I’ll write a letter to my rep about this, I hope as many of you as possible will do the same.

The thing that I like to stress is that it is illegal, according to the EU Personal Data protection law.

In the rest of the EU, people take for granted that peoples’ personal economic data is treated with respect and privacy.
It is unthinkable in the rest of the EU to consider that their name, salary, etc. would be published, sold for money or put in the internet,
without permission. Moving to Finland to work means you automatically forfeit this privacy, some of you without
knowing it. It is incompatible with Finland’s constitution, international tax treaties, and it breaks the EU Personal Data
Protection law, which Finland has ratified with all EU member states. Finland has a very broadly
differing practice of handling economic personal data then in the rest of the EU, and in the rest of the world
for that matter.

yes, it’s true Phil. I’m surprised you got to this one before I did.

Anyone in the world can see the private economic information of Finns—Brits, Estonians, Poles, Somalians, Nigerians, Israelis, even Americans!

It’s quite embarrassing for Finland, especially since the rest of the world is aiming to protect the private information of its citizens. Data security is important these days.

There’s an action underway with the European Commission to prevent Finland’s from doing this. Difficult to say if it will be successful. It might not be.

As reinforcement, my suggestion is to write any Finnish Parliament representative of your choice or the European Commission. YOU DON’T NEED TO BE A CITIZEN!

Finland wants to attract highly qualified persons for employment. Your opinion counts.

This Cho said repeatedly in his manifesto that he hated the rich, wealthy kids etc… He would had loved to have a tax list like we have in Finland.

I didn’t know Soviets were around in the 1870′s when the taxation (and the publicity of it) was first implemented.

Originally it was to check credit ratings, not public entertainment.

#4 Or how about some cheesy hotel clerk at a vacation resort that is known to be frequented by Finns.

He could sit there with his copy of Veropörssi and know exactly which victim to choose.

#5
Hank, the laws in question were implemented in 1973 and re-written more recently.

What’s wrong with freedom of information – I would have thought it would be quite a libertarian principle actually. It can function as a powerful tool against closed elites that can form to subvert our liberties in the name of privilege and behind the scenes influence. This used to be how the monopolistic aristocracy kept up its unfair position protected from competition – freedom of information was anathema to them.

There was an Austrian case that was brought before the European Commission. It is called Rechnungshof.
http://www.lex.unict.it/eurolabor/en/documentation/sentenze/causes465-138-139-01en.htm

————————-
Here is my interpretation:

Employees of an Austrian, publicly-funded radio station complained that their salary information was made public.

The argument was based on Directive 95/46/EC.

The European Court of Justice denied the claim and stated that Governments can publish private information for the management of public funds (remember, it concerns a publicly-funded radio station).

According to the EC representative with whom I am in contact, the case was referred back to the Austrian courts. The Austrian courts decided that publishing the data is not necessary.

So ultimately, the complainants won.
—————————————-

Realize, the above case involves publicly-managed radio station employees. Not ordinary citizens. That might have been a deciding factor from the European Court’s perspective.

In my opinion, the fastest way to get this done is through national legislation—contact Finnish MP’s. If that fails (e.g. due to some sort of ‘special relationships’ between politicians and owners of these assorted tax publications) then the European Court of Justice and Finnish national courts will be the last resort. It will be lengthy, but better than nothing.

But the income tax and publicity of tax records dates from the 1870′s.
And I have a couple “tax calendars” from the 1960′s that the tax office at that time published.

Now that thing that its queried IMHO would require also a reason to why it is queried, and information given to the person. Now what comes to the whine on that page over the police being able to query the data… now would it be better to go back to the “old system” whe you had to go to the court and all. The “day fine” system fixes the fines to a persons income, its got nothing to do with police being able to query the data on the spot – it makes the process swifter and theres much less court cases on lying your income.

“What’s wrong with freedom of information”

It’s great for Commies like you mjr. But not so good for the rest of us

Especially if we have business interests outside of Finland—perhaps even business interests that help Finland….and you for that matter.

“now would it be better to go back to the “old system” whe you had to go to the court and all.”

Yes. It is NOT the police’s business to know about my income unless I am involved specifically in a financial crime.

Also, I’m against income-based fines in general, unless they involve such things as corporate fraud, etc.

