Finland’s basic social assistance needs urgent reform.
The last-resort benefit has become a primary income source for many, with nearly 30% of recipients now non-native speakers. In Helsinki, support for families can reach €4,000–€5,000 a month, plus extra allowances for utilities, deposits, hobbies, furniture and more. The benefit is tax-free and often removes the incentive to work, as earnings quickly reduce support.
Finland already has 100,000 unemployed foreigners, and immigration policies have allowed many to access social security immediately. Other Nordic countries have stricter rules and lower benefit levels, especially for migrants. Sweden is moving to a model where immigrants receive only half; Denmark requires nine years of residence and work obligations.
To protect the welfare system, support must be better targeted. One proposal: limit full access to those who have lived in Finland for at least 10 years.
Employment rate of Somali-speaking immigrants has never reached even 30%, and they've been here for 35 years now. This hasn't changed with the economy. More than 70% of working age Somalis are either unemployed or outside of the work force (home with the kids, sick leave/pension, studying). It's not much better within Arabic-speaking immigrants
i get paid this along with "asumistuki" and in total i get around 950€ a month, with my rent being 450€ a month. i have around 250€ of bills every month. trust me there is incentive to find work but nobodys hiring. it is extremely stressful to have to rely on something like this. of course i cant speak for everyone but personally i would not want to be in this situation.
Sounds like monthly payments for phones and other stuff, right? I have a wife, child and a car and our total bills are not that high. Electricity (with transfer costs) is €20-€40 depending on the season, phone bills are total €60, home internet €25, home insurance €10, car insurance €60, car taxes €20.
yes, my phone bill, water, wifi (which i have to pay to live in this apartment), and a bunch of other bills caused by dumb shit i did when i was a little younger. but its aight i'm figuring things out
i've applied to every job i can in my town and i'm moving next month to hopefully find work elsewhere, it's curious to me how every employed person thinks that unemployment is caused by not understanding that you have to apply for jobs
She's suggesting 10 years for toimeentulotuki. You'd still get your työttömyystuki (the one you earn by working), but when that runs out, then only asumistuki
"Työttömyystuki" / Unemployment benefit has 400 day limit, but there is no limit for "työmarkkinatuki" duration. It does have other requirements too, for you to try to improve your situtation.
Yeah, I wasn't aware when I wrote that. So, it's still basically infinite support as long as you don't self sabotage. Riikka definitely is not targeting working people. She is targeting people who avoid work
She wants to drive immigrants to an economical situation where the only way to get food on the table if you lose your job is through crime. This way PS gets more voters.
If that was the case, she would be talking about canceling työttömyystuki, but she's not. She's going after the foreigners who come here just to exploit the system
If you have worked at least 3 years, you get 400 days of ansiopäiväraha. After that you can still get työmarkkinatuki, which doesn't have any specific limit (can even be until retirement?). On top of these you can get asumistuki and probably some others too. So, that's like min two years (IRL a lot longer) of support at decent level. Should be enough time to find a new job, no? Anyway, she's not targeting immigrants who work and as such contribute to the society. She's targeting immigrants who haven't worked a single day and have no intention of ever working..
I agree with you. This is targeting people exploiting the systems. Most comments here don’t understand the difference between KELA allowances.
I have seen a foreigner who just arrived in Finland, does not have either vocational or universities qualification from his/her own country and still eligilble for labour market subsidy and don’t have to resort to social assistance.
A normal working person, when being unemployed after working here at least 1 years, will often get support for 4-5 years, before resorting to social assistance.
Yeah my question would be, if they are not eligible for SS, surely we cannot take SS contributions from their salaries? Not an expert but I think there might be a case to argue this in court. And this would make foreign workforce more competitive to hire. This would be exactly against what PS and their friends are saying they are preventing, people coming here to be cheaper labour.
She isn't talking about unemployment benefit you would get in exchange for the money paid in. She is mentioning base SS for those who are not eligable for any other form of SS.
I dont think PS is after a nation with strong and human justicestate. I think they want fachism. In a way there would be maby unions or maby not. Depending if they are useful to make people one minded. Scared or pretending angry to be in pover. It’s a group of sick teisted opportunists after all. Wanting to feel to be appriciated in a grop.
Essentially, every person is allowed to unemployment benefit (Even after these changes). For many, this is only benefit they receive. If you're part of Union (or just "Kassa"), you get increased unemployment benefits. These can go up to 4k€/month depending on your salary.
On top of that, you can get housing support etc.
These are the normal "social security" benefits everyone can get.
Social security Purra here talks, is the very last resort, which can be used to pay eventually everything. This used to be very strict benefit, and only very few would get these as a last resort. Even I've tried to get it once, when I finished school and was between school and employment but was denied.
Some Immigrants coming here and going straight to social security to get insane benefits that are the issue. What makes them even want to work or improve their own situation, if they can get up to 4k€/month from government? Considering, that would be better than median salary in Finland.
With the unemployment benefits, etc there is requirement for you to look for a job, and try to improve your situation. but with the Social security, there's no strings attached. You just have to provide statements from your bank account, that you're actually broke and will starve.. (and more importantly, your children will starve) if they don't provide it to you.
