How much Tax will I pay?

[GermanInHelsinki]

Roger is of course also fully capable of paying full unsubsidised daycare costs of around 800 Euro per child by himself.

If the government would stop wasting any money on providing public daycare and allowances for private daycare, they could of course use the saved expenses to cut the corporate tax rate further down from 20% to 19% or even 18%.

[GermanInHelsinki]

Roger has of course a bad memory and does not remember how the 9% VAT tax reduction for restaurants 5 years ago did not result in lower prices in restaurants, it resulted only in lower tax income.

[GermanInHelsinki]

Roger is of course wrong when claiming that Kela would pay nothing if he gets transported by ambulance to hospital and then requires a long stay in hospital with many surgeries.

The policy Roger has is of course only available for people who have expensive treatments already covered by Kela.

Roger is of course also completely wrong when claiming that no private insurance would cover people once they hit 65+. The Finnish government could of course switch to a system like in Germany or Switzerland where joining a private insurance implies that the insurance company will cover all your healthcare expenses until death without any government subsidizes.

[GermanInHelsinki]

Everyone who earns an income of 4k per month like Roger is of course fully capable of paying the full unsubsidised daycare costs of around 800 Euro per child himself.

It is of course very bad for the economy if the government continues spending money on daycare for the children of people who earn 4k per month instead of using the money currently wasted on daycare for lowering the corporate tax rate. It'll likely improve productivity and overall growth in economy.

[Beep_Boop]

@GermanInHelsinki

[Rip]

I also think my pension contributions should be my responsibility not employers.

If you mean that the employees should choose whether they are contributing or not, you could elaborate if we should let them starve in the old age if they don't. If you mean the current overall level of contributions should be maintained but it should be transfered from (predominantly) employers side to employee side, you're simply supporting a pay cut, a quite large one actually. It would crush the domestic demand and as a consequence employment on that sector, whether you will think so or not.

There was once a chancellor named Brüning in Germany who also thought that was great idea (also arguing how the price levels going down (aka deflation) would ease the pain). The rest, as it is said, is history.

I may end up having less money to play with

But you will still spend as much or are you reconsidering your statement it won't effect domestic demand and employment?

[GermanInHelsinki]

Rip, if a well-paid employee like Roger who earns more than he spends has to pay more that might of course not affect domestic demand. The problem is only at the average and low incomes.

A more reasonable option for the government to save money (which they could use to lower costs for companies) would of course be to reverse the recent rule change that entitled spouses of people with high income (like Rogers wife) to unemployment benefits.

[Querfeldein]

I have been offered a job in Finland on a 2 year fixed contract. The Gross pay is 51600 Euros pa.

One thing to be aware of is that many work contracts in Finland include a 50% holiday salary bonus (i.e. you get 12.5 months of salary per year). It might be worth checking whether that is included in the annual salary.

Off Topic:

On the political question, since I got my PhD, I have always earned enough so that I would personally benefit from lower, less progressive taxes, and being healthy and childless, private health care and less state support for families with children. However, I am in fact very happy to pay my taxes - not only because up to that point, I enjoyed a very good education, but also to support a public health service, public education, and childcare. I believe that social security isn't a zero-sum game; if people feel more secure and the burden of raising children is shared out more evenly, there is a net benefit to society. We also shouldn't fool ourselves to believing that we're self-reliant and saving up for our own retirement; instead, we are largely paying for the current generation of pensioners (who, in turn, paid for our education). Hence, we should make sure there's a well-educated next generation, who can pay for us when we need it.

Of course, taxation without representation is something the EU should look into - by virtue of my passport, I can only vote in national elections in Germany, whereas I feel I have a much greater stake in the country I actually live in.

[Rosamunda]

I have been offered a job in Finland on a 2 year fixed contract. The Gross pay is 51600 Euros pa.

Of course, taxation without representation is something the EU should look into - by virtue of my passport, I can only vote in national elections in Germany, whereas I feel I have a much greater stake in the country I actually live in.

Think yourself lucky. I am British but I left the UK to work in France in 1981. Since then I have lived almost continuously in the EU (bar a couple of years in Hungary and one year in the US), 20 years in France and over 10 years here.

If you are moving away from the UK, you will still be entitled to vote in elections. Provided you have been included on an electoral register within the past 15 years (reduced from a previous 20), you will still be entitled to cast your vote. If you remain away from the UK for any more than the 15 years, you will then automatically lose your right to vote in British elections.

