Welfare states are against development

[Pekka]

Personal development, against it, firmly.

Why? because everyone is taught, at least in here, that you're supposed to not stand out of the crowd, just be in the middle kind of, and that the ones who have more than you are prolly criminals.

Everyone knows, that it is virtually impossible to get really wealthy in here, unless you cheat, or inherit the money. Hard work won't take you there. You knwo the saying if you work hard, you'll make it? Well, it isn't the reality in here. You'll make a living, yes, but you won't accumulate any wealth. So, because that is true, everyone is jealous and mad at people who have more.

Competition is almost a curse word. Healthy competition, and sports? Sure. Being competitive as setting your business? Nope. Just better not do anything radical.. better just keep quiet and sit down. Don't make anything out of yourself, because if you don't make it, people will laugh at you and you failed. If you do make it, people will hate you and you better move somewhere else.

The kind of pressuring atmosphere, including political leadership that lives from this atmosphere and strengthens it by some weird 70s socialist rhetorics, it just kills the natural competitive nature of people. Sure, some people still try, but many who would just don't try even, because it's a depressing atmosphere. 25% of people are actually net tax payers, that is they pay more than they recieve. That doesn't sound sustainable to me. 10% are under the poverty limit, but if we used real terms and the EU limit, it would be closer to 30%. But people don't realize this, they have a mantra that our economy is so strong, that if you present facts, statistics, you become the enemy. It's like 'those facts might be right... but I don't care, they still aren't right'.

If you travel outside Finland, into West, you realize we don't have the best public transportation, we don't have the best healthcare. You realize our cars are the OLDEST in the EU, on average over 10 years old. Greece just passed us. When you present this fact, all you get is, "well cars pollute anyway". Right, but it's also an indicator of the buying power of people. THAT'S the point, not what car you drive.

The UN study shows, that we are keeping the low end of European wealth stats. The yearly income isn't too bad, it's about midway with GDP (PPP) of 24,416. Of course you can see what people actually make, consider the high taxation on everything and soon you figure you can't afford much else than the essentials. However, the real concern is the net worth. Net worth (PPP) is dramatically inconsistent with the GDP with 38,754. Now this figure is considerably lower than in other nations compared. You talk about Nordic welfare model, which Finland is perhaps the loudest spokes person. So why is Denmark at 66,191? Why is Norway at 72,254? Why is Sweden at 80,091? That's considerably more for net worth, the figure that actually matters.

Sure, they've had stronger economy for longer, but it isn't like our net worth is accumulating bigger in the near future. Under 40k. That's not a lot. And STILL Finland's healthcare does not score high, when compared to these same countries. Everything is justified with 'well you'll get taken cared of'. Now that's the real myth. Why isn't it #1 on that list then? Why isn't it even close? It damn well should be, considering the GDP is decent, but all the money gets raped, so where does that money go? It goes into the all inefficient system, that just looooves to perform at the level where you'd get fired every single day if you were working for the private sector.

And with these rates, you are still discouraged to succeed. What would happen, if everyone in here would know that 25% are net tax payers, and the rest are just leechers? Force feed the facts, not myths, adn I wouldn't even count out civil conflict.

The accumulated wealth is actually at the same level of Poland and Iran. A bit higher, but that's the league. The rest of the West is simply in other league, other generation. But at least they let people dead in the streets, right? So, what is the action to remedy the situation? None. There is no action. THere is no acknowledgement we aren't #1 when it comes to wealth, we are the gatekeepers of the 1st world, but nto at the top.

When we take the net worth, and see the second lowest in the old EU, it is Portugal with 53,357. MUCH more than Finland's comparative figures. Now how the **** did that happen?


ps. Don't tell other Finns, they still think we are at least in top 5 or something. They'll drive their Ford Escort '94 and tell you to shut up and that it's not all about the money. Yeah, it's all about leeching. Now, in this hyperbole of leeching, sucking and spending on the system and not people, we manage to hate the top 25%. We actually think, and our President said this in the race for presidency, that the money rich people have is away from the collective tax funds. Not only is this completely false, but people actually do believe this, not all, but many do. THat's why they're taking money away from us who make less. Yes, they are STEALING our money, damn it! (MYTH).

No idiot, they're ****ing paying your living. (TRUTH).

[Nubclear]

Little known fact: Finland is the sole welfare state of Europe.