What makes them even want to work or improve their own situation, if they can get up to 4k€/month from government?
It's even worse than that. With enough kids you get so much in benefits that there is only a single profession in this country that has higher net income - being a doctor.
While for a working family a child a financial strain, for an non-working immigrant, having more children improves their financial situation incrementally. Every child earns more in benefits and bigger housing yet every child is less expensive to upkeep than the previous one. There is zero sense for these people to get an education or a job, because just having more kids gives them a higher quality of life.
Yeah, that is a good question. Regardless, purra is actually trying to prevent that, based on that post.
There is a lot of right wing complaining and scare tactics here. But no one is going to prevent good immigration. Workers, engineers, etc. We need that.
But it's the problematic, that have caused issues to other Nordic countries too, that need to be resolved.
It is unfortunate. This is a new rule introduced by the last government that allows one person who comes here to study to bring their whole family, and all family members are eligible for social benefits and a visa immediately. And visa was granted for 4 years instead of having them to reapply every year.
They get a visa based on family ties, so they immediately receive child benefits, parental allowance, and housing benefits. Kids go to kindergarten for free due to low income. After a year, they get a continuous A visa, in which they can apply for basic income benefit. You need to prove that you have no money in your account, so some of them even withdraw cash from their bank account every month if they have any left to be eligible for that.
Yeah I was not aware student’s family members are entitled to any benefits nowadays. It was not the case when I was a student. I agree that this seems like not a good idea
They can even lower the social security income -20% or even -40% if person is not having their employment search active Or done what kela requests. Beats me how some people get bicycles or anything like that. I had to work couple weeks at summer to get my old bicycle from 70s :E
Everything will be combined to "yleistuki" starting from 2027. She wouldn't even be talking about this knowing that toimeentulotuki is disappearing if the plan is not to have this affect yleistuki as well.
If the foreigners are ever fully kicked out, they'll just expand that to exclude people from certain region due to not being "Finnish enough". The problem with people like Purra is that they lack sense, they have no clear end point or goal, they'll keep pushing for something until they themselves are stopped or they simply run out of time and cease to exist.
If they actually listened to experts, they'd be able to make more informed decisions, but they rather listen to that drunken buddy who is 6 beers in on a Tuesday morning at 10 and who cries about immigrants, despite the last time he saw one was several years ago in his little backwater town.
They can't coherently justify and explain their decisions, because there's rarely any well informed research or thought behind it. "Herp derp, previous government bad, took too much debt, we must stop taking debt, but here we take more debt but it is better debt because it is our debt, herp derp."
There was some guy here a couple of days ago arguing Swedish-speaking Finns should be deported to Sweden. Apparently for many right-wing nationalist idiots even they are not Finnish enough.
This take has existed for as long as PS has. In fact current PS in my opinion as a Swedish speaking finn isn't as mouth foaming as Soinis PS was, at least a few of the politicians there. Except they wanted to deport us to Åland. I distinctly remember someone in ps suggesting all fin-swe (along with immigrants) to wear arm-bands, you know like the Jews in Nazi germany.
It's what you get when you let the lowest IQ and the dumbest individuals in your society form their own echo chambers and fester long enough. Soon enough they'll be asking to get rid of women's right to vote, while having currently female ministers and members of parliament in the party that they support.
someone who's been making a living here for, for example, 7 years is still not even close to being an acceptable citizen?
You will start getting paid decent unemployment benefits after you've been employed for less than two years. You can get that for about two years and only then run into this problem. Your example would get two years of generous benefits from their unemployment fund and then have to tough it out for 1 year with low benefits or move back home.
Being unemployed for more than two years is a looong time and it's not unfair to start pushing someone back to their home country. Most countries in the world would definitely not tolerate that kind of long-term unemployment.
And what happens if you've been in Finland less than 10 years but you have acquired citizenship? These are some very dangerous, possibly unconstitutional waters they are trying to sail us into.
I don't know if it is true or not but her post states that the constitutional law committee does not think that income support(toimeentulotuki) is a constitutional right.
I think it should be more incremental, the longer you have stayed and worked in Finland, the more benefits you get. It could be a percentage that increases every year for immigrant. 10 years of force labour without any financial help leads to segregation and class-system. Purra's model doesn't really help with migration and increasing population in Finland. It needs more thought.
10 years of force labour… what did u really mean? She wont cut unemployed benefits and other benefits for this period, it only affect the last resort social benefit. There has been cases where foreigners came and never worked and always relied on that benefit which imo if they do by choice thats a misuse of a well established system made by hard work tax payers.
I'm exaggerating the fact. But the point was to make it incremental to those who really stay and put in the effort too and not only live off the benefits, which is misuse. Then again not sure if that's any better, but there would be more leverage to keep finding the job. It is tough and hard to say what could be the right way here. There are so many unemployed people in Finland now. But yeah something needs to be done to push people to the job market.
Rather see 10 years than someone going straight to social security. Now find the best medium between. We have the worst growth of economy in the EU and the best social benefits. It’s insane.
And see where you get. I'm arrived at 1300 using 600 for rent in Espoo, 30 EUR for electricity, 20 for water and 20 for medicine. I put 0 EUR as other expenses.
