Sweden Finland Austria

79
Table 3.2.
Sweden. Relative change in disposable income, per cent.
1991
1992
1993
New rules
Elements
’Correct’
Elements
’Correct’
Elements
’Correct’
data
data
data
Ill, 1 week
-0.5
-0.5
-0.3
-0.3
-0.6
-0.5
Unemployed 3 months, 
insured
-2.9
-3.0
-3.1
-3.3
-5.9
-6.0
Unemployed 12 months, in-
sured
-
-11.9
-
-13.0
-19.2
-19.9
Unemployed 3 months, 
non-insured
-15.8
-15.9
-15.9
-16.0
-16.9
-16.8
Unemployed 12 months, 
non-insured
-
-67.0
-
-67.5
-69.7
-69.2
Wife unemployed
12 months, insured
-
-3.5
-
-3.5
-7.4
-7.6
Injuries work, 
100 % loss
0
0
0
0
0
0
Injuries work, 
33 1/3 % loss
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pensioner,
full working history
-31.2
-31.3
-31.2
-31.7
-33.0
-31.3
Pensioner,
no working history
-58.7
-58.7
-58.6
-58.9
-59.4
-58.4
Pensioner couple, 
full working history
-
-30.0
-
-30.4
-31.6
-29.8
Family 
1 child
+5.0
+5.0
+4.8
+4.8
+4.7
+4.8
2 children
+10.1
+10.1
+9.6
+9.6
+9.4
+9.6
3 children
+17.6
+17.7
+16.9
+16.8
+16.4
+16.8
Maternity 
Max. period
-3.5
-3.5
-3.5
-3.4
-3.3
-3.6
Common period
-0.8
-0.9
-0.9
-0.8
-0.8
-0.9
To be continued...

---

80
Table 3.2.
Sweden. Continued.
1994
1995
1996
Elements
’Correct’
Elements
’Correct’
Elements
’Correct’
data
data
data
Ill, 1 week
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.7
-0.7
Unemployed 3 months, 
insured
-6.1
-6.1
-6.8
-6.7
-7.5
-7.9
Unemployed 12 months, 
insured
-20.0
-20.1
-23.0
-22.7
-26.2
-27.8
Unemployed 3 months, 
non-insured
-15.7
-15.8
-16.1
-16.0
-16.9
-17.1
Unemployed 12 months, 
non-insured
-64.0
-64.6
-65.9
-65.8
-69.3
-70.0
Wife unemployed
12 months, insured
-7.7
-7.7
-7.7
-7.7
-9.5
-9.6
Injuries work, 
100 % loss
0
0
0
0
0
0
Injuries work, 
33 1/3 % loss
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pensioner, 
full working history
-31.5
-32.6
-32.9
-32.6
-34.3
-35.7
Pensioner, 
no working history
-58.1
-58.8
-58.8
-58.7
-59.5
-60.4
Pensioner couple, 
full working history
-29.7
-30.9
-31.2
-31.0
-32.7
-34.2
Family 
1 child
+4.7
+4.7
+4.6
+4.6
+3.8
+3.7
2 children
+9.5
+9.3
+9.2
+9.2
+7.6
+7.4
3 children
+16.6
+16.3
+15.0
+15.0
+11.4
+11.1
Maternity 
Max. period
-3.6
-3.6
-6.5
-6.5
-8.5
-8.5
Common period
-0.8
-0.9
-1.5
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
To be continued...

---

81
Table 3.2.
Sweden. Continued.
1997
Elements
‘Correct’
data
Ill, 1 week
-0.8
Unemployed 3 months, 
insured
-8.3
Unemployed 12 months, in-
sured
-29.2
Unemployed 3 months, 
non-insured
-17.2
Unemployed 12 months, 
non-insured
-70.6
Wife unemployed
12 months, insured
-9.1
Injuries work, 
100 % loss
0
Injuries work, 
33 1/3 % loss
0
Pensioner, 
full working history
-36.3
Pensioner, 
no working history
-60.7
Pensioner couple, 
full working history
-34.8
Family 
1 child
+3.7
2 children
+7.3
3 children
+11.0
Maternity 
Max. period
-9.3
Common period
-2.3

---

82
1)
The pension points for supplementary pension are fixed in the calculations, cf. the docu-
mentation.
Comments on table 3.2.
1991
The results of the two sets of calculations are almost identical. The small differences which
can be observed are primarily due to a tax rate which was a little too low in ’Elements’
combined with a slightly underestimated income level for the production worker. The
effects of refined calculations of the benefits as well as application of correct roundings in
the tax scheme are hardly visible.
1992
The deviations are slightly larger in 1992 than in 1991, but the results of the two sets of
calculations are still very close. The only reason for the differences is the somewhat
underestimated income level for the production worker in ’Elements’. In 1992 unem-
ployment benefits (both when insured and non-insured) and pensions were not directly
1)
linked to income, resulting in slightly higher negative impacts under ’correct’ data than in
’Elements’. A slight effect is also seen for family allowances. The refinements in the
calculation of the benefits are hardly visible.
1993 (The rules from July 1st apply)
In 1993 there was a significant overestimation of the APW income level in ’Elements’, cf.
table 3.1, and an error in the calculation of the social security contributions. The error on
the social contributions was that transfers (benefits for illness, maternity and unemploy-
ment) were not included in the basis for calculation of the contributions, which they should
have been. The overestimated income level only has a minor effect on the income related
benefits (illness, unemployment insurance) while it contributed to too large reductions in
disposable income where flat rate benefits (or benefits not directly dependent on the
current income) were involved (unemployment benefits for the non-insured, pensions and
1)
family allowances). For flat rate benefits (unemployment benefits for the non-insured) the
error on social contributions counteracted the income level error. For income related
benefits the social contribution error had the effect of underestimating the negative impact
of the event (the social contributions became too small, the disposable income too large).
This pattern is quite obvious from table 3.2.
The deviations are larger in 1993 than in the previous two years, but still relatively small.
1994
The only reason for deviations in 1994 is the somewhat underestimated gross wage in
’Elements’. This results in differences for unemployment benefits (non-insured) and
pensions which in 1994 were not directly linked to income. For these components the
1)
negative impact on disposable income is higher using ’correct’ data than in ’Elements’, as
should be expected. For family allowances, which are also flat rate, a similar effect is seen.

---

83
1995
The gross wage in ’Elements’ is somewhat overestimated. That results in a little too high
negative impact in ’Elements’ for unemployment benefits where these have flat rate
character (single persons all receive max. or min. U.B.). The same is, as should be ex-
pected, the case for pensions which are not directly linked to income. For family allow-
ances the difference between projected and ’correct’ data is too small to have any impact
on the percentages.
1996
The gross wage according to ‘correct’ data is almost 2.5 per cent higher than in ‘Ele-
ments’, implying a somewhat larger negative impact (smaller positive impact for family
allowances) in all cases except illness, unemployment for the part time working partner in
the couple, injuries from work and parental benefits which are all related directly to in-
come.
The conclusion is that the results are quite reliable even when the projections are not all
that accurate. 
The calculations based upon ’correct’ data are documented in appendix 2.