Might I point out that Veropörssi is available on all the world’s major BitTorrent trackers. Just Google “Veropörssi” and you will see.

Pretty good for a modern, democratic, developed, EU member country, isn’t it. Its citizens’ and residents’ tax records are for download in the torrent trackers.

“Also, I’m against income-based fines in general, unless they involve such things as corporate fraud, etc.”

So basically you are saying that wealthy people should be able to commit low-level crime with a flash of their credit card and allow poor people to go to debtors’ prison for the same offences. As things are, when I see a personal vehicle blatantly missparked by Aleksi or Mansku it invariably tends to be a new, expensive one.

“I see a personal vehicle blatantly missparked by Aleksi or Mansku it invariably tends to be a new, expensive one.”

Drakon, no we can have a system of escalating fines and even loss of driving privileges. That way everyone is treated the same.

Finland is trying to attract dynamic people due to aging population and increased number pensioners to support, etc. These types of policies don’t help. No one wants their income published (aside from some naive Finns perhaps :-/ )

Stop whining and move to Norway

Friday, 11 October, 2002, 20:30 GMT 21:30) UK
Norwegian tax office tells all online

Income figures show net income after all deductions. This means that financially-savvy Norwegians will show taxable incomes much lower than their gross income.

While I understand that people feel uncomfortable knowing their income information is freely available I think the positives outweight the negatives. Indeed, the only negative is if you want people to think you earn a different amount than you do for whatever reason.

The positives are that it does a good job of preventing tax evasion (which costs many countries billions). Also, it makes the market more efficient since what is required for an efficient market is that people have as close to perfect information as possible. If I know my co-worker is getting paid more than me I know that either he is more valuable than me or that I am being paid below market wages for my labour. Thus, I can negotiate with my boss for a higher salary, try to be better or leave. So an economic libertarian should at least see both sides of this as mjr wisely pointed out.

“ So an economic libertarian should at least see both sides of this as mjr wisely pointed out.”

Actually, an economic Libertarian would argue that it’s his own choice whether or not to publish his income. But that’s a valid argument for non-Libertarians as well.

Kristian, what do you actually know of communism, or Marxism-Leninism? Anyway, I’m more like a social liberal – not socialist at all: I just see the human nature as inherently monopolistic. Where-ever an elite is formed it tries to close the door behind it and protect itself from social competition. That’s why we need a force to keep the playing field as level as possible: all peoples should compete based on their own abilities, not based on inherited fortune or misfortune. This is fairly far removed from any form of Marxism as I actually like the free enterprise and the possibilities for individuals to get ahead in the society as unhindered as possible. It is interesting to see libertarians continuously disagreeing with this principle – what do you have against free competition?

5. Hank, I think Phil was taught correct history in US school. So if he says it’s Soviets, then that’s it. I just wonder if Soviets killed al the dinos billions of years ago…

Drakon: “So basically you are saying that wealthy people should be able to commit low-level crime with a flash of their credit card and allow poor people to go to debtors’ prison for the same offences.”

What country were we talking about?

“Because of the instant access the police have to salary data, are the police targeting high income people in traffic violation enforcement? Good question. I don’t need a doctorate degree to see that the temptation is there. Will they be more eager to pull over a shiny 2007 BMW, rather than a rusty old Datsun, when both are committing the same exact violation? We can find out by comparing the average income of drivers in Finland against the average income of speeding violators. “

You call this a valid REASONING? I don’t need no freaking instant access to your salary information. If I see you in BMW 750i speeding more than 20% of limit, I know that you are going to pay a lot. Why I need instant access to target you instead of Datsun driver?

“If I know my co-worker is getting paid more…”

Just a note about that….

You negotiate your pay according to market rates, not according to your co-workers’ salaries.

In practice, most companies try to avoid unfair pay-imbalances. That’s because employees might talk about their pay (voluntarily!) amongst themselves.

Companies would lose employees’ trust very quickly if co-workers were to discover unfair imbalances between each other’s pay.

well, of course, if you suspect that Datsun owner is multibillionaire, then it’s worth having access to salary data… Bloody cheapskate, get a BMW 7!

Sirkuspelle, meanwhile, while you are still fighting against disclosure, could you please post your 2006 annual income?

Alex “well, of course, if you suspect that Datsun owner is multibillionaire, then it’s worth having access to salary data… Bloody cheapskate, get a BMW 7!”