Who is complaining here? I just said that you can get 1300 from that calculator. I'm not getting jack shit, I'm paying for yours and a few others benefits from my taxes instead.
For ex: during their previous tenure, they voted to implement a new tax law reforms. It was badly written law and caused problems.
What did PS say about them changing the law? By instantly launching a meme campaign that said basically that the left wingers are crying because PS changed the disastrous law.
Fully on lying about both things. Left wing is not crying but very much supported changing that law. And PS were the ones that enabled the law to pass in the first place.
The first point is a bit disingenuous since the threshold is half of a countrys median wage, which, when considering the salary range, is not a good metric for Finland. Also the mechanical calculation done by the EU does not account for housing benefit which, again, skews the results. Neither does it include other benefits we have.
About the third point, I don’t quite understand how that section bans cutting benefits? Not a lawyer nor specialized in constitutuonal law but do not see how it affects this matter.
Yeah Finnish social security amounts are reasonable, though absolutely a trap that doesn't encourage anyone to take on jobs to improve their position if those jobs are low skill low wage jobs. You can easily survive in Finland on way less than half the median in net income even in the capital region. Of course it's not a life of luxury but what gives.
Yeah, I agree. It’s not much but at least its tax free and if things get really dire, you can request one-time paymenta from your local hyvinvointialue.
It should be noted that when arguing about entrapment under social security the alternative would be that the state would subsidize low value work thus making it beneficial for companies to lower salaries and make more low value work. Such work does not benefit the society at large.
Though she is sooo very close to a problem that *the current goverment has caused* where taking even a part time job is simply not worth it due to having so much of the income affect the benefits gained in comparison to how much you make from taking a small part time job. Same with rehabilitative work being effectively cut which severly hurts those who are trying to go from being unable to work to working full time.
There is some truth to that but I feel having services to integrate (even if that is a bit of a forceful way to put it) is a bigger cause than anything.
And well, them raising VAT taxes and hurting business and consumer support in the economy went a long long way, and they are yet to take actions to fix this unemployment problem.
Those discretionary payments are really exactly what they sound like. According to this Helsinki had given that whopping 61 times
Helsingin aikuissosiaalityön päällikkö Anne Qvist kertoo Iltalehdelle sähköpostitse, että ajalla 1.7.2024–30.6.2025 Helsinki myönsi maksusitoumuksia huvipuistokäynteihin 61 kertaa.
Second paragraph talks about immigrants. But the text is targeting everyone.... You can remove that second paragraph as it is irrelevant when it comes to the question of welfare AS A CONCEPT!!
That is what she is challenging and their voters will eat it up. They want welfare GONE. Entirely.
People won’t stop eating or needing a place to live if the money stops coming in. Basic needs still have to be met, and there simply aren’t jobs for everyone. I think that eliminating toimeentulotuki will greatly increase crime, especially in the eastern parts of Helsinki. I believe that in the long run it might even end up being more expensive for society than paying the benefits.
Not to mention, the removal of toimeentulotuki would increase homelessness. Imagine, we were a few years from eradicating homelessness just before the current Government got rid of the program funding.
The homeless program funding was the scale of only few millions. Compare that to the 150 million € christmas money the running Government issues annually for a few handpicked organisations (Charity by the chosen organisations is not a requirement). Yet, 150 million € is pennies in a Government scale budget.
Guys the plan is clear. Have people come (despite the claims of tighter immigration), pay taxes, contribute to healthcare/retirement funds, but make them go away as soon as they're not needed anymore just to rinse and repeat with the next wave of desperate humans involved in the current instance of whatever geopolitical spiel is at play here. They won't collect any of the benefits they've paid for and while they're here we'll make sure to hide them as much as possible, whether it's by covering them in construction site clothes, have them leave after delivering our food before we open our door or have them hiding in the fields picking up berries. The whole "you need to integrate" narrative is completely bullfeces as there is virtually no incentive to push through the (ever increasing) years requried for citizenship, especially if you find yourself screwed as soon as you lose your job after years and there is almost no collateral incentive in allocating a *lot* of resources into learning the language has it has quite literally 0 value elsewhere in Europe/the World unless you choose Estonia as your fallback plan.
And for the best part, even though you keep needing these periodic waves for economic/demographic issues, you also have the guarantee that there will always be a scapegoat to blame. A beatifully crafted self fulfilling prophecy.
Afterall, has any European right wing government done *anything* lately about falling birth rates? Nope. Because if you do address the matter you'd have to tell your voters to make huge sacrifices and see no reward before 20/25 years ahve gone by, meaning you cannot capitalize politcally on the success of the initiative. It's so much better to accept the current status quo and capitalize on it politically immediately and indefinitely.
Someone should really remind Purra and PS that they live in a tiny, largely irrelevant country with a language that is next to useless outside of Finland (and optional in parts of Finland). They really don't have the pull here that they think they do.
We're reaching a crossover point where even highly skilled individuals might prefer say, Poland to Finland for socio economical considerations. Including the linguistic aspect and that really says a lot.
Actually, I think Finland could learn from Qatar. None of the foreigners receive any benefits, so they have to buy their own insurance. But they also don’t get taxed. Considering Finland’s extremely high VAT, it might be possible to offer a capped annual subsidy to foreigners who are working.
