Moving Back to Finland

[betelgeuse]

In the document you linked to it says in 1.3.1 :
1.3.1 Varautumisvelvollisuus
Hakijalla ja hänen perheellään on velvollisuus kykynsä mukaan pitää huolta omasta elatuksestaan.
Tähän velvollisuuteen voidaan katsoa sisältyvän myös varautumisen velvollisuus.

Varautumisvelvollisuudesta kerrotaan hakijalle päätöksellä, jotta hän voi varautua säästämään tuloja ja varoja elatukseensa pidemmän ajan. Hakija ei voi tarkoituksellisesti kuluttaa tulojaan haluamallaan tavalla.

This is about putting someone on notice about how they can spend their income and assets going forward. It's not about history.

Therefore I stand by my advice to wait for 3 or 4 months after buying the house (actual pay date) to apply for basic income support.. maybe you are lucky and within that time you find a job that pays enough so you won't need basic income support, (Euro lottery gives you better odds though )

Kela wants statements for two previous months (1.7.4.2). While I agree this will probably smooth the process, I still stand by my point that the Finnish system does not allow you to end up in a situation where kids go hungry because the bank account is empty.

§ 20 and 21 are about recovery, which is only relevant if money was granted in the first place.

Correct but so far no-one has been able to point out why it wouldn't be granted. The principle of basic income support is to look at the money coming in and going out for the target month in addition to the assets (for example bank account balance) that are liquid.

[FinlandGirl]

I still stand by my point that the Finnish system does not allow you to end up in a situation where kids go hungry because the bank account is empty.

The Finnish system allows considering housing costs only up to the limit for reasonable costs if the recipient did not move to accommodation with reasonable costs within three months.

Kela won't pay for unreasonable housing costs infinitely, no matter whether there is money left for feeding the kids after paying the rent.

[betelgeuse]

I still stand by my point that the Finnish system does not allow you to end up in a situation where kids go hungry because the bank account is empty.

The Finnish system allows considering housing costs only up to the limit for reasonable costs if the recipient did not move to accommodation with reasonable costs within three months.

Kela won't pay for unreasonable housing costs infinitely, no matter whether there is money left for feeding the kids after paying the rent.

Correct but when you own the costs are unlikely to be higher than the limits (which come from market rents).

[FinlandGirl]

I still stand by my point that the Finnish system does not allow you to end up in a situation where kids go hungry because the bank account is empty.

The Finnish system allows considering housing costs only up to the limit for reasonable costs if the recipient did not move to accommodation with reasonable costs within three months.

Kela won't pay for unreasonable housing costs infinitely, no matter whether there is money left for feeding the kids after paying the rent.

Correct but when you own the costs are unlikely to be higher than the limits (which come from market rents).

Contrary to what you claimed, this is an example in the Finnish system where Kela will not pay more money even when it is clear in advance that kids will go hungry because the bank account is empty after paying the rent.

[betelgeuse]

Contrary to what you claimed, this is an example in the Finnish system where Kela will not pay more money even when it is clear in advance that kids will go hungry because the bank account is empty after paying the rent.

The system has other payers besides Kela. Supplementary and preventive social assistance is paid by the local wellbeing services county.