Sam Walton used to drive an old pick-up when he was still alive. (founder of Walmart)

But is it justice to enforce the speed limit on the rich, and let the crazy young drivers who won’t render any fine money to drive however they want?

Loosing your license for a while hits hard, both the wealthy and the poor.

Sirkuspelle, thank you for educating me, Ingvar Kamprad still drives his 15-years old Volvo wagon. How does it related to your passage about police having instant access to your income figure.

is it related, I meant… )I am dyslexik

It is the same at least in Norway and Sweden. Although there are moves to change the law in Sweden to stop people being able to look peoples’ income up with the person being informed.

I think it is good that we have robust freedom of information and an open government, although I do not believe that private companies and organisations should be distributing this information for profit. I think the solution is just that the Tax authority administer the distribution of this information, that it is only available to people on request, and that any individual who is “looked up” is informed that this has been done and who has been looking it up.

Publishing the information is just plain stupid, especially in a small country like Finland where you can find anyone if your tempted to look for them.

Public tax information is a simple guidebook for which houses to go and steal from.

In the greater scheme of things, it probably will become a guidebook for kidnapping as well. And if the TRUE SOCIALISTS, like Thomas, ever get in chrage, it is those high earners that they will like up against the wall first and dispose of.

What’s wrong with freedom of information – I would have thought it would be quite a libertarian principle actually. It can function as a powerful tool against closed elites that can form to subvert our liberties in the name of privilege and behind the scenes influence. This used to be how the monopolistic aristocracy kept up its unfair position protected from competition – freedom of information was anathema to them.

Wow, I didn’t realize I was “elite”!

Very simple logic for Alex.

Police sees expensive car going 120 in an 80 zone.
Police sees old junky car going 120 in same 80 zone.
Police pulls over expensive car.
Police gets salary of driver from Fonecta.
Police writes ticket for a very high price.
Old junky car slows down because he sees police pull
over expensive car but keeps driving.
Police goes back to workplace and brags about
how expensive a ticket he wrote. Everyone likes him for
bringing in money.

Is this justice or is it called something else?

So an economic libertarian should at least see both sides of this as mjr wisely pointed out.

Like I said, I’m sure this has the best intentions, but the vast majority of these tax searches are done for the wrong reasons. The bad far outweigh the good. Anyone who considers themselves “libertarian” would never go for this, libertarians believe in freedom and privacy.

The free way would be to make this optional. MJR and Finnsense can happily make their records public while Kristen and I have the freedom not to.

Sircuspelle, please select either
A. You are against salary disclosure (DOES NOT matter in your example, because I know beforehand that most likely expensive car driver earns more annualy.)
B. You are against fines bound to salary (i.e. fine=NxDaily income)

Alex, it can go this way as well:

Police sees expensive car 1 going 120 in an 80 zone.
Police sees identical car 2 going 120 in an 80 zone.
Car 1 has a Finnish plate.
Car 2 has a German plate.
Police has access to Finnish salaries, but not German ones.
Police decides not to bother with German car.
Police pulls over Finnish car.
Police gets salary from Fonecta.
Police writes expensive ticket to Finnish driver.
German driver keeps driving, but slows down, because
he sees the police pull over the Finnish driver.
Police goes to workplace and brags about the
expensive ticket he/she wrote.

Sirkuspelle, how about other example
Let’s say 1000 people sell crack cocain in small town. Then police busts one guy, but the guy says – “Hey, I am not only one who is doing this, why you charge me, and others? You call this justice?”

In your example I don’t need to know salary information to make decision to stop a car. (and your initial argument implied that).
Hypothetically you can even ban police from knowing salary data, let them issue ticket saying “Fine is 0.67% of Monthly salary of mister X”. And then it’s paid in some super secret place somewhere, where clerk get access to X personal data and then dies. How that would stop a policemen from spotting expensive car?

I don’t see anyone complaining here about the fact that their retail loyalty cards probably provide a far more accurate picture of their lives, personal habits, sexual predilections, family status, etc. etc. than the tax records do. Or that this information is freely passed around…

No, silly, that’s because it’s biznis what’s doing it and not the dreaded *STATE*.