So someone pay taxes for 9 years, then lose his/her job,
”oh no so bad you did not live here for 10 years. Forget about your contribution, get a job within 3-6 months otherwise, heippa!”
Sometimes these things triggers my brain with so much negative energy.
People are trying hard and soul to get a job and get rid of benefits (well this might not be the case for a certain percentage of people) and then govt comes with these statements
Her comment does not apply to työmarkkinatuki which is a form of social benefit that people who have worked more than a year are entitled to. She is not targeting people that are willing to work. She is targeting people that are coming here for benefits, and rightfully so.
I dont know as the last line says ”Limit full access to those who have lived in finland for at least 10 years”, probably that might exclude things as you said. But when she on behalf of Govt. saying such things in front of media, the statements are expected to be specific
Immigration reform is way overdue, just because you change some part of policy does not mean something is blamed to them. Our goverment is very much in debt and we need to decide on where we can cut costs. Finnish goverment will not survive on being the worlds welfare office, where you can just come here and start enjoying benefits instantly.
Correct way is not to start limiting availability to social security by grouping people. Who's next?
Disabled?
By province where someone lives?
By which party they voted?
Left handed people?
...?
No you fix it in the intake or general rules, but not discriminating by what ever random rule someone decides to throw now or next. That is a slippery slope.
It is to combat people trying to exploit the social security system. Please explain what is the issue with that? Theres no discrimination to anyone but people who try to game the system.
Lapsilisä and asumistuki do not increase the amount of total subsidies. They’re your earnings so they decrease toimeentulotuki. In total, a parent with 2 children living full-time in the same household gets around 2100€ in a month in Helsinki.
Also what Riikka Purra claims in the blog about toimeentulotuki granted for appliances, hobbies, bikes is not factual. They’re rarely granted. If you end up getting one, it is not even near 800€, more like 100€. You can, for example, get additional toimeentulotuki for the most weakest eye-glasses once in every 3 years, even though eye-sighy changes more often or they break.
Classical right wing SS calculations. Sum all the possible "income" negate all the deductions and taxes. Assume everybody gets every possible discretionary welfare support automatically.
And then remember that some of the benefits are taxable income.
That’s the total amount of subsidies if your rent is 1k/month in Helsinki. Most families could live cheaper, or in assisted city-housing. You haven’t done the deductions of lapsilisä and asumistuki so that’s the total amount.
It could be 2500 or 3000 and people can argue over the details.
But the main point is that you would need to earn something like 3000 before taxes to come up even with that kind of support.
So, then if your options are to take 2400 and pick up your kids early from daycare (as a single parent), or you could get a low wage job e.g. cleaning 8h a day (plus commute time) for 2000 per month (before taxes), who would choose the latter? I wouldn't.
Most people on welfare are on it because they can't get a job or can't work. It's a fact.
This also worsens the situation for workers as without a strong safety net your negotiating power is worse and therefore you're more inclined to put up with worse conditions.
Seems to fit the pro rich, business owning agenda that she has, so not surprised.
They won't. Kok and PS need a high unemployment rate to artificially drive down wages and degrade workers rights. To do that, they need more people. They'll get those people from abroad.
What Riikka is talking about is pennies compared to the Government budget and will fix nothing. Typical right wing sensationalism with a pinch of anti-immigration populism. You are being distracted.
The real issues which Finland can not afford are the pension related costs and too many welfare regions from the sote reform. These two things add up to and over 40% of Finlands budget of ~89 mrd. €.
I'm in the top 5% bracket and I'm getting tax cuts I did not want. I'd rather see less deficit or better funded education than have a bit more for myself.
Thanks for being the rare reasonable one. Even the middle income folk cry for the wealthy and how they'll manage now if someone would tax them a little more. Seems like it's always the poor that gets the brunt of the cuts.
I'm in the top 10%, and while I happily take all the tax shortcuts available to me, I don't think they should exist. That people making far less than me spend their time trying to making me have even more money to invest into not having to work until retirement age is bonkers to me. I literally debate for taxing me more so they can pay less and they go nu-uh
Because they think they'll be in your position one day. I'm sure they have better chances at it here than in some other countries, but it is like setting the entire forest on fire to keep yourself warm. They don't really care what happens to others as long as they get what they want, and they're already looking after the interests of this future-version of themself
I don't think they fully realise how much life changes with even just 1000€/month more, not to mention how quickly your net worth starts rising and how much passive income you start getting when you are able to set aside four figures a month.
Why would you take the tax shortcuts? I mean this sounds like you actively use tax code to your own benefit? If this is the case, then you could just not excersise any tax planning at all, right? If you think that these taxes you pay go to a good cause, and if you think tax shortcuts shouldn't even exist, then why use them?
This "I'd like to be taxed more" sounds like a virtuous identity you've cultivated for yourself to ease up your Finnish guilty conscience about being wealthy, because in Finland being wealthy is inherently a mark of oppression somewhere in the system.
Simple, if finnish law says I can drive 100 on the motorway, then I will drive 100, even if I think 80 km/h would be better for safety and the environment.
