National Health Insurance

[MirekDusin]

Hello everyone,
I have a question about the NHI (National Health Insurance). As I understand it from the Kela website everyone who works in Finland and paying taxis is part of it, am I right? It is obligatory and there is no way to not pay that insurance, even if you don’t own Kela card yet.

Aslo would you see that as an item on your paycheck? Or is it part of the taxes/ not visible?

Thank you!

[betelgeuse]

I have a question about the NHI (National Health Insurance). As I understand it from the Kela website everyone who works in Finland and paying taxis is part of it, am I right? It is obligatory and there is no way to not pay that insurance, even if you don’t own Kela card yet.

Aslo would you see that as an item on your paycheck? Or is it part of the taxes/ not visible?

It's funded by taxes or tax like payments which are mandatory. There is no breakdown of how taxes are used on paychecks but separate tax like payments are visible.

[network_engineer]

I have a question about the NHI (National Health Insurance). As I understand it from the Kela website everyone who works in Finland and paying taxis is part of it, am I right? It is obligatory and there is no way to not pay that insurance, even if you don’t own Kela card yet.

Aslo would you see that as an item on your paycheck? Or is it part of the taxes/ not visible?

Thank you!

IF I have correctly understood the intent of your question correctly, brilliant, you are among the very few to perhaps both understand and ask this question.

Many, and in fact, most have it built (read as indoctrinated) into them that taxes are some sort of moral obligation. Clearly, it is not. Taxes are merely payments in exchange for services, and should be treated as such. If you are paying as any other normal resident, then clearly you should get the services as normal. No benefit, no tax. Just like you would not pay for a washing machine or any other product that you will not receive.

As long as the mentality above prevails, people are stuck under the banner that others (especially e.g. fixed term highly-skilled migrating workers) are somehow responsible to part with the proceeds of their hard earned labour for the benefit of others without themselves being entitled to the product of their own labour.

You should raise this question, with an email to the concerned authorities, with a CC to the the Parliamentary Ombudsman on your rights to receive services in exchange for taxes paid. After all, as a guest worker, you have no obligation to build or contribute, no more than a tourist has.

even if you don’t own Kela card yet.

I opine this issue separately, even though the "yet" could refer to a temporary issue. This is also, in my mind, a violation since you are still paying for something that you are not yet receiving and the delayed service from the bureaucrazy must be held accountable to this. On this account, I must add: Will they (whoever the elected officials, or for that matter even the common indoctrinated person) be willing to pay for something that is tangible yet not receivable? I.e. after all taxes are paid, the net money in the account, would they pay for even a cup of coffee at an restaurant if they are not going to get it? If not, how come they are so passionate about *others* parting with their proceeds without returns?

[betelgeuse]

Many, and in fact, most have it built (read as indoctrinated) into them that taxes are some sort of moral obligation. Clearly, it is not. Taxes are merely payments in exchange for services, and should be treated as such. If you are paying as any other normal resident, then clearly you should get the services as normal. No benefit, no tax. Just like you would not pay for a washing machine or any other product that you will not receive.

This is not how the constitution of Finland sees taxes and the public sector. Taxes are an obligation and it's not required to have services in exchange. However, the constitution does guarantee services like health care to everyone regardless of whether they have paid taxes.

[network_engineer]

This is not how the constitution of Finland sees taxes and the public sector.

Dear betelgeuse, thanks, would you point of the relevant section to me? Are you referring to Section 7, Chapter 81?

Taxes are an obligation and it's not required to have services in exchange.

A wise person once said, we don't pay taxes, they take it from us. So, here's a statement: If taking a 100% of somebody's labour by force for free (without anything in return) is slavery, what percentage is not?

Taxes are not just monies. The taxes are monies that are an integral part of its rightful owner, the person who through this blood, sweat, and brains have rightfully earned it, i.e. monies in exchange for labour.

So, today taxes are taken from us, some pay 30%, others pay 50%. What stops them from taking 100% and not give us services in return? How then does N. Korea differ? May I ask? How do you define slavery?

Of course, many people give me the standard response, "If you don't like it here, you can always leave". That is not the point, and is indicative of the original point of indoctrination.

(There's a reason why I don't get anyone paying taxes in e.g. the US/ India. They get *nothing* in return, with India, the politicians wire it off to offshore accounts. US, everything healthcare, education, roads are charged to the individual current expenses.

PS. Of course, you are right in the sense that a moral approach is one that is never discussed by any constitution.)

I did a calculation, most people, if they have 7,5 hours, are working 3 hours *just to pay the government*. And unfortunately, NO, it is not like you are helping society. Join the FB group called Apuna Ry or Apua Vähävaraisille, you'll be shocked at the poverty in Finland - it'll give you a whole new perspective.

Taxes are an obligation and it's not required to have services in exchange.