The K shops know ALL about you, Phil. I don’t expect you’d shop at Stockmann, since you are only a poor peon, but Tarjoustalo also have a card system…

As for this…

“Drakon, no we can have a system of escalating fines and even loss of driving privileges. That way everyone is treated the same.”

Err.. HOW is this “treating everybody the same”? The point being made was that the wealthy will speed (or offend) with impunity if the punishment for them is fiscally irrelevant. The panacea offered by Kristian is that everybody should pay more for their second and third offence, not that the wealthy should pay according to their means.

It is the RELATIVE cost of transgressing that makes for an equal playing field. But of course he doesn’t WANT one of those. As for loss of driving privileges, it already exists, rich OR poor. But perhaps Kristian hasn’t lived here long enough to have his licence hung up to dry.

Alex: If the police had no access to salary information,
and salary was not an factor in traffic violations, there would
not be any motivation to go after “apparently” wealthy people.

In fact, other crimes might get solved if justice was blind.
The people robbing banks, gas stations, killing, raping, driving drunk, those using/selling drugs etc. probably tend to drive older cars.
The police won’t get much of a speeding fine from them.
One needs to at least somewhat have their life together, a job, etc. in order to be able to afford a newer car.

Justice should be blind, to income as well.

I see you are opposed to fines bound to income figures. Why didn’t you say this in the beginning. Why brag about “salary disclosures”?

“The people robbing banks, gas stations, killing, raping, driving drunk, those using/selling drugs etc. probably tend to drive older cars.
The police won’t get much of a speeding fine from them.”

These people are SAFE from police according to you, so why worry? Why all the fuss?
- they most likely drive older cars (your words)
- police likes shiny BMWs driven by reach guys (your example)
- police will choose BMW to pull over (your example)
- income of poor bank robbers is left intact (inferred from above)

Can you see how drug dealers getting away in old Datsun?

“Is this justice or is it called something else?”

– It is called revenue-based law enforcement. Washington, DC is good at it. Speeding and other motor vehicle violations are pursued vigorously and without mercy. Crimes that only cost DC money, not as much.

JG: “any individual who is “looked up” is informed that this has been done and who has been looking it up.”

So you wouldn’t mind if criminals search through your private records as long as you are informed?

Assuming that you have a high income or some other sensitive albeit legal business activity, of course.

JG, I enjoy your comments and our occasional discussions. But regarding this, I wonder if you’re playing with a full deck (of cards, so to speak).

I haven’t read all the comments yet, so this may be a little off topic, at least when it comes to this discussion, but the insert reminded me of an article I read a while back. I think it was in newsweek/msnbc website (sorry, I didn’t manage to find the article for this comment yet).

It was about the basic differences in citicens’ concerns in privacy issues in the US and Europe. The main difference was basically that in the US people are afraid the government will snoop into their private data, whereas in Europe people are terrified that the “faceless” corporations might have access to that private data. Could this be related to the feeling of closeness or familiarity people have with these two? I don’t know if I’m right, but I’ve understood that in the US the Government to most citicens isn’t something they feel they can have much of an affect to, the same being true to the peoples’ feelings towards (multinational?) corporations in Europe.

Just a thought. Might help people to understand why issues like this publication of the tax records seem to create such heated discussion..

#39 And just so you know JG, I can accept your arguments for—e.g.—supporting Alko. That’s just a different philosophy. We all have our opinions, I suppose….

But regarding this tax issue, you’re really putting people at risk. We don’t operate in a nice-and-neat Nordic vacuum anymore. There’s a world out there with criminals that don’t exactly have the best intentions for us.

tirlittan: “in Europe people are terrified that the “faceless” corporations might have access to that private data.”

Corporations can even use this law indirectly. They can keep workers’ pay low. As long as Pekka knows he isn’t payed less than Antti—or visa-versa—then no one complains.

Should we ask some Nokia employees about their pay?

It seems my last comment disappeared to the bit-heaven. If I’m double posting this, please excuse me!

Kristian:
As I said, my comment wasn’t aimed so much to this particular issue/discussion. This whole thing just reminded me of something I find quite facinating: the different point of views (on the society/good life) and fears on the different sides of the Pond, and the reasons behind them..

My personal “perstuntuma” to this is a big no no to the fact that the tax records are made such a public past-time once a year. I believe in opennes and transparency in government and in the society in general, as well as admitting to being one of those treadded pro welfare state people, but really do not understand why it is this easy to get information about ordinary peoples’ incomes.