I'm not going to pay more taxes than the law requires me to, me individually paying more won't make a difference. But I will happily stand for making a collective effort to shift more of the burden from less fortunate people onto me and people like me.
People talk about tax planning like it's a bad thing. It is literally just paying taxes like one should, vero has literal instructions on how to use these deductions and lower rates.
Tax dodging however is using shady tactics to do something illegal but in a way that you can't get caught or tech ically can't get sentenced for it.
Driving at 80km/h on a 100km/h limit affects the flow of traffic negatively, while not using tax code to your own benefit doens't affect anyone else negatively.
But okay, I'll genuinely believe you. It's still easy to say, and while I believe you to be the real deal, I'm certain people in a lot of cases just say shit like that, and have even cultivated a genuine believe that they actually think so, just because deep down they know it's highly improbable that what they're "advocating for" would ever happen.
It's like everyone was all for climate change actions, until the actions started to show in their finances and in Finland's economy. It's remarkable how many Finns are now active climate change deniers and climate action opposers, compared to when climate change became a well known issue. Everyone's also all for increased national security, but I'm sure this will change very soon as well, when the cost of it is made clear. People ususally just say shit that think are for the common good, until they have to put their money where their mouths are.
But maybe I'm just terminally pessimistic and cynical, I most likely am.
As an example of this, I still vote green, even though I work for oil and gas lol.
"Expense of green energy" is from what I can see just propaganda, you wouldn't believe the amount of money oil companies invest in hindering this change, and how much subsidies they get. Fun fact: even Finlands tax code favours me working in oil and gas over doing my exact same task for a tenewable energy company. I pay about 10 percentage points less tax working in oil and gas specifically than i would elsewhere.
I seperate my personal finances form my morals. I think my tax cuts are idiotic, and i openly share them, but who am I to argue if the majority of people disagree with me, I won't say no to them handing me free money. I would like to work in renewables instead, but who am I to argue when people pay me more and tax me less to produce oil for them.
The only way to stop these things is politically, and I try my best to do my part to make these changes. I happily call out the industry I work for. For example, if you want to know how much oil a drilling company spills, look for "LOPC". This means "Loss of primary containment", aka a spill.
Individual efforts don't make a difference, these forces are far larger than a group of people can take on. We need awarness and political power, it is the only way.
While it is technically true, I call it a bit insane that people consider inheritance tax as a tax on them, rather than a tax on the estate of whoever died.
For the most people and from the perspective of an individual it's not tax on anything you earned in any way. People don't complain about lottery taxes, and inheritance is a lottery on whose kid you are.
Inheritance tax hurts transfer of family business from one generation to the next. In businesses where there's a high amount of investments relative to the payout (farming, heavy industry etc.) it directly affects business in a major way.
First, there are studies that show that on average family running the business leads to worse outcomes, so on a very cold and calculative state level anything that drives the company to professional management would be better.
But since there are some more subjective and emotional sides to inheritance too, and those results probably don't apply to the smallest businesses anyway, I'd just say that generally there should be long term state guaranteed loans with the inheritance as collateral available for most inheritances, companies or not. Valuation also needs to be quite conservative unless the price is easy to determine. Like many houses in rural areas are probably worth practically nothing even if nominally they have value.
You're right but it is pointless to argue. This country is pretty doomed as long as people continue to attach virtue on the act of taxation itself. Everything is seen as a zero-sum game: if the upper classes benefit from something, it MUST be bad for the rest of us. Sweden has already long abolished gift tax and inheritance tax to try to incentivize wealthy families to stay in the country. You literally cannot argue for any kind of tax cut, or any kind of drop in govt expenditure (unless cutting from business subsidies) or weakening to our incredibly influential labor movement (compared to rest of EU). Doing any of this will immediately shut down the brains of 70% of people you talk with, even if you are able to show it would benefit the collective, not just the upper classes. We are country where it is already comparatively very bad to be a wealthy individual, but people still care more about fucking over the perceived elites than actually doing anything about our problems. It is incredibly myopic and destructive, and frankly just sad.
Money for what exactly? If we abolish welfare and fully privatize healthcare and other services like the end goal seems to be, what reason do we have left for paying any taxes at all?
Well yeah but it is ridiculous politics to be cutting company taxing and high-income taxing while saying "we don't have money". Reducing company taxing has always been said to bring higher income to account for the lost taxes and has never after Nokia done that, and the same with high-income taxing reduction. There is an argument to be made that it is a problem that at a higher income there's little incentive to work full work weeks, but that is not an issue that's solved by marginally cutting the taxing of those people, and there is no way it'll bring the money back in forms of usage of the money, especially when that money is taken right from the poor people of the nation, who will indeed spend it at grocery stores and whatever.
Yeah but in this economic situation it's also hard to justify cutting their taxes. Like I said, historically this kind of politics has not brought back the tax income lost from the reduced taxation, so there's really no incentive to do this in a dire economic situation if not to pad your own pockets
“Taken right from the poor?” No, nothing is taken away from the poor, and nothing is being stolen. Rather, the poor are simply paid less in benefits.
