Residence permits issued to non-EU citizens

[cors187]

but you will receive a pension irrespective of where you retire and the Finns have a rather generous social system.

You need to understand that non EU are considered different to nordic EU.
On that wise i would suggest you look into that further , because simply put "receiving a pension", means you are looked after until the day you die.
Getting 1 years coverage or any other part adjusted system is not a pension , its a benefit!
Non EU who dont retire in finland dont get the pension, they have benefits that will end.

[Rip]

Non EU who dont retire in finland dont get the pension, they have benefits that will end.

No. The pension you've earned here is paid to you when you reache the Finnish pension age. It just isn't very much if you worked here only a short time.

(As an execption apparently the Finnish working time can sometimes credited to your national system)

[cors187]

Non EU who dont retire in finland dont get the pension, they have benefits that will end.

No. The pension you've earned here is paid to you when you reach the Finnish pension age. It just isn't very much if you worked here only a short time.

(As an exception apparently the Finnish working time can sometimes credited to your national system)

I think its a fair assumption that there is a few requirements to receive such a benefit for the rest of your days living in another Non EU country.
We have discussed them before.10 years minimum contribution is one.
I realize your words are correct , but show me any form of print that allows the Non EU retiring in a Non EU country who gave the minimum contribution requirements to be classed as a beneficiary of the Finnish national pension system.
If you can provide such a detail that show without fine print clause from the 1st payment until the day that person dies they received the National pension(whatever the ratio of payment), then i will retract my statement that those payments are really considered 'The Pension", rather than calling them "benefits that will end before death".
regards

[Upphew]

Non EU who dont retire in finland dont get the pension, they have benefits that will end.

No. The pension you've earned here is paid to you when you reach the Finnish pension age. It just isn't very much if you worked here only a short time.

(As an exception apparently the Finnish working time can sometimes credited to your national system)

I think its a fair assumption that there is a few requirements to receive such a benefit for the rest of your days living in another Non EU country.
We have discussed them before.10 years minimum contribution is one.
I realize your words are correct , but show me any form of print that allows the Non EU retiring in a Non EU country who gave the minimum contribution requirements to be classed as a beneficiary of the Finnish national pension system.
If you can provide such a detail that show without fine print clause from the 1st payment until the day that person dies they received the National pension(whatever the ratio of payment), then i will retract my statement that those payments are really considered 'The Pension", rather than calling them "benefits that will end before death".
regards

http://www.tyoelake.fi/en/kysyttya/vanh ... fault.aspx see the Mrs. Robinson question and answer.

[cors187]

I think its a fair assumption that there is a few requirements to receive such a benefit for the rest of your days living in another Non EU country.
We have discussed them before.10 years minimum contribution is one.
I realize your words are correct , but show me any form of print that allows the Non EU retiring in a Non EU country who gave the minimum contribution requirements to be classed as a beneficiary of the Finnish national pension system.
If you can provide such a detail that show without fine print clause from the 1st payment until the day that person dies they received the National pension(whatever the ratio of payment), then i will retract my statement that those payments are really considered 'The Pension", rather than calling them "benefits that will end before death".
regards

http://www.tyoelake.fi/en/kysyttya/vanh ... fault.aspx see the Mrs. Robinson question and answer.

Ok
To countries with a pension agreement with finland- i will retract my statement and class the payment as a national pension from finland(regardless of amount).

To the countries without a pension agreement- i wont retract my statement calling the payment "benefit with end date"

One thing though Mrs robinson needs to apply through her resident country so that kela knows exactly how much she is getting from the USA, which negates the finnish national pension to not much or none.

[Upphew]

To the countries without a pension agreement- i wont retract my statement calling the payment "benefit with end date"

One thing though Mrs robinson needs to apply through her resident country so that kela knows exactly how much she is getting from the USA, which negates the finnish national pension to not much or none.

Q: Will my pension insurance contributions be returned to me if I move away from Finland?