[Pekka]

And the political paradigm, one of them, is that (and omg how frustrating one) if you make more money than me, why is it so? Are you better than me? Do you really deserve more than I do?

Then, when the argument is made that the job pays the money, so it's not our personal human lives against each other or that I'm a better person, I just happen to do a job that pays more.

Then the next issue is, well, is your job tougher than mine? Is it WORTH more than my job? Why is it more valuable, the end product of your job, is it more valuable in terms of humanity?

This is real, I am kidding you not. A minister actually played these arguments in a real TV show, where she was the only guest. Can you believe this ****? A minister. Doesn't know why some jobs pay better than others.

Who gives a **** if some jobs pay more and some less, that seems pretty natural to me. Or do you want that everyone gets paid the same, no matter what the job is? And how do you figure that one out, you mean you want to control the salaries, so you need to enforce it from the state. Oh right, even the modern communists aren't this much of a hardliners.

Way to kill everything, I'm serious, this is the 'work and salaries' discussion and debate. It is quite shocking, but hey, don't expect the net worth to grow with these logical thinking abilities.

[ZEE]

money follows success. success follows faith...

[Pekka]

Also, our budget is appx. 40 billion. Nokia alone brings appx 2 billion via taxation, and more every year, employs a lot of people, especially people with skills. Figure this baby never happened or went down? We'd be screwed. Doesn't sound like a stable thing to me.

And we know what the problem is, we don't have enough business. But there's the catch, we hate business. But we need more, so we can hate them. We don't have to support new business, we just need to say 'we need new business'. That's what the leaders are doing. What enterprenaureareurs are afraid is the tax, the state tax half away from your earnings, so.. want to set up a business? One of the most expensive places to hire a person. Want to try? Anything goes wrong with your new guy, you all go down. And then you are a failure as well. All the polls that asks the higher education students and youth, if they wanted to set up a business in here? Alarmingly low. Not many people interested in it. Too risky. No support. Also, with this rate, no industry to tap in, since no one wants to try, so sooner or later there's no infrastructure for certain kind of business anyway.

On the positive side, had we one more Nokia, man, that would kick ass! A lot of good things would come from that, that would directly show in everyone's purse. But no need to worry, there won't be any megabusinesses arriving anytime soon. No one is interested, no one wants to support that, and we hate business, especially people in business. They steal from us. It's not like they pay more taxes than I do. They're filthy thieves. And they think they are worth more as people. Who do they think the yare!1111 NRuaggaag rape them kill them all, take over, let's nationalzie everything jaaaayaaaa!!! Bottom line, let's break up **** and steal from people who have more because they had a good career, they actually went to places, studied, didn't start being alcoholics, they ****ing worked hard, let's kill them bastards nowwww!!

[Pekka]

And the most alarming thing is, that people with good skills and good education are starting to flee the country. Not in big numbers yet, but the trend is up, and I'm talking about the young, freshly graduated people. If I remember correctly, it was appx. 6% now, and that's usually the more skilled people than the ones who graduated but.. are not in the top. It's not directly the top 6% naturally, but let's just say they are generally more skilled than where the median goes.

Why? Naturally because of the experience, it's not all about making more money. But increasingly more, it's about making more money. Why should I be stuck at the same net worth, making less than 3k a month just because the situation is what it is? I can easily double the salary alone, considering the taxes, the actual net worth and purchasing power goes more than double. So tell me why I shouldn't, if I'm at the top of the league, getting a great experience of life, getting compensated fairly for the skill sets and level, the patriotism alone isn't enough to keep people in here anymore. Now more than ever, since it's easy to move within the EU, don't need much working permits or nothing, just go. Come back here for the summers, or if you need to just take a flight, now you can maybe even afford it.

Factor in the half year of darkness, ****ty weather, I mean.. why not? Most people who go would, I think, come back at some point. But still, the thing I am very please about, the education, I mean when you push it like that, you need to take the benefits and not just sit back. You need to create more opportunities for highly skilled people. If they aren't staying, how do you figure you'll get foreign investors in on top of that? You don't.

And it's not that I wish rich people to do well and poor people to do badly. Rich people will do well no matter what, ok? But I do hope, that justice is delivered. That means, that the people who work, they get paid fairly. Not just people who work at the office, but people who work, period. If you do some of the less appreciated jobs, which usually also means it's hard work, I think you should be able to reap the benefits of that and not only do a crappy job but also be paid badly. That's not fair. We need to get rid of some leechers, we need to make the system more efficient, strip down some bureocracy, and make investments for our futures, and not just talk about it. The money needs to be where the mouth is.