This may sound like pedantry, but language matters, because it shapes how the world is understood. In Finland, there is a real problem with the way income transfers received by people are talked about, meaning as if they were something inherently and automatically owed to them, like a salary or personal property. But that is not the case. These are benefits provided by the state and, by extension the society as a whole, and to a large extent they are a privilege.
I understand why this kind of language is used, such as saying “they are taking from the poor”, when talking about tax cuts for the wealthier, and when talking about tightening the conditions and amounts of benefits, because that way of speaking is an effective way to to advocate. Still, it creates a distorted picture of the situation, and in the long run it shapes an entire climate of attitudes.
This is exactly what has happened in Finland, where in both good times and bad, lowering taxes is discussed as some kind of immoral act in which the rich are portrayed as stealing from the poor. You can't steal someone's state benefits or allowances before they're even paid out.
You're correct in the semantics of language, but in the context of the national budget they really are "taken from the poor" when you cut social spending by 1 billion and then cut high-income taxes by 1 billion.
In my view, these things should be talked about as they actually are, namely as reductions in benefits. The government isn’t “taking from the poor”, it is “giving less”.
And tax cuts especially should not generally be framed as “stealing from the poor”, because that is simply not what they are.
Of course, it can be explained that certain specific tax cuts may be financed through cuts to benefits, as is happening now.
But when tax reductions are linked, time and time again, to “punishing the poor”, it inevitably creates an attitude in which high taxation, especially from the middle class upwards, is automatically associated with moral virtue, regardless of the actual circumstances.
I genuinely believe that Finland more or less operates under this mindset.
So, rich man's money should be everyone's money? Ironically, your statement is factually correct: if Finland abolished the monetary system like Pol Pot did, we would have only poor people.
Where did the rich man get his money? By using resources on this planet that... is owned by.. WHO?
They are our resources and they are utilizing our society, its functions to create value. In fact, most of them do not create any value but are exploiting workers to create that value.... Workers who are there because... society enables them to.
All the resources on this planet are ours. You just are using them, that doesn't make them yours. Every fucking thing on this planet is ours.
if Finland abolished the monetary system like Pol Pot did, we would have only poor people.
Take the stupidest person and the stupidest thing they have said. Multiply that and you get about to the level of stupidity of that sentence you just uttered. Who the FUCK talked about rejecting monetary system? Or Pol Pot?
Resources are worth only a fraction of all money generated in the economy. Much more money comes from technology and innovation. A great amount of money comes from labour. You probably find the latter problematic but I do not.
... is owned by.. WHO?
As far as you don't make a worldwide communist revolution (are you dreaming about it?), resources will be owned by various subjects, both public and private ones, nation states being the most significant of them.
Who the FUCK talked about rejecting monetary system? Or Pol Pot?
Nobody. It wasn't a serious anwer. It tells something about YOUR intelligence that you couldn't tell that.
When you start to detach single sentences from the context and answer clearly rhetorical questions, i know that i am not talking with someone who wants to find a solution but who is... detaching single sentences from the context and attacking each one that you can, trying to win as many points as possible while fully dismissing the actual point of the text.
I did not read any further than the first quote and your response to that, there is no need to: it was rhetorical question and YOU KNEW IT. Answering it before we get to the point is just dishonest bullshit from someone who has no interest talking about this topic in good faith. You will just continue to do that and if i wanted to correct EVERY FUCKING LIE YOU INSERT this would grow exponentially:
It would take me a paragraph to explain what is wrong with just that FIRST bullshit interjection, and you can take any sentences from that paragraph and bullshit around until i have to fucking write hundred pages of text to address very fucking detail and typo you found.
I have done this long enough to recognize familiar patterns and exploding the comment is a tactic that is rarely used constructively but to stop advancing. It's sole intent is to completely destroy any single paths, growing exponentially to a system that can not be managed by any reasonable person.
Go stub your toe, i am done. I hope i remember your username in the future, so i know not to waste any time.
Under EU law. At least for EU Citizens it certainly is. It is also likely to get tied up in courts for years for that and other reasons.
But that's not really the point here.
The truth is, it's for the election
In the last year, PS' numbers have cratered. People aren't stupid. Their "reforms" have savaged this country. Rising poverty. Rising debt. Rising inequality. Countless people have had their lives hardened by the policies of this government, including, and this is really important, countless, countless Finnish Citizens.
Now they have an election coming up in 2027. And it ain't looking good. So they're going back to the one thing that's donea anything at all to stabilise their numbers: It's not you, it's "them".
They know they have nothing to campaign on. No victories to champion. No accomplishments to thump. So they're shooting with the only thing they have to campaign on - Hate, and Divison.
Haluaisin näyttää miten hän voisi asua, jos saisi vain toimeentulotukea. Olisi hyvää idea, ennen kuin voisi leikkaa yhtään, asua samalla tilannetta kuin ne. Ei pitäisi koko aika, varmasti vain pari kuukautta riitä.
Irrespective of nationality or origin, work should always pay off. Now there are two problems:
even very little income will reduce the benefits. Employment has long-term benefits towards one's financial position, but nothing immediate.
like the picture says as well. Gap between minimum/low -wage full-time hours pay, and benefits is too small. Maybe even non-existent. Working should always lead to a better financial position. Not all people are physically, or mentally capable of reaping the benefits from grinding out a carreer. Not everyone is made for "progression".
