Opinions on kela and tax changes?

[agroot]

What do people think of the changes that are already underway and planned? Will they be reverted when the current government is pushed out?


The trend doesn't look good to me. Without proper welfare, Finland is not competitive (since the other end is US and they can pay much more), and no longer safe for long term residence.

[FinlandGirl]

What do people think of the changes that are already underway and planned? Will they be reverted when the current government is pushed out?

Finland hasn't had a left majority in parliament for decades, and there won't be radical changes if there are government changes after the 2027 election.

In total, Finland will need to borrow approximately 12.9 billion euros this year.

That's more than 2000 Euro additional debt per person in just one year, and our huge debt was already violating EU limits on maximum debt before that.

A different government might focus more on higher tax rates for above-average incomes, but it is clear that the deficit must be eliminated and that won't be without pain.

[Stephan1992]

What do people think of the changes that are already underway and planned? Will they be reverted when the current government is pushed out?

Finland hasn't had a left majority in parliament for decades, and there won't be radical changes if there are government changes after the 2027 election.

In total, Finland will need to borrow approximately 12.9 billion euros this year.

That's more than 2000 Euro additional debt per person in just one year, and our huge debt was already violating EU limits on maximum debt before that.

A different government might focus more on higher tax rates for above-average incomes, but it is clear that the deficit must be eliminated and that won't be without pain.

Providing a reasonable and sufficient social welfare system for the unfortunate and poor residents, is also a requirement from the EU that Finland violates and is only able to dodge that bullet by arguing that there is basic income support.
The fact that it is impossible for some people to escape the basic income support and the huge invasion on ones privacy, for the rest of their life is conveniently ignored.

The way on how the government is being led now with tax breaks for companies and the rich, will only make sure the amount of poor and the need for social assistance will exponentially grow, unemployment will grow and healthcare goes down the drain as will all public services.

There is a long term major management problem in Finland because of people only thinking about themselves corporate greed, amateurism, populist behavior and power hunger.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I will leave this (self-censor)hole as soon as I can, I do not want to be around here when my diaper needs to be changed but there is no one to do it and I will lay in my own pee and feces for a whole week before some nurse is going to help me out.

[FinlandGirl]

Providing a reasonable and sufficient social welfare system for the unfortunate and poor residents, is also a requirement from the EU that Finland violates and is only able to dodge that bullet by arguing that there is basic income support.

There is no such EU requirement, and not all EU countries are so generous to pay money to long-term unemployed people.

Italy has just abolished basic income support to working-age people since it discourages working.
The EU Commission has stated that is no competences on the matter.

[Stephan1992]

Providing a reasonable and sufficient social welfare system for the unfortunate and poor residents, is also a requirement from the EU that Finland violates and is only able to dodge that bullet by arguing that there is basic income support.

There is no such EU requirement, and not all EU countries are so generous to pay money to long-term unemployed people.

Nice cherry picking again there Finlandgirl, you fail to see the point so let me reply in more detail for you so you can maybe comprehend the point:


There actually is, it is just worded differently in several related regulations.
I will refrain from going in further detail, because it would require copying very long and extensive law texts and EU-court case law, but if you really want to know how it works: google is your friend (or maybe not for you).

Just in short I can say this about it:
The European Union does not have a single, unified social safety net system nor regulation. Instead, social policies and welfare systems are largely determined and implemented at the national level by each member state. However, the EU does provide guidelines and frameworks to promote social cohesion and ensure a certain level of social protection across member states.

One of the key instruments in this regard is the European Social Charter, which outlines principles and rights related to social and economic well-being. Additionally, the European Pillar of Social Rights, proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission in 2017, sets out a range of principles and rights to support fair and well-functioning labor markets and welfare systems.

While these instruments provide a framework for social protection, they do not prescribe specific minimum standards that EU member states must adhere to. Instead, member states have autonomy in designing and implementing their social safety nets, taking into account their own social, economic, and cultural contexts. However, EU member states are expected to comply with broader EU principles and objectives related to social inclusion, equality, and fundamental rights.