So, what are you paying the taxes for without services? I once countered a politician who told me they need the money to run the country. I replied "The country is running nowhere on its own, it is in the same place it has been for the last zillion years. You are of course, running the people of the country to the extent of your corruption".

By also saying that, it also infers that we as individual human beings can have their produce taken from them against their will, do we then not exist as inherent free creatures but that we are bonded under the state (state property). By that sense, is there anything called free-will, or even will? If you would think of the implication and the longer term direction, it would be very scary, at least according to history!

However, the constitution does guarantee services like health care to everyone regardless of whether they have paid taxes.

In fact, I am just about to shoot off a feedback to HUS. Because of health issues, I had to go to the casualty/ emergency at Peijas. Went there at 20.00 on Friday, came back home at 06.30 AM next day. 10+ hours. And guess what there were about 5 people in the waiting area. By the time I left, there were enough people using swear words and "törkeä" with respect to the services. PS. I should add, after about 8 hours, were were all given a small packet of some juice. All that I needed was a quick blood test to see if there was any elevated readings (no, it could not have waited, once an infection sets in, adding time worsens and spreads the infection faster)

Even countries like India/ Sri Lanka etc. with the recent happenings are in a better position to cater for emergencies. So, guarantee of healthcare is there, even in India. Just that death, permanent dismemberment might come first!

Have a good week

[betelgeuse]

This is not how the constitution of Finland sees taxes and the public sector.

Dear betelgeuse, thanks, would you point of the relevant section to me? Are you referring to Section 7, Chapter 81?

Yes, 81 and 19 as the main ones for the this discussion. Since the text is quite sparse it also helps to take context and practise into consideration too.

Taxes are an obligation and it's not required to have services in exchange.

A wise person once said, we don't pay taxes, they take it from us. So, here's a statement: If taking a 100% of somebody's labour by force for free (without anything in return) is slavery, what percentage is not?

We already have plenty of situations in which the effective marginal tax rate is over 100% and it's not considered slavery.

So, what are you paying the taxes for without services? I once countered a politician who told me they need the money to run the country. I replied "The country is running nowhere on its own, it is in the same place it has been for the last zillion years. You are of course, running the people of the country to the extent of your corruption".

The state budget also pays for, for example, things like foreign aid or roads that one never uses.

So, today taxes are taken from us, some pay 30%, others pay 50%. What stops them from taking 100% and not give us services in return? How then does N. Korea differ? May I ask? How do you define slavery?

Finland has free elections.

[network_engineer]

Hi!

Sorry for the delayed reply, was travelling to CPH. Would you believe, petrol prices are cheaper in CPH? 11.1 DKK, amounts to 1.46e!

Yes, 81 and 19 as the main ones for the this discussion. Since the text is quite sparse it also helps to take context and practise into consideration too.

I am not sure I've found references that clearly states or even implies that taxes (i.e. the product of own's own labour) may be taken away without anything in return, nor anything that implies that the taxpayer is NOT expected to benefit from the taxes paid. If you'd point me to where that specific implication is, I'd be grateful.

We already have plenty of situations in which the effective marginal tax rate is over 100% and it's not considered slavery.

Yes, you are right in this context BUT aren't we speaking of different issues? A product sold at whatever the cost, and whatever the ratio of the price of the product versus the tax imposed is a product purchased as a choice. E.g. if there was a television that costs, say, 1000e, where the price of the product itself is only 100e, and the rest of the 900e is taxes, I have no issues. It is a product for sale, the market economy, and the needs drive will take care of it. I am not speaking of this at all.

I am speaking of a person

• earning off his own blood/ sweat/ brains, e.g. 1000e. The entire 1000e (all 100.000 cents) rightfully belongs to the person.

• No one has any moral absolute or relative rights on any part of it.

• Any amount of that must be parted with WILLINGLY

• Willingly for free - no expectations in return/ no material or service expectations = Charity/ Goodwill

• Willingly given in exchange for goods or services that meet the giver's immediate* and extended needs.*

Allowing anybody to take it forcefully without anything in return amounts to

• Slavery, i.e. the person must pay his master as a life-debt matter

• Robbery

Legal right? Good question! How much time you got!

Finland has free elections.

Hmmm! In a recent discussion, I pointed out (yes, I did round off the election numbers): "1/5 of you voted for higher taxes you want from me, and 1/5 of you don't like me." (referring to the PS winning). I am not sure if I believe in the idea of democracy anymore with all the corruption, but you may have a point - Do we have another alternative? But today's democracy has become a cartel. A cartel that will compromise anything to get the seats of power. Think about it!

* Needs
Immediate: Whatever the person's individual needs are for the person, and those he is responsible for, e.g. his children, e.g. personal healthcare, education, etc.
Extended: are those that allow a society to survive in a reasonable manner, this could be education for all, defence of the country, police services, public health etc.
It does NOT include capable yet non-value producing parasitical behaviour. E.g. people regard politicians as royalty, why?