BTW. I believe this is the article I was referring to: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221111/

Yea, doesn’t freedom of information suck (when it doesn’t fit the libertarian agenda that is…). Too much god-damn freedom eh Phil.

@19 Hank, I think Phil was taught correct history in US school. So if he says it’s Soviets, then that’s it. I just wonder if Soviets killed al the dinos billions of years ago…

w00t? the world is only 6000 years old, just read http://www.conservapedia.com
http://www.evangelicalright.com/JesusDino.jpg

Police sees expensive car 1 going 120 in an 80 zone.
Police sees identical car 2 going 120 in an 80 zone.
Car 1 has a Finnish plate.
Car 2 has a German plate.
Police pulls over German car.
Police finds driver to have an address in Finland.
Police impounds expensive car to Finnish car tax processing.

@43: “Yea, doesn’t freedom of information suck (when it doesn’t fit the libertarian agenda that is…).”

No, letting others pry into our personal records has never been on the Libertarian agenda—neither officially, nor implied. Where do you get your information?

Based on your faulty logic, should such an agenda also include the right to pull-down each others pants? “Freedom of information”, right?

They did that somewhere else about 60-years-ago. Hint: It wasn’t the Libertarians doing it.

This Cho said repeatedly in his manifesto that he hated the rich, wealthy kids etc… He would had loved to have a tax list like we have in Finland.

Perhaps he’s just a symptom the US needs in order to start realizing that a society heading towards an aristocracy is not a good thing.

Anyway, I used to think that the information about one’s income is too personal to be public, not tot mention that it makes the kind of “con acts” that are in the core of capitalism pretty hard – and not only ina bad way. But now when all you hihhuli neo-liberals rave about it, I probably must change my opinion. You guys are, after all, almost always wrong…

Kristian #46

a) I thought perfect information made economies work better. And as far as i know penis size isn’t considered an economic issue, but you do seem to be the expert so maybe.

b) Its not necessarily a personal record if its a tax record, its a record of a transaction between society and the individual, and one with a clear social mandate and effect. So its a very different case to other forms of personal information.

c) The real point is how wonderfully this issue typifies the authors of this blog – no-one has advanced or event tried to advance a real reason why this is bad, except for the fact that it doesn’t further the small government, low tax agenda. It takes question begging to a whole new level.

d) Also seeing the reliance this blog has on the foreign language edition of YLE, its also hilarious to see this issue dragged up again on the same day Finns (along with their other Scandinavian welfare state oppressed brethren) were declared the second happiest people in Europe. I can’t be alone in thinking if they’d been low in the list todays headline would have been “Welfare State Causes Misery”.

Kristian,

No, sadly people enquiring into my tax details will not find a high income. I look forward to the day that they will!

Of course, I do not like the idea of criminals looking at my taxation details. However, this is meant to be an open society. Of course, it is more problematic these days now that we are no longer living in the Nordic bubble as you say. However, with the necessary controls I do believe in this level of freedom of information. At least with the change I suggest a person who has had his details looked up would be informed of this and of who by. There is no need to surrender our open society to the criminals, that means they win. We should strengthen and safeguard it.

It’s an ancient relic of Finland’s past, reminiscent of their old Soviet neighbors.

Did they publish tax information for money in the soviet union???

Kristian:
In practice, most companies try to avoid unfair pay-imbalances. That’s because employees might talk about their pay (voluntarily!) amongst themselves.

That’s a good one! How many OUNCES of the green stuff have you been smoking, Kristian?

I and a few colleagues found the public tax records quite useful in determining how much of our billing goes to our employer. Not to mention that he had been lying about people’s salaries. This eventually resulted in some new entrepreneurs.

“Its not necessarily a personal record if its a tax record”

It is a personal record because it has your name on it. Are you some kind of idiot?

“I and a few colleagues found the public tax records quite useful in determining how much of our billing goes to our employer. Not to mention that he had been lying about people’s salaries.”

Who the fuck cares? Just worry about yourself not what your boss does you moron.

Who the fuck cares? Just worry about yourself not what your boss does you moron.

Ah, the blog’s intellectual level just went up a notch.

Isn’t public tax records the ultimate “keeping up with the Joneses”? They make more, you try to do better next year. Fair game and nothing to bitch about.