And especially that last sentence we can argue here that Finland is violating those principles / walks a very thin line and has been criticized on the current system already long ago (the bullet they dogged I referred to); you can imagine the general opinion in the EP about the picture of Purra with the scissors when Orpo was joyfully bragging about his government austerity measures with last visit. I have seen some pretty damning opinion pieces in several foreign newspapers about the matter.
Let's say the painted picture of Finland therein was not one to be proud of. (mildly said)

Italy has just abolished basic income support to working-age people since it discourages working.
The EU Commission has stated that is no competences on the matter.

I believe some words are either missing in here or your English sucks, please clarify that last sentence if you want me to address this.

[FinlandGirl]

I will refrain from going in further detail, because it would require copying very long and extensive law texts and EU-court case law

And especially that last sentence we can argue here that Finland is violating those principles

You are making a fool of yourself when you first boldly talk about "EU-court case law", but your actual argument is "we can argue".

Link to a European Court of Justice ruling stating exactly what you claim, or admit that all your talk about "requirement from the EU" is just wishful thinking.

Italy has just abolished basic income support to working-age people since it discourages working.
The EU Commission has stated that is no competences on the matter.

I believe some words are either missing in here or your English sucks, please clarify that last sentence if you want me to address this.

In Italy, non-disabled long-term unemployed working-age adults without children will no longer receive any government handouts from tax money.

The EU Commission has said that it has no power to do anything about it.

Italy had taxpayer payments to long-term unemployed people only from 2019 to 2024.
There were no penalties from the EU over that before 2019.
There was no European Court of Justice ruling before 2019 that would now limit the ability of the Italian government to abolish these voluntary payments again.

[Stephan1992]

I will refrain from going in further detail, because it would require copying very long and extensive law texts and EU-court case law

And especially that last sentence we can argue here that Finland is violating those principles

You are making a fool of yourself when you first boldly talk about "EU-court case law", but your actual argument is "we can argue".

Link to a European Court of Justice ruling stating exactly what you claim, or admit that all your talk about "requirement from the EU" is just wishful thinking.

Italy has just abolished basic income support to working-age people since it discourages working.
The EU Commission has stated that is no competences on the matter.

I believe some words are either missing in here or your English sucks, please clarify that last sentence if you want me to address this.

In Italy, non-disabled long-term unemployed working-age adults without children will no longer receive any government handouts from tax money.

The EU Commission has said that it has no power to do anything about it.

Italy had taxpayer payments to long-term unemployed people only from 2019 to 2024.
There were no penalties from the EU over that before 2019.
There was no European Court of Justice ruling before 2019 that would now limit the ability of the Italian government to abolish these voluntary payments again.

I am sure I am not the first one to tell you here that comprehensive reading is not your strongest point.
Let's leave it at that, this is going to be a back and forth about semantics with you.
You clearly miss the point and try to win points on for example 2 words in a sentence and take them out of context, so ... be my guest..

I have searched on your posts and especially the ones you seem to get into some sort of conflict with others exactly because of this shortsighted attitude and the nitpicking on unimportant details that (agreed) could have better be phrased otherwise, ignoring the red line of the thread.
I have to say, maybe some others like to engage in long conversations that have nothing to do with the red line / main issue, I am however not one of them.

But,... that said,you asked for exact links, I could not find the exact link for you but here are some links wherein you can find related information about such case law handling social welfare issues as part of a bigger case.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/ec ... rights_ENG
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/34308 (paywall)

I remain in my opinion that Finland violates the European Social Charter, which outlines principles and rights related to social and economic well-being and the European Pillar of Social Rights, proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission in 2017.
I would love someone to take it to one of Finland's European MP to discuss the issue in the EP, I sadly do not have the time and energy for it.

[FinlandGirl]

Providing a reasonable and sufficient social welfare system for the unfortunate and poor residents, is also a requirement from the EU that Finland violates

But,... that said,you asked for exact links, I could not find the exact link for you but here are some links wherein you can find related information about such case law handling social welfare issues as part of a bigger case.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/ec ... rights_ENG
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/34308 (paywall)

Your reading skills are so incredibly poor that you did not even notice that both of your links discuss how a non-EU court did or might rule based on a non-EU convention.

Both of your links also discuss court cases against Turkey, which should make it obvious even for a casual reader that your links cannot be about EU requirements.

Turkey does not pay money to long-term unemployed people.