A: No, but you will be entitled to a pension from Finland when you retire, regardless of where you reside at that time. Your earnings-related pension from Finland will be paid to you regardless of the length of time you spent working here.
http://www.etk.fi/en/service/faq/780/faq

[cors187]

Q: Will my pension insurance contributions be returned to me if I move away from Finland?

A: No, but you will be entitled to a pension from Finland when you retire, regardless of where you reside at that time. Your earnings-related pension from Finland will be paid to you regardless of the length of time you spent working here.
http://www.etk.fi/en/service/faq/780/faq

Pensions for persons moving to some other country

National pensions and survivors’ pensions are not awarded to applicants living in countries other than the EU/EEA countires or the countries that have a social security agreement with Finland.

As part of an amendment of the national pension legislation introduced at the beginning of 2008, pensioners who move abroad can get national pension for up to a year. However, payment is stopped immediately if the pensioner had not been resident in Finland for at least 12 months prior to qualifying for the pension.

Persons who moved from Finland before 1 January 2008 are eligible for a pension if they had been resident in Finland for an uninterrupted period of 10 years immediately before the pension is set to start. If they have less than 10 years of residence, the pension can be paid abroad for one year. If they have less than one year of residence, payment of the pension stops from the beginning of the month following their move from Finland. Payment of the pension is stopped if there is a change in the pensioner’s family circumstances or in their income from other pensions relevant to their eligibility for the Finnish pension.
http://www.kela.fi/in/internet/english. ... enDocument

kela has it different or am i misunderstanding something?

[cors187]

http://www.kela.fi/in/internet/english. ... enDocument
630,02 euro/month isnt something to jump on a boat and do 45 years for

[Hämeen Hitain]

Kela pays the Kansaneläke (national pension) and some other pensions but not työeläke which is related to your earnings. Upphew's link was about työeläke.

[Upphew]

Non EU who dont retire in finland dont get the pension, they have benefits that will end.

No. The pension you've earned here is paid to you when you reach the Finnish pension age. It just isn't very much if you worked here only a short time.

(As an exception apparently the Finnish working time can sometimes credited to your national system)

I think its a fair assumption that there is a few requirements to receive such a benefit for the rest of your days living in another Non EU country.
We have discussed them before.10 years minimum contribution is one.
I realize your words are correct , but show me any form of print that allows the Non EU retiring in a Non EU country who gave the minimum contribution requirements to be classed as a beneficiary of the Finnish national pension system.
If you can provide such a detail that show without fine print clause from the 1st payment until the day that person dies they received the National pension(whatever the ratio of payment), then i will retract my statement that those payments are really considered 'The Pension", rather than calling them "benefits that will end before death".

Bolding mine. The pension accrued while working is paid where ever you are. The pension that is paid for people who have not worked is that 630,02. And that is not paid indefinitely abroad.

[Liam1]

Cors187
It's very little use trying to argue on all points, but passing a test to show you can support your family is hardly the same as being a net contributor. As I wrote there is a budget defecit here despite most having 2 earners (tax payers) per family (this is why arguing on all points is useless as quotes are selective - I'm sure mine are as well)

Your point that Migri wants to attract high tax payers doesn't negate my opinion about opposing preferential treatment- just states that that Migri may favour it. You cannot pick and choose where Migri's position is "fact" if it agrees with you and "up for debate" if it doesn't

Anologies are not expected to be literal so are by their nature "to (sic) open ended". Yours isn't an anology. I was merely showing that when you enter somewhere, your first thought should not be to change the system.

And the subsequent debate shows that you don't really understand the pension system, as if you are contributing enough to be an asset, you will also be receiving your contributions back in the form of the same pension as a local would have received, if they had contributed the same amount.

[cors187]

And the subsequent debate shows that you don't really understand the pension system,

Did you think i would shrink and hide the fact that i didn't have any knowledge of the 2nd part pension system?, i haven't been here long enough to even get any info on it other than the amount of web page diversion seems to more in Finland, so its always a new link,I'm not a hypocrite.From our little discussion i have retrieved valuable info.

