose to lower the tax for themselves and other high-income earners.

I am proud that Vänsterpartiet did not vote for this proposal from the very beginning. I am also proud that we were the first party to submit a proposal for fair tax for the 57:s, long before this became a major issue in the media. During the spring of 2023, I pushed and asked question after question to the representatives of the government parties.

I do not intend to take the credit for this, however, because the great work was done by the 57s themselves. They showed that struggle pays off. Two governments thought that the pensioners would bite the bullet and did not count on the pensioners getting all of Sweden to engage on their behalf. The Moderate Finance Minister held out for a long time, but in the end, she was forced to give in. The pressure became too great. The 57s won.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the submitted proposal.

At the beginning of 2023, I – and surely many others in here – was contacted by worried prospective retirees. A man from my home municipality called and told me that his wife, who was a sickness pensioner, would receive approximately 2,000 kronor less per month with the changed proposal and the clash between the different laws, which meant that she would not receive an increased basic deduction. That makes a big difference for a wallet that is already thin and for a person who already has little money. He said that, fortunately, he could work longer with his company so that they could at least be able to pay their bills.

They were lucky, but there are also people who are single. For them, it became enormous problems.

None of us understood the consequences - neither the Pensions Group, the Swedish Tax Agency itself, in its referral response, nor the Pensions Agency did. Mistakes can be made. In that case, one simply has to admit it and correct it.

What I might find a bit tedious is that the focus in this debate becomes a blame game - whose fault is this? One could think that the then Social Democratic government, which had an entire department, could have reacted. It is also true that it took quite a long time before this compensation arrived. Now, however, we are where we are, and I believe those who are looking at this are most interested in when the compensation will arrive. We have corrected this, and we have done it together.

I would like to conclude by saying that this, just as my colleague from Vänsterpartiet mentioned here in the rostrum, is a victory for all the pensioners who struggled to call and inform us about this issue and this injustice. I want to extend a warm thank you to them. This compensation has taken its time, but now it will come quite soon anyway.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Now we are doing it over, and now we are doing it right. This is a good day, and it is long-awaited among the more than 100,000 who were born in 1957.

When Annika Strandhäll, during her time as minister, led the Pensions Group, the group agreed to introduce the so-called target age. Something else we agreed on was that all regulations and taxes related to the target age would be adjusted in parallel. However, that did not happen – the tax rules followed without transitional rules. This meant that persons born in 1957 were no longer seen as pensioners for one year. They therefore did not receive a share of the increased basic deduction, and they consequently did not receive a tax reduction. Persons born in 1957 were pensioners in terms of employment law, but in terms of tax law, they were gainfully employed.

I have been clear that I have intended to drive this issue all the way to the finish line. Now we are at the finish line – today we can make decisions that compensate those people who have paid too much tax.

For me, this is first and foremost a moral issue. Morally, it is completely reprehensible that we have had a situation that has meant that one year group has had to pay more in tax than other year groups. We are rectifying that here today. This is a decision that all political parties in the Riksdag stand behind, and that is very good.

The background to this discussion and to why this decision must be made is, therefore, related to the introduction of a target age. That we have a target age that takes into account how long we live is due to the fact that we humans are living longer and longer, which is pleasing. Since we live longer, the pension money we save up during our working years must last for a longer period. If nothing is done regarding the target age, or the retirement age, people will receive a lower compensation monthly.

As a matter of curiosity, it can be mentioned that the retirement age was 67 years when we introduced the general pension insurance in Sweden in 1913. At that time, the average life expectancy for men was 55 years and the average life expectancy for women was 57 years. That was then. Today, the average life expectancy is completely different; it is 81.6 years for men and 84.9 years for women, according to SCB. Those are the latest figures I have found.

We can observe that life expectancy has increased by over three years since this pension system was launched. The introduction of a target age was and is necessary if we want the compensation rate to be at least 60 percent, which was and is a fundamental principle of the pension system.

Madam Speaker! Almost exactly two years ago, the Riksdag made an incomplete decision - transitional rules for the increased basic deduction were missing. I absolutely do not believe it was anything other than just an oversight. I have sat in the Pensions Group since 2019, or formally since December 2018. There, we have always been very keen on having trust; we ensure that what we agree upon is also implemented.

This was an omission, and it flew under the radar. I think it might sound different to some debaters here today. However, it was not a single party here in the Riksdag that raised this issue. Nor did the engaged and knowledgeable pensioner organizations, the Pensionsmyndigheten, or the Skatteverket discover this omission. It was an omission that flew under the radar.

When we were finally alerted to this, the decision had formally already been made, and at that point we, as political representatives, had reason to try to rectify this. If a bank receives too much into an account, it is not the bank's money, but the money is of course returned to the rightful owner. In this case, the 57:s have been the owners who are to get their money back.