Well, as Finnsense already indirectly pointed out, it is often, or almost invariably, rational and even profitable for individual market actors to hinder market efficiency. That is why certain safeguards (such as legislation and law enforcement or reasonably free flow of information) are needed to stop this natural reflex from eventually endangering the market itself. Libertarians, especially in their extreme form, can’t easily concede or comprehend this point (namely human nature) – in concequence, their ideal libertarian society without any outside forces would stay libertarian for about 30 seconds after which no law would be replaced by the law of the jungle and most horrible monopolistic tyrannies. Of course we also have more reasonable sort that accepts the night guard state as necessary but even they have hard time in accepting the elementary, self-evident truth of the first sentence of this post, and its logical concequences as regards guaranteeing high social mobility and permanent free social competition.

Isn’t public tax records the ultimate “keeping up with the Joneses”? They make more, you try to do better next year. Fair game and nothing to bitch about.

My thoughts exactly. As for the criminals, I think that it is relatively well known that Donald Trump’s home probably has plenty of stuff worth stealing – even without public tax records.

Incidentally, should the Forbes list also be made illegal?

I have nothing against the Social Welfare State. New Zealand and Canada are considered a social welfare states. But do New Zealanders’ or Canadians buy lists of tax records in the local convenient store? I don’t think so. Can one download them in the Internet? No. All of the countries in the EU are Social Welfare states or becoming one. Yet Finland’s practices differ broadly from the world’s other social welfare states.

I have nothing against public records. Many countries have them, but in a responsible and respectful manner. In the US, for example, many states have public records that you can research. But you cannot publish identifying information about people without their permission. If you do, you can be punished or sued. Where did Finland get the idea that public records means a public free-for-all circus that the world laughs at when they hear about it?

The Finnish tax circus has nothing to do with Social Welfare or “openness” of tax records. If it was truly about “social welfare”, then the incomes of the poor would be included in Veropörssi.
The original intention was to have public records.
Where did it all go wrong? So wrong, that many Finnish people actually support this and believe in it? Their income and tax records for download on Pirate Bay together with pirate movies.

“And as far as i know penis size isn’t considered an economic issue, but you do seem to be the expert so maybe.”

No, Hitler was the expert. But it had nothing to do with penis size. Rather, his henchmen identified Jews by their circumcised penises. You see, Hitler’s aim was to eradicate Jews because of their disproportionate representation in the financial sector. He believed they wielded too much control.

One could say that looking at the penis had almost purely economic underpinnings. That’s why I made the inference. Sorry you didn’t catch it.

“no-one has advanced or event tried to advance a real reason why this is bad”

Nearly every post on this thread has advanced a real reason. Just because it doesn’t affect you personally doesn’t mean it’s not a real reason.

“Also seeing the reliance this blog has on the foreign language edition of YLE”

Incidentally, there’s a good reason for keeping this in English. Finland vies to attract a competent workforce to substitute for its aging population. Someone needs to pay for the pensions.

Phil and/or I aim to provide the global labor market with PERFECT INFORMATION about their prospective home. You can be sure of it

Franklin: “As for the criminals, I think that it is relatively well known that Donald Trump’s home probably has plenty of stuff worth stealing”

I’m more concerned with those who are wealthy, yet not wealthy enough to afford a private army to protect themselves. Of course, according to JG, those people are worth sacrificing for the “open society” ideology :-/

Franklin: “This eventually resulted in some new entrepreneurs.”

Wonderful, congratulation!

It’s just too bad that when you start bidding long-running, ongoing contracts (as a software developer, I presume), your client can simply dial-up your tax records and see exactly what you’re REALLY worth. So much for your negotiating power.

But, look at the bright side. If the contract results in a lawsuit—e.g. failure to pay—your client will know EXACTLY how financially capable you are of defending yourself legally.

In fact, if your client is in a financial bind himself and needs someone to screw, he might just choose you—the Finn—because he knows your weakness in advance. Unfortunately you won’t have reciprocal knowledge, especially if it’s a foreign client.

That’s one reason why Finnish entrepreneurs don’t make Finland their tax home. It’s sort of like having a 2-ton gorilla on your chest. But don’t worry Franklin, you’ll get used to picking hair out of your teeth.