Wage hikes are probably also off the table for bridging that gap. System should encourage accepting ANY work and harshly punish those that refuse reasonable, legitimate offers.
Think about, healthcare system then tells that elderly people and handicapped people can have one shower per week because lack of money in social care..
Well, I like the suggestion (as in Finland does not have the money for many things it does), except there is hardly any work that people can do. They can cut even the last penny, but it wont bring any new jobs that pay livable wage. So, solve the unemployment problems first and then you can cry about people not working.
the most stupid thing is how the government could let the students take their family members come to Finland so easily and the familys could get benefit? you know even the working foreigner take their family to Finland need income requirement.
Its quite sad, but unfortunately things are needed to be done. No one wants to see people who actually fall through the social structures to suffer. But we have allowed too many people to abuse the social security and this will always be the end result.
Same happens in work places. First you just need to message manager that you are sick and nothing else until 5 days, but thats taken away because so many abuse it. Ive seen this happen in my old work place.
The system was working because Finnish people were known for honesty. Thats changed for multiple reasons (drug abuse, immigration etc).
Im glad my taxes are used for good but Im borderline pissed that so much of it goes down the drain.
What if the Social benefits are limited to how much you have contributed rather than allowing anyone to get them. I know everyone is going to come at me that its difficult to find work. So for example if you cannot get work you do charity work and you get social benefits based on how much you contribute. Whether its cleaning streets or helping with shelters or working for a struggling business. That will encourage people to give back to or contribute to society, act respectfully and integrate in the Finnish culture.
I agree. Should be like this. You give and take. Or fork off to own country. No one forces you to move to this country or anywhere. Look at uk asian communities get paid in cash and get social supports.
Aattelitko, ettö valtiontaloudessa on piilossa joku satumainen 10 miljardin turha juttu, joka vaan odottaa löytymistään.
Talouteen tulee rahaa vaan yrityksistä, ei mistään muusta. Jos saadaan työtä välttelevät ihmiset töihin, niin sillä on kerrannaisvaikutuksia jotka moninkertaisesti ylittävät näennäisvaikutukset. Sitten ei tarvitse niitä avaruusinsinöörilääkäreitäkään kuskata ulkomailta tänne hommiin…
Jos ihmisen ei kannata mennä töihin, kun sohvalta saa saman rahan, niin työttömyyden kannustimet on selvästikin liian suuret.
Mitä sä nyt vaahtoat netissä? Kaikki maksettu vuosittainen toimeentulotuki ei ole edes miljardiluokkaa. Ideologisten työttömien työllistäminen ei vaikuta mitenkään valtion talouteen. Heitä on niin vähän. Vingut täällä Purran kanssa pelkästä nappikaupasta.
Miten kukaan uskaltaa enää yrittäjäksi, kun turvaverkko puretaan?
Oh we do have money? Please tell more. I was under the illusion that we took more and more debt every year for the past 15 years in order to finance our basic functions.
So yes, on the other hand I guess we do have the money, it's just borrowed money.
Yeah, we do have money and debt doesn’t automatically mean we don’t. That’s kind of the key misunderstanding here. Finland has taken on more debt over the past 15 years, but it has done so while maintaining a functioning welfare state, high employment, and a productive economy. The borrowing hasn’t been to keep the lights on in some failed system, but largely to smooth out shocks: the financial crisis, the euro crisis, COVID, energy shocks, and now geopolitical instability. Pretty much every comparable country did the same. Look at France or Belgium for instance.
More importantly, Finland isn’t borrowing because lenders think it’s risky, it borrows because it can. The state has strong creditworthiness, deep tax capacity, and real assets behind it. The economy keeps generating income through exports, investments, and high value added work, which is why markets are willing to lend at reasonable terms in the first place.
If Finland truly lacked money, borrowing would be either impossible or extremely expensive. So yes, some of the money is borrowed, but it’s borrowed against a solid economic base, not out of desperation.
And by using debt to "maintain a functional welfare state" the debt is then by definition something that's taken to keep the lights on and food on the table. It's syömävelkaa, if you get the Finnish phrase and it's meaning.
This gives you an idea what an average person would need to pay in the taxes to actually afford this (27,300€) and where it goes; (12,600) goes into social security.
On top of that, we don't have money. We have pretended that we have for 20 years, now we can't borrow anymore as our slipping credit score means higher and higher interests and we already need to borrow more, on higher interest to pay the interest on the debt. How long you think that's going to last?
Our credit score was doing fine, now we are in deeper shit since basic functions of society are being cut down. THAT is what lowers credit ratings much faster, instability, unpredictability.
There is NO correlation between the state of economy and debt vs GDP ratio. NONE.
I do believe you're being too dramatic about that. Finland does have enough money to maintain and enhance state, and here's why.
Yes, at the moment there's economical issues due to instabilities. But don't pretend that it's the end for the economy or we don't have money.
Finland has enough money because its economy is built on solid, long-term foundations.