Madam Speaker! I think one should be self-critical. I am, because I also missed that the transitional rule for the increased basic deduction was not included. This could obviously have been handled much better.

The architects behind this failure were the Social Democrats and the Green Party, but that is only half the truth. The whole truth is that regardless of who sits in government, we as members of Parliament have a responsibility to read through the documents carefully so that we truly know what we are making decisions on. But at the time we voted on this, no one invoked this.

The "miss" became known during the summer of 2022. Since then, many have shouted a bit in falsetto: Why did the Tidö parties do nothing in their first budget? A friend of order might think it would be a bit elegant if those who say so had something in their shadow budgets that addressed this. But no. I do not believe the reason was that one did not see the urgency in this, but – and I say this after having sat in the Pensions Group for nearly five years – that the pension system is a complicated system. One thinks that one is turning a bit at one place to correct something, and then it starts moving somewhere else entirely. It is taxes, compensation rules, and one thing with the other. When we make decisions in the Pensions Group, even if it may seem to be a technical change, it does not happen in a heartbeat; there is a very large amount of work behind it to ensure that the measures one takes also achieve the effects one intended.

Madam Speaker! Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Today we all do right, and it is not a day too early.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! Hans Eklind is somewhat more modest in his speech from the rostrum than he was in his opening reply after my speech. Hans Eklind says that it was an oversight that flew under the radar and that neither the pensioner organizations nor the authority saw it. He also poses a rhetorical question as to why the Tidö parties have not done anything for two years. At the same time, Hans Eklind argued in the previous exchange of replies with me that it was realistic to imagine that the previous government would remedy this in a few weeks during an election campaign. You hear for yourselves how misguided this was, which Hans Eklind now confirms in his speech, and for that I thank him.

Madam Speaker! Hans Eklind says that we have a responsibility to read the documents and familiarize ourselves with the issues. Even if the Minister for Finance is not Hans Eklind's party colleague, perhaps Hans Eklind can reason and explain a bit how the thinking was regarding small business owners. Many small business owners have asked me, and the question has been posed to the Minister for Finance in interpellation debates. Now I pose the question to Hans Eklind, who has read the documents, is knowledgeable about the proposal, and knows exactly how the government has reasoned. How does Hans Eklind reason when it comes to small business owners?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let us hopefully clear this up once and for all. I recoiled at your way of formulating your statement. You claim there that as soon as you knew this, you acted. I just want everyone to know that the Social Democratic government, before it was ousted by Swedish voters, had knowledge of this. I have never said anything about a proposition, but I have thought that if it were so simple to act, State Councilor Ardalan Shekarabi, Finance Minister Mikael Damberg, or Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson could have said: We shall rectify this; it was an oversight. But they did not do that.

Patrik Björck comes with more inaccuracies. He says it took two years for the government. That is not true, and Patrik Björck probably knows that. The government took office on 18 October 2022, and the budget which involves compensating those born in 1957 was presented on 20 September 2023. It is not two years; it is eleven months and two days. That is a big difference.

When it comes to the employers, they have paid the employer contributions according to the current procedure. These contributions are normally deductible for the employers in income taxation. If we want to be pedantic, we can also state that the employer contributions do not primarily fall on the employees but on the employers. We have therefore chosen to compensate those who have paid too much tax, and I think it is a reasonable procedure.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! We shall not prolong the discussion on how much time has been needed to handle this, but the sitting government has needed almost two parliamentary years to handle this tax injustice.

It is interesting to note that Hans Eklind does not share the small business owners' concern and view that it is unfair that they did not receive a self-employment fee as they had expected but were forced to wait a year. As the other speaker has stated, the systems apply to both employees and self-employed individuals.

I have, therefore, received an answer to my question. Hans Eklind thinks that the small business owners' concern and perception of injustice is completely unfounded. I thank you for this answer.

(Applause)

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have not met a single entrepreneur who resonates in the way Patrik Björck says. The problem in Sweden has been the high inflation. Getting it down as quickly as possible has been the absolute most important thing for entrepreneurs and households with small margins. Here, I believe the member and I agree. We took over a double-digit inflation, but now it is quickly heading down. It is obviously important for the companies because it is a prerequisite for many of them to be able to continue.

No, Patrik Björck, it didn't take almost two years; it took eleven months and two days. That the Riksdag is handling this issue just today and not earlier is nothing the government has decided. It thus took eleven months to prepare this.

I have not only tried to get the compensation in place. I am also working for something else, and now I feel even more convinced that it is needed, namely that the government appoints an inquiry to find out what it was that happened. Who knew what, when did one know things and circumstances, and how did it happen? Then we can avoid ending up in this situation again. Given the tricky debate that has been and that one has not just been able to say "yes, we take responsibility for this," an inquiry is probably needed to ensure for everyone what actually happened and when.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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