So I lost my right to vote in the UK in 1996. I don't have dual nationality (French or Finnish) so I can't vote here or in France. I have been paying taxes ever since I graduated in 1981, I work here, I also have my own company and I have three children (two have done military service, the third starts his very soon), and we own our own home and a mökki. I think it is unfair, discriminatory and frankly absurd that I cannot vote in the parliamentary elections. And now Cameron has promised a referendum on Europe and I'm wondering if I'll get a chance to vote on that. I agree with you, it is definitely something the EU should look into. Every EU citizen should have the right to vote somewhere, after all, we are EU citizens.

Of course, I could always apply for citizenship every time I move to a new country.

[Upphew]

So I lost my right to vote in the UK in 1996. I don't have dual nationality (French or Finnish) so I can't vote here or in France. I have been paying taxes ever since I graduated in 1981, I work here, I also have my own company and I have three children (two have done military service, the third starts his very soon), and we own our own home and a mökki. I think it is unfair, discriminatory and frankly absurd that I cannot vote in the parliamentary elections. And now Cameron has promised a referendum on Europe and I'm wondering if I'll get a chance to vote on that. I agree with you, it is definitely something the EU should look into. Every EU citizen should have the right to vote somewhere, after all, we are EU citizens.

Of course, I could always apply for citizenship every time I move to a new country.

Every EU citizen has right to vote in every EU election. By your logic every christian should be the right to vote in Red cross stuff even if they are not members of latter organization.

[Beep_Boop]

Every EU citizen has right to vote in every EU election. By your logic every christian should be the right to vote in Red cross stuff even if they are not members of latter organization.

Oh come on! Don't you think that it's a bit unfair that you picked the most idiotic and illogical part of Rosamunda's argument and replied to it?

Using a similar argument (but with a different conclusion), I honestly think that someone who lived in Finland for a long time and has this much deep connections to the country (such as Rosamunda, any many others) should be able to vote.

The way I think of it: They "deserve" to vote more than someone who happened to be married to a Finnish resident (citizen or otherwise) for a while and then took an YKI crash course to get the passport.

[betelgeuse]

Every EU citizen has right to vote in every EU election. By your logic every christian should be the right to vote in Red cross stuff even if they are not members of latter organization.

Oh come on! Don't you think that it's a bit unfair that you picked the most idiotic and illogical part of Rosamunda's argument and replied to it?

Using a similar argument (but with a different conclusion), I honestly think that someone who lived in Finland for a long time and has this much deep connections to the country (such as Rosamunda, any many others) should be able to vote.

Citizenship comes with both rights and obligations. I think it's fair to require the latter for the former.

[Beep_Boop]

Citizenship comes with both rights and obligations. I think it's fair to require the latter for the former.

and I don't disagree.
However, the only effective obligation that you face when you're a citizen (vis-à-vis a long-term resident) is military service. That's actually pretty much it. So, if you're a woman or you're older than 29, then the line between long-time resident (with deep connections to the country) and a citizen becomes so diffused, so much so that it's effectively not there anymore (regarding obligations, I mean).
Yes, I'm aware of some of the the legal corner cases when it comes to citizenship and obligations. Let's no go there.

I think there's a middle point somewhere between "I pay taxes, let me vote" and "no vote without passport".

[betelgeuse]

Citizenship comes with both rights and obligations. I think it's fair to require the latter for the former.

and I don't disagree.
However, the only effective obligation that you face when you're a citizen (vis-à-vis a long-term resident) is military service. That's actually pretty much it. So, if you're a woman or you're older than 29, then the line between long-time resident (with deep connections to the country) and a citizen becomes so diffused, so much so that it's effectively not there anymore (regarding obligations, I mean).
Yes, I'm aware of some of the the legal corner cases when it comes to citizenship and obligations. Let's no go there.

Women are also required to defend the country (maanpuolustusvelvollisuus):

https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/ ... 31#L12P127

One other major obligation is paying taxes. Finnish citizens by default have to pay taxes for three following years when they move abroad:

https://www.vero.fi/fi-FI/Syventavat_ve ... uus(25545)

The line is not as diffused as you think. I can agree that the difference is not big but it's there.

[Upphew]

Citizenship comes with both rights and obligations. I think it's fair to require the latter for the former.

and I don't disagree.
However, the only effective obligation that you face when you're a citizen (vis-à-vis a long-term resident) is military service. That's actually pretty much it. So, if you're a woman or you're older than 29, then the line between long-time resident (with deep connections to the country) and a citizen becomes so diffused, so much so that it's effectively not there anymore (regarding obligations, I mean).
Yes, I'm aware of some of the the legal corner cases when it comes to citizenship and obligations. Let's no go there.

I think there's a middle point somewhere between "I pay taxes, let me vote" and "no vote without passport".

Almost every Finnish male got/will get post from mil.fi. I got mine yesterday. Now the middle point is that you can vote in EU elections and municipal elections.