Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't do that in the US. There would be lawsuits flying all over the place and attorneys looking to cash in somehow. You would need instructions for every thread or some baby would choke on some fabric or something. Nah, better leave cool things like that in progressive countries.
You can't do that in the US. There would be lawsuits flying all over the place and attorneys looking to cash in somehow. You would need instructions for every thread or some baby would choke on some fabric or something. Nah, better leave cool things like that in progressive countries.
Finland's tax rate is almost 52% once the family income hits $88,000. Good luck getting the populous behind that in the US.
No it's not. The base percentage if you earn $44k a year is 27.35%. If you earn $88k yourself, your base percentage is 37.85%. (I put no reductions except 1 child under 18 and 1000k as the Union fee.) Neither is there any "family income" in Finland, as every person will and must file their taxes individually.
source: the Finnish IRS online tax calculator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie
Like the rest of Scandinavia, Finland is unable to support their generous social benefits. There are no utopias. Somebody has to pay for the freebies.
Typical propaganda. The Scandinavian societies can well afford the welfare state, and it's not in danger in any way. 99% of the social subsidies are justified, a study showed. The problems of the Finnish economy are due to collapsed foreign trade and that lost jobs haven't been replaced with new ones.
No it's not. The base percentage if you earn $44k a year is 27.35%. If you earn $88k yourself, your base percentage is 37.85%. (I put no reductions except 1 child under 18 and 1000k as the Union fee.) Neither is there any "family income" in Finland, as every person will and must file their taxes individually.
source: the Finnish IRS online tax calculator.
Typical propaganda. The Scandinavian societies can well afford the welfare state, and it's not in danger in any way. 99% of the social subsidies are justified, a study showed. The problems of the Finnish economy are due to collapsed foreign trade and that lost jobs haven't been replaced with new ones.
I have no propaganda, just a realistic view on what social services are both affordable and can offer the greatest return for the investment. And, I am a Liberal. I would love to fund every feel good program, but we can't. I'd much rather expand prenatal care (currently available for free or no cost in every state) via education and outreach than have to bribe parents to seek it.
The baby boxes are valued at $200. The program, based on 4 million births a year in the US would cost $800 million. Not a huge amount of money overall, but how many people really need this freebie? Why not offer the box option as an alternate crib via the clinics for low income mothers? The reason it is offered in Finland to all, rather than only low income earners, is a rather socialistic approach of wanting all babies to start off on even footing. A lovely idea, for the first year of life. Then what? Reality! Even in Finland there is a gap between rich and poor.
I have no propaganda, just a realistic view on what social services are both affordable and can offer the greatest return for the investment. And, I am a Liberal. I would love to fund every feel good program, but we can't. I'd much rather expand prenatal care (currently available for free or no cost in every state) via education and outreach than have to bribe parents to seek it.
The baby boxes are valued at $200. The program, based on 4 million births a year in the US would cost $800 million. Not a huge amount of money overall, but how many people really need this freebie? Why not offer the box option as an alternate crib via the clinics for low income mothers? The reason it is offered in Finland to all, rather than only low income earners, is a rather socialistic approach of wanting all babies to start off on even footing. A lovely idea, for the first year of life. Then what? Reality! Even in Finland there is a gap between rich and poor.
I don't get that first link. 51.5% of what? That's the ultimate tax cap I think.
An opinion piece yes, and a very poor one. Now a AA+ credit rating, and we are supposed to collapse in 5 years. Ok, whatever.
Above all, I think the baby box is a nice gesture from the government, and it's supposed to be handed out to both millionaires and poor people, that's the whole point. And so what? The realities are what they are, and I don't see the point in arguing, as in these issues there's colossal cultural differences between an average European and American.
But saying that the "normal" tax rate in Finland is 52% or we are collapsing in five years because we have a welfare state is just false and a lie. That's all I'm saying.
We do have good schools and colleges. Much of the US also has low crime. If you want to jump on a cause to lower that even still, I would suggest gun control.
Like the rest of Scandinavia, Finland is unable to support their generous social benefits. There are no utopias. Somebody has to pay for the freebies.
I have no propaganda, just a realistic view on what social services are both affordable and can offer the greatest return for the investment. And, I am a Liberal. I would love to fund every feel good program, but we can't. I'd much rather expand prenatal care (currently available for free or no cost in every state) via education and outreach than have to bribe parents to seek it.
The baby boxes are valued at $200. The program, based on 4 million births a year in the US would cost $800 million. Not a huge amount of money overall, but how many people really need this freebie? Why not offer the box option as an alternate crib via the clinics for low income mothers? The reason it is offered in Finland to all, rather than only low income earners, is a rather socialistic approach of wanting all babies to start off on even footing. A lovely idea, for the first year of life. Then what? Reality! Even in Finland there is a gap between rich and poor.
That poster does live in Finland though. Chances are she has a pretty good understanding of the tax rate.
1, Ageing. Partly correct, because the post-WWII baby boom started and ended earlier than in most European countries, and we have big cohorts retiring right now. Then the situation will stabilise, and those who are retiring in 3-10 years are much fewer than those now. The population is still growing, there's more births than deaths and the fertility rate is 1.85, which is higher than in most 1st world countries. We are not heading for a demographic collapse, and in 2060 we have the EU average dependency rate.
2, Failure to attract workers. Incorrect. The whole point is so absurd that I shouldn't even bother. 55% of the immigrants are from the EU area, not "unskilled Somalis, Russians and Albanians" as the blog says. Sweden has a similar climate, and they have massive immigration. The Minnesota Twin Cities are colder than Southern Finland in winter, and if people survive there, they survive here. The net immigration to Finland is 20-30k a year, so that 200k workers is filled within 10 years. The 2nd and 3rd largest immigrant groups are Indians and Chinese, and they are all educated. Finns are also not "hostile" against immigrants. The wages are not low, the net income is the highest in the EU after Sweden. Ok, the COL is also high, but the average Finn takes home more than an average English, French or German person.
3, Finns save on average 9-10% of their annual wage, not 0.6% as the blog says.
4, "DEMISE OF NOKIA, PAPER & PULP INDUSTRY & BLOATED PUBLIC SECTOR", the pulp industry is 2% of the total export, not worthy of even mentioning. The demise of Nokia is true, but it's still a huge profitable company. Finland has an extremely diverse 1st world economy, and we are the world's 42nd largest economy despite being only 5.5 million strong. Export is slow now, but we are not a banana republic dependent on some few key export items.
5, False. I've heard the alcoholism death theory before, and it was from a misread stat. Alcoholism is a problem, but mostly for those who are already outcasts in this society. Heart-related diseases and obesity are much more common reasons for deaths. The alcohol consumption in this country is pretty spot on the EU average. The violent crime rate (and all other crime as well) are among the lowest in Europe.
So, a pretty fatalistic and misleading blog. Pay no heed.
We really wouldn't have to. If we stopped believing we are the worlds policeman we could easily afford it.
Excellent point Hecate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