It's very little use trying to argue on all points, but passing a test to show you can support your family is hardly the same as being a net contributor. As I wrote there is a budget defecit here despite most having 2 earners (tax payers) per family (this is why arguing on all points is useless as quotes are selective - I'm sure mine are as well)

Your point that Migri wants to attract high tax payers doesn't negate my opinion about opposing preferential treatment- just states that that Migri may favour it. You cannot pick and choose where Migri's position is "fact" if it agrees with you and "up for debate" if it doesn't

Anologies are not expected to be literal so are by their nature "to (sic) open ended". Yours isn't an analogy. I was merely showing that when you enter somewhere, your first thought should not be to change the system.

I think you may as well have posted a song, because that's what it reminds me of.read it again yourself.
The fact remains that migri does make one application more important than another and so did you when you first reported that refugees should be looked at first and then comes the economic retards.
Arguing the point of selection???, I posted in the last post that the most important thing for migri is Priorities and Protocol.Why would i concern myself in an argument with you about "Net contributor" .To me your saying that there's no reason to offer any points and then you offer a point like "net contributor"

I merely say that the reason why the employment migrant is here is because he can provide for his family.If the guy cant provide for his family then it should not take a long extended bureaucracy driven campaign to tell him that "im sorry sir, you dont make enough".
If the guy doesn't make enough , you tell him fast, if the guy does make the requirement to bring in his family the same principle applies.

This is the argument that i see.I agree with the masses of disillusioned migrants who are left wondering month after month.
I never said that all stories are the same , but in my case im an advocate for these employment migrants families to be short tracked as the same principle applied to the initial process?

doesn't negate my opinion about opposing preferential treatment

Look liaM, your name sounds irish, so i am presuming your EU. If your EU then you have got preferential treatment over me being non EU. The same principle applies to all non EU, that according to priorities and protocols of legislation,amongst non EU is preferential treatment.My particular argument is consistent, i dont believe that the priorities and protocols that allowed the bread winner to enter EU should change or diminish in any respect according to his family. I hope you can see that because not many people would argue against it.

Your point that Migri wants to attract high tax payers

Its not Migri.If you go into Mol.fi and sit down with them as an entrepreneur , you will discover that the internal mol.fi directorate favors entrepreneur development.They understand that the core of a countries employment and economic strength is the ability for local and foreign entrepreneurship and I can tell you that they give me the same employer tools as they give a Finnish guy.
So my point is not migri , my point is that its good business!

a·nal·o·gy

Noun
A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A correspondence or partial similarity.

[cors187]

I was merely showing that when you enter somewhere, your first thought should not be to change the system.

We could start a whole new debate on this, not that i agree or disagree with you.

[Liam1]

We could start a whole new debate on this, not that i agree or disagree with you.

Here we agree! As with many of these threads, I don't disagree with everything you or others say (my first post was not directed at you in particular as others had talked about demos to complain about waiting times).

I disagreed with your statement

all of us contribute the the social system.Some knowing that we are not going to retire here so every cent goes into the beer canned army.

- hence the long debate on pensions etc

Also it is not inconsistent to think essential prioritisation is acceptable, but then to object to others. E.g. If someone is life threatening they should be treated first in hospital, but that doesn't mean that rich should be treated before poor. Same with refugees 1st but then everyone else accept system or decide not worth it and so don't apply.

Yes I am EU though not Irish! Your EU point is I guess prioritisation, but as a reciprocal arrangement, so Finns can move to e.g. Ireland without massive admin.

This is not a English definition forum but I still believe that your isn't an analogy . Your posted definition sort of gives a hint but here is what I looked up. The important point is that the experience are similar but inherently dissimilar (a trip to a restaurant / Migri) not the same (a description of a trip to Migri vs your comparator which is....a trip to Migri)

a·nal·o·gies
1.
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.

But as mentoned it is only these points that we diesagree upon, so lets agree that we just have different views!!!!

[Pursuivant]

i will come where he live and if he is a man he can say those words infront me ..bands of stupids and retarded peoples

Big words out of a suburban whales sex toy.