It’s just too bad that when you start bidding long-running, ongoing contracts (as a software developer, I presume), your client can simply dial-up your tax records and see exactly what you’re REALLY worth. So much for your negotiating power.

False. How much I’m worth doesn’t define the market rate for the service I’m providing.

But, look at the bright side. If the contract results in a lawsuit—e.g. failure to pay—your client will know EXACTLY how financially capable you are of defending yourself legally.

This is a valid point. Then again, someone might not bother to sue me after seeing what a piss-poor peon I am.

“False. How much I’m worth doesn’t define the market rate for the service I’m providing.”

That’s what you think.

“Then again, someone might not bother to sue me after seeing what a piss-poor peon I am.”

He doesn’t have to sue you. Instead, he can just refuse to pay for the services you provided. Because he knows your financial status, he can be sure you won’t present much of a challenge.

#60

“his [Hitler's] henchmen identified Jews by their circumcised penises.”

So you’re equating that with the viewing of tax records? I don’t even need to shoot that down.

“Nearly every post on this thread has advanced a real reason”

No, the reasons have largely been that this supports the welfare state (and some weird shit about the holocaust). That in itself only stands if you assume the welfare state is bad. In which case the post should have been entitled “welfare state bad” (like the others generally are).

And the point about YLE was the selection of news that fits this blogs agenda, not the language. As you well know. Of course you guys are entitle to manipulate the news to fit your political ideology, but you have to admit it undermines the credibility of the blog.

All these posts and mjr still hasn’t used “social mobility”, I’m impressed Anyway in regards to this topic, surely no-one can honestly debate that access to my income and financial records are of any benefit at all other than to jealous pinkies wanting to pry. It serves no purpose and is an intrusion to my private life.
As for the one arguement regarding use by the police to establish he famous Finnish “day fine” value, I can only grit my teeth and scream. Are you people really that simple? Do you really think it is justice when it is based on how much you pay (income related) regardless of the crime commited? That a speeding millionaire can pay more than an unemployed park bum guilty of a serious assault? Is this justice? Wake up. You do the crime, you do the time. Equal fines and punishment for all based on their crime rather than their financial status. Commies………..

Phil,

“Like I said, I’m sure this has the best intentions, but the vast majority of these tax searches are done for the wrong reasons. The bad far outweigh the good. Anyone who considers themselves “libertarian” would never go for this, libertarians believe in freedom and privacy.”

Firstly, the fact that people do tax searches for the wrong reasons doesn’t make the bad outweight the good. Knowing your neighbour’s precise income is trivial. It doesn¨’t put your neighbour in danger. Like I said earlier, the only scenario in which it could matter is if someone wants to hide their wealth or appear wealthier than they are. Either way, it’s a form of deception so it’s not exactly something we should worry too much about. Freedom of speech, association, religion, thought I can get worked up about. Freedom to deceive other people about one’s income I can’t.

Rich is exactly right when he points out that the real objection here is to welfare states in general. If you accept that a welfare state is a good thing on any level then you must also accept that people in society have duties and responsibilities to one another. In such a situation it makes sense that they are open and honest about their income. If you are a certain kind of extreme libertarian you reject this premise and think it’s a dog eat dog world and that people should be able to deceive one another at will.

Secondly, you shouldn’t confuse social and economic libertarianism. I spoke about economic libertarians which is founded on the belief that free markets deliver just outcomes. It is a standard premise of libertarian economic freedom that markets reach equilibrium (i.e. are efficient) to the extent the actors in them have perfect information.

#66, but what has “open and honest about their incomes” got to do with an invasion of privacy? Does that mean every fact about you that remains private and unpublished gives me reason to suggest you are being something other than “open and honest?” Where does it all end? Why does the right for my neighbours and peers to easily obtain my financial records somehow mean to you that I will be “open and honest” with them? To me it’s just another sign of the sickening envy and prying KGB/STASI attitude that still pollutes this socialist paradise.

Knowing your neighbour’s precise income is trivial. It doesn¨’t put your neighbour in danger.

And either does peeping through their windows, watching them while naked.

Like I said earlier, the only scenario in which it could matter is if someone wants to hide their wealth or appear wealthier than they are.

If your neighbor is skipping out on some taxes, it’s none of your business, nor is it your responsibility to check up on them.

If you accept that a welfare state is a good thing on any level then you must also accept that people in society have duties and responsibilities to one another.