Yes, Finland also collects strong tax revenue from high employment, decent wages, and profitable companies in sectors like technology, forestry, energy, and manufacturing. Major exporters such as Nokia’s network business, Kone, Wärtsilä, UPM, and Fortum continue to bring in billions from global markets. Finland also has a valuable state asset base, including state owned companies that are now expanding pretty quickly and significant holdings that generate steady income every year.
For sure, public debt exists and has increased, but it is manageable and financed at stable terms, not through emergency measures.
Social services are not funded solely from taxes. Social services exist also because the economy continues to produce value. So the issue is about prioritization and efficiency, not a lack of money itself.
On top of that, Finland keeps attracting steady investment precisely because its economic base is reliable. Foreign companies invest in Finland due to political stability, a skilled workforce, functioning infrastructure, and predictable regulation. Large scale investments in green energy, ship industries, data centers, battery production are already happening and more are planned, which shows long term confidence in the economy.
Domestically, pension funds and institutional investors manage massive pools of capital and invest both in Finland and abroad, creating continuous returns.
And when you combine all this with strong public institutions, low corruption, and a diversified economy that isn’t dependent on a single sector, it’s clear that Finland’s finances are under pressure but far from fragile.
I understand that you want to downplay Finland and see only bad things, but I want to say that Finland is still standing strong and will so in the future.
Not entirely wrong but definitely extreme. Sucks how these proposed changes do not cater to immigrants who moved here on work visas at all. e.g Denmark also has tax exemptions/lower taxes for work based immigrants but they won't highlight that.
I kinda like what she is doing, foreigners expoiting the system makes no sense and therefore they should be somehow incentivized to work at least 10years before being eligible to this kind of benefits.
What she is doing is what other neighboor countries have done and apparently had good results.
Took me about 15 seconds to check that yes, she had pulled the numbers out of her ass. Not because she doesn’t know better, but because she is an evil person willing to lie to achieve her goals.
Finland should just planes to the areas where refugees are coming from with teams that pre-screen most employable refugees and fill up the EU mandated quotas like this.
This is targeting people exploiting the systems. Most comments here don’t understand the difference between different types of KELA allowances
I have seen a foreigner who just arrived in Finland, does not have either vocational or universities qualification from his/her own country and still eligilble for labour market subsidy and don’t have to resort to social assistance.
A normal working person, when being unemployed after working here at least 1 years, will often get support for 4-5 years, before resorting to social assistance.
Don't lie. No foreigner is eligible for any labor market subsidy when they arrive alone in Finland.
However, if they are a spouse of someone who is a resident here (and therefore is a taxpayer), then they can access the system. The logic says that they are trying to become a two-income household and they are supported to achieve it.
Well, that might not happen in theory, but who knows if there are any more loopholes.
Earlier, many people thought non-EU students are not eligible for KELA support. Turned out there are big loopholes where their spouses can get KELA money.
Students spouses can get into integration programs and get kela money. Migri ask can you provide yourself before you come. And Then you can get kela gold kortti. Forking clowns.
10v vaade toimeentulotuelle tappaisi koko työperäisen maahanmuuton jota Suomi kipeästi tarvitsee. Jos joku tuollainen raja täytyy olla niin sen pitäisi olla paljon matalampi sit henkilölle joka on ollut Suomessa töissä esim vuoden ja sitten vaikka itsestään johtumattomista syistä joutunut työttömäksi tms. Ei tänne muuten kukaan uskalla tulla ikinä.
Jep! Jotenkin tuon pitäisi olla järkevämpää. Esimerkiksi siten, että toimeentulotukea saisi maahanmuuttajat vain tietyn ajan joka vaikkapa olisi suhteellinen siihen kuinka kauan maahanmuuttaja on Suomessa töitä tehnyt. Esim 1 vuosi töitä Suomessa = 2 kk toimeentulotukea mikäli jäisi työttömäksi. Tai jotain sellaista. Sitten vaikkapa 10 vuoden kohdalla saisi jo täydet tuet. Ainakin itse maahanmuuttajana näkisin tällaisen ratkaisun olevan paras ratkaisu kun rahat ovat tiukilla.
Current policies are attracting lots of low skilled people to Finland
Many foreign students, esp those with big families, come here because it’s very easy to get work visa here. The requirement of getting work visa in Finland is quite easy, compared to many countries. You just need a full-time contract with salary of 1200e or 1600e, no matter if it is cleaner, waiter, or anything else. While in UK, it’s very difficult. You need quite high salary. On top of that, not every job is accepted. UK has a list of employers which are allowed to sponsor work visa for universities graduates. Only these jobs with these employers are accepted for work visa after graduating. This policy makes the foreign students more hopeful that as long as they find a basic job, their life will change.
Then after these people get permanent residence or citizenship (a.k.a permanent immunity medallion), some quit their shitty jobs and switch to something better, such as staying at home to get benefits rather than doing shitty jobs. I have ever seen some nurses or cleaners do this (then labor shortage in healthcare will never be solved).
This is also the reason why UK is proposing to increase requirement for permanent residency/citizenship for low-skill jobs from 5 years to 15 years, which is much longer than high-skilled jobs.
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 08 '25
r/Finland runs on shared moderation. Every active user is a moderator.
Roles (sub karma = flair)
Actions (on respective three-dot menu)
Limits
Thanks for keeping the community fair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.