Temporary increase in student income limits

Key points of the debate

There was broad consensus in the debate on the need to raise student financial aid income limits in order to encourage work and ease labour shortages. The scope and duration of the proposal caused dispute, as the opposition demanded a permanent 50 per cent increase instead of a temporary 25 per cent increase. The government parties considered the temporary increase a good trial whose impacts would be evaluated before any permanent decisions were made.

• –Should the increase in income limits be made permanent rather than temporary?
• –Should the income limits have been raised by 50 per cent instead of 25 per cent?
• –Does working more prolong study times, or does it promote graduation and employment?

• Social DemocratsIn favour

  The Social Democrats supported raising the income limits as a good step easing livelihood, the effects of which should sensibly be monitored before any permanent legislative changes.

  ”Opintotuen tulorajan nosto on aivan perusteltua. Tämä helpottaa monien opiskelijoiden tilannetta ja on tehokas keino heidän toimeentulonsa parantamiseksi.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The Centre Party considered the proposal a very important gesture towards students that improves their livelihood, encourages work and eases labour shortages for businesses.

  ”Tulorajojen määräaikainen korottaminen parantaa opiskelijoiden mahdollisuutta työskennellä opintojen ohessa nykyistä enemmän.”

• GreensIn favour

  The Greens considered the increase a welcome and economically beneficial measure, but at the same time stressed the need to ensure the adequacy of the study grant for those unable to work alongside their studies.

  ”Kyseisellä esityksellä tulee olemaan arvioiden mukaan positiivisia vaikutuksia julkiseen talouteen.”

• Left AllianceIn favour

  The Left Alliance considered the improvement in earning opportunities positive, but expressed concern over the potential impact of working on prolonging study times and on student coping.

  ”Pidän erittäin myönteisenä sitä, että opiskelijoiden toimeentuloedellytyksiin luodaan mahdollisuuksia ansaita enemmän kuin nykyisellään.”

• Swedish People's PartyIn favour

  The Swedish People's Party strongly supported the proposal, taking the view that it would bring much-needed labour to various sectors and improve students' opportunities to attach themselves to working life.

  ”Esitys opintotuen tulorajojen nostamisesta on enemmän kuin tervetullut. Tämä on opiskelijoiden toive ja yhteiskunnan etu, ja RKP on ajanut tätä asiaa jo kauan.”

• National Coalition PartyIn favour with reservations

  The National Coalition Party considered the government proposal a step in the right direction but insufficient, and proposed in its dissenting opinion that the income limits be permanently raised by 50 per cent.

  ”Määräaikaisen tulorajojen korotuksen sijaan olisi toteutettava pysyvä 50 prosentin tulorajojen korotus.”

• Finns PartyIn favour with reservations

  The Finns Party supported raising the income limits to encourage work, but considered the temporary 25 per cent increase too small and joined the demand for a permanent 50 per cent increase.

  ”Erittäin tervetullut esitys tämä tulorajojen korottaminen, mutta valitettavasti vain ensi vuodeksi.”

• Christian DemocratsIn favour with reservations

  The Christian Democrats considered the proposal a step in the right direction, but took the view that the income limits should be increased more and that the change should be made permanent right away.

  ”Hallituksen päätös korottaa opintorahan tulorajoja tilapäisesti on oikeansuuntainen, mutta KD:n mielestä tulorajoja pitäisi korottaa enemmän ja pysyvästi.”

This digest was generated by AI from 68 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record. The longest speeches were shortened in the digest's source material.