Good economy is good for people with lower incomes, I don't mind if we make some tax breaks for the low income people. They get paid less? Sure, let them pay less taxes than they're paying now, it's not like they'll sit on the money. They still have to buy food, pay rent etc. Maybe now they can afford a service or two every month or so, that money won't be out of circulation. So, when people say I just want to support the rich, I just don't get it. What I'm suggesting is that the people who are making less would have more in their purse. Lower their income taxes, strech the tax brackets more. So where do you get the money for that? You'd have to be kidding me. How about we audit some of the officials and spendings, that might do it alone. Get rid of corporate welfare. Cut the spendings on useless crap like the thousands of state programs that are designed to be run by the friends of the officials so they can have a title and a good salary. Lower the VAT, encourage people to start businesses and support it with money.

We don't actually need to cut from people who are poor already. We just need to rid ourselves from redundant BS practices.

[ZEE]

fascinating insight into your country sir... well spoken and it seems you are controlling yourself fairly well, despite your predicament. based on what youve said i myself wouldnt live there, but the tradeoff is good education. hard to beat that, especially here in america! my hat is off to you...

[Combat Ingrid]

A Finnish (highly educated) friend of mine moved over here because Sweden is apparently a tax haven as compared to Finland

[Pekka]

AAHZ, thanks. The figures I presented are correct, some of the things I said are my own opinions though.

Even though the net worth is low, the standard of living is decent and I'd say in the middle of the EU pack, even considering all these things.

People live in a bubble, but it's a good thing. If they got frustrated like I do, it wouldn't do any good. And the education is good. I like equality, I think the education system is the ultimate equality control. Everyone has the same chance to educate themselves, all the way to PhD. Few choose to, but the opportunity is there, no matter what the income is. I definitely appreciate it, even though it comes with a heavy price tag.

Well.. it depends, I guess it's better to be poor in here than in the US. But it's definitely worse the be anything else than poor, when it comes to net worth. I just don't think it's either or.. I think we could raise all levels, both the middle class and poor, as well as the high scoring folks. We can still focus on middle class and the opportunity for poor to rise into the middle class without having to do anything for the rich.

Note, we don't have a big elite, that rules everything. I think we might have one or two who are very rich. Then a bunch of people who are millionaires, but that's it.

What worries me genuinely is the old rhetorics of some kind of working class vs the elite. The reality isn't that setting in here. I'm worried of the ideology driven politics, be it right wing or left wing. We should be pragmatic. I mean, you can't do economy with ideology. You just do it right, and based on reality and the world around you. That's it.

[Pekka]

Combat Ingrid, I don't think Sweden is a tax haven compared here.. I mean, we have pretty much the same level. The difference is the opportunity to accumulate wealth though and the salary level. So... in longer time period, it's better to be there than in here. In short term? Doesn't really matter.

And we are hanging by the thread of few companies, making outstanding results and being huge employers. Sweden has a lot of things going on for them.. lots of good business, lots of brands, lots of exports. And much, much more overall wealth.

[ZEE]

pekka,

though i cant relate to the lifestyle of the upper class, i can relate to those of the lower. i have struggled, was thown away by my family early on in my life, and had to literally climb my way out of the dirt to get where i am today. i have never had privelages of higher learning because of the disease i suffer from. yet i fight on, through all the struggles, the hardships. i am an OG, a survivor, and and blessed with faith. i am back in school, and my family has welcomed me back after 10 or so years. welfare states ARE against development... industrial, and HUMAN! i know this for a **** FACT!

[Pekka]

I should mention that the bigger problem is the high unemployment. What is it these days? 8%?? Everyone also boasts about how their party created new jobs. But it's usually tricks with statistics, the actual level is still about the same and has been for a long time.

So with an expensive system, you have to have people working.

It's not like this thing CAN'T work. If we had higher employment, few more good multinationals, and a leadership that could control that growth wisely... it would be very nice. We aren't piss poor now, but the boost would do very nice things immidiately. And it would feed itself from there on a little as well. So, this system was not created to support this kind of situation. Lord knows I'm not a welfare supporter myself, but I'm saying even with this system, we could still do pretty good, if the numbers were on our side. Plus, it was pretty much the recession in the early 90s that did the damage. What a pity.

But I have to say I'm leaving for other reasons, the money is secondary. I just can't take this weather anymore. I really can't.

