Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson has admitted Sweden has “major problems” as a result of the population growth brought on by mass immigration.Earlier this week, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL) admitted, by 2020, municipalities face a funding deficit of 40 billion Swedish Krona (£3.5 billion) to finance services like hospitals and nursing homes.
“Demographic trends show that, with more children and more elderly people, the need for local government services is expected to grow significantly faster than the tax base,” says Annika Wallenskog, chief economist at SKL.
Andersson told Swedish Television News (SVT) that “it is quite obvious that we have big problems” as a result of the demographic changes aggravated by mass migration.
The Socialist minister stressed the country must hire more staff and build more facilities, and said politicians cannot afford to promise any tax cuts.
Sweden’s National Audit Office announced in November that it believes the government “underestimates public spending”.
In a piece published by Dagens Nyheter, the office remarked: “”If the government’s forecasts are realised, Sweden will be required to make significant reductions to welfare, and municipalities significant cuts by 2020.
“If local government wants to be able to meet the needs of the increased population that is projected, it will have to increase expenditure by 50 billion Swedish Krona beyond what is in the government’s forecast for 2020.”
Granting citizenship to 60,343 people last year, Sweden saw a record number of new nationals in 2016. The largest share of ‘new Swedes’ hail from Somalia.
As a result of its high rate of immigration, Sweden recorded more than 2.3 million people with a foreign background at the end of the year.
The nation’s open borders policy has not been without controversy, however. In February, Breitbart London reported that many libraries in Sweden were refusing to stock Kurdish economist Tino Sanandaji’s “sincere and evidence-driven analysis” of the country’s immigration policy, alleging the contents were “contrary to human rights”.