[Pekka]

AAHZ, I'm glad to hear you're making your life better for yourself. Sounds like some tough stuff, somethign I've never had to endure. And that's the point, you CAN and you DID improve your own situation because you fought hard. It's only fair. If you fight hard, it is justice that you can go on and get the benefits of that hard work.

One of the points I usually make is that when we talk about the rich people, I don't care about the rich people. They'll survive, I don't care what we do, they'll still be able to afford stuff. So when you're slapping new taxes on goods that everyone needs, it's the poor who will have more difficulties. So if you want to help the poor, that's just not going to help.

I think, that if you have a legit job, almost any job, you should be able to support yourself, period. And if you work hard, you should be able to save some of that money as well, not just 'get by' and survive. If you get another job in here, they'll run the tax up your ass so high, that you must wonder why you ever got that second job. Maybe you needed the money in the first place?

I just don't like the ideology driven politics, when the issue should be dealt pragmatically. Like for example one of the current issues is energy policies. We need more of it. This is a cold country, so it's not like you can just go to your yard and hang out half the year. SO we're building a 6th nuclear power plant right now(?) and talking about getting one more on top of that. Calculate our needs, we need more of it.

So, the only thing we have going on is our president (who is a socialist, no less) starts with 'it's dangerous, it's not a long term solution, it's like taking an aspirin to a bigger problem'.

Yes, that's right. However, we still need that power plant, for the short term. Mostly, because the long term solutions aren't ready yet. That is the REALITY. That's not what many environmentally enlightened people like to hear, but that's the way it goes. What, are you going to install masses of solar panels around the country? We don't have the capacity for alternative solutions yet. Should we keep working them out? Absolutely. It's the long term solution. But right now, we need that power plant for the next decade or two.

The problem is, this leads to a situation where we need to buy it from Russia. Considerng how the rest of the Europe and US is not very happy about depending on Russia with energy, we just are going to go there face first, because 'new power plant is like taking an aspirin....'.

It's not like we're going to build 10 more. 1 more is enough, then we'd have 7. in good condition, taken cared properly, not really that dangerous, eh? That, versus depending on another country for it? Seems like the pragmatic thing is needed here again.

If you want to focus on environmental issues, you want to look at India and China. China getting what, 50-100 new plants? Still burning coal like there's no tomorrow? Give me a freaking break, if you're going to give your energy policy away for free, just because you are afraid of the 7th plant, well that's just sad.

[ZEE]

thanks for your support! i come to realize that big government dosent give a **** about the lower class. almost a form of slave labor. We get paid almost nothing and are supposed to ****ing get buy. not to mention the STRUGGLES of growing up in the 'hood. i dont need to go into detail, but unless you were born with a silver spoon in your ass you wont amount to squat unless you are a very strong willed, determined, and resilient person... like me. thats real...

[Pekka]

AAHZ, Right. Big government rarely does that well anyway. You also have to think about the system itself. Like the dystopia for US and in all scifi/cyberpunk books, it's when you have a government, and you disagree with it, you are not patriotic, you are in fact a traitor. Right? I'm not saying that's the reality, that's just the dystopia described. so, the opposite of utopia. That's how you crush political opponents, so you can stay in power. And its' the people, when they buy into that kind of rhetorics, it's the people who keep your opponents away from you.

In sosialist dystopia, everyone depends on the government. Since they take care of you 'from cradle to grave', when you disagree with the policies, you are attacking the welfare of all people. You are attacking everoyne and everything, so you love the rich and hate the poor etc etc. You want to take the benefits away and whatnot. And the leadership can scare people by dominating their opponents with rhetorics, where they would take up the benefits, where everyone, especially the poor, would do less well because of that. Because they are the only ones who can take care of you, and you are attached to the government from your birth to your death.

But it's all BS really. We know it's BS. People should depend on themselves and if they need help, then they should have help, but only if they need help. And people who are going to lift themselves up should be encouraged to do so and have support. But at the end of the day, we all know it's about what you can do for yourself. No one will really help you a lot, especially if you're poor.

So one of the myths is that the system 'cares about you'. How can a system care about people? People can care about people, systems can't. A big jungle like system will make it all complicated though, and it will ensure, that the most amount of money is lost on the system itself, rather than being able to redirect that money into places they were meant to be directed. If half of the money that was collected gets to what is was collected for, I'd say that's a big problem.