No. Reminds me too much of the Soviet Union where children are encouraged to snitch on their parents. If the only way the welfare state can survive if neighbors are pitted against neighbors…then I don’t want a welfare state.

If you are a certain kind of extreme libertarian you reject this premise and think it’s a dog eat dog world and that people should be able to deceive one another at will.

How many people are ripping off the state to a severe degree? Like 0.1% maybe? The other other 99.9% shouldn’t have their privacy thrown in the trash because of the criminal 0.1%.

Secondly, you shouldn’t confuse social and economic libertarianism. I spoke about economic libertarians which is founded on the belief that free markets deliver just outcomes

Fair enough, but I seriously doubt you’ll ever find a self-proclaimed “economic libertarian” support these laws.

The Czech republic should start publishing the personal income data as this could help in reducing graft and bribery.

I’m seriously worried about this for crime reasons. The key here being that these records are available on the net, also abroad.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a resident in Finland is kidnapped for ransom on a trip abroad, with the kidnappers knowing exactly how much can he/she pay.

I don’t care whether my neighbour knows how much I earn or not, but I do worry about safety.

There is something else that irritates me. Although I am technically an EU-citizen, there are a good number of companies in Finland who refuse their business services to me if I haven’t lived her for at least 2 years. The problem is that this decision is made by companies based on my records that are kept on databases that are maintained by the state of Finland. Hence, that way the Finnish state helps companies to discriminate against me with personal data they should not be permitted to disseminate so easily and openly. It should clearly violate the EU anti-discrimination law that gives me just the same rights (with the exception of voting for national government, and so on) as a Finnish citizen.

Sorry but I don’t think there are that many Finns with enough wealth to attract kidnappers so at least in that way we’re all safe. ha ha ha

bafana—

Here’s a complaint form. You don’t need to be a Finnish citizen to file a complaint against Finland. It is possible that your issue pertains to European Union Directive 95/46/EC.

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/complaints/form/index_en.htm

You will find the commission very helpful.

@32 “Police sees expensive car going 120 in an 80 zone.
Police sees old junky car going 120 in same 80 zone.
Police pulls over expensive car.
Police gets salary of driver from Fonecta.
Police writes ticket for a very high price.
Old junky car slows down because he sees police pull
over expensive car but keeps driving.
Police goes back to workplace and brags about
how expensive a ticket he wrote. Everyone likes him for
bringing in money.

Is this justice or is it called something else?”

Deterrence -
Both cars were effectively slowed down.

“And either does peeping through their windows, watching them while naked.”

If you can’t see a difference you’re beyond help.

“If your neighbor is skipping out on some taxes, it’s none of your business, nor is it your responsibility to check up on them.”

That’s absurd. The state is an organ of democracy the exists for the benefit of the people and derives its legitimacy from the people. If we as a society agree to redistribute wealth because we collectively feel that market outcomes are suboptimal or unjust, then anyone cheating the system is cheating us. Thus, it’s totally my business and while it may not be my responsibility to check up on them, it’s a service to society if I do. Your entire argument is based on the premise that all taxation is unjust. That’s okay if that’s what you think but just say that.

“How many people are ripping off the state to a severe degree? Like 0.1% maybe? The other other 99.9% shouldn’t have their privacy thrown in the trash because of the criminal 0.1%.”

I don’t agree that ripping off society to a minor degree is okay and I don’t think open tax records mean people’s privacy is thrown in the trash. There are lots of things people should be allowed to keep private but there are good reasons for not making tax records one of them.

“Fair enough, but I seriously doubt you’ll ever find a self-proclaimed “economic libertarian” support these laws.”

Most people calling themselves “libertarian” don’t know what they think or why they think it. They have a vague notion that more liberty is better than less – though they probably don’t know what that really means. They also tend to think the state is evil. That’s hardly a coherent political ideology is it?

finnsense,

you might convince your fellow Communists. But I don’t think that verotietojen julkistaminen is very popular among most Finns these days. There’s a growing movement against it.

It’s just a matter of time before it’s gone. The sooner the better, I say.

Kristian, are you off your medication? Do you know what a Communist is or what Communism is: have you heard of Lenin or Marx? Any bats NOT loose in the attic? Dear me, being libertarian really seems to mean that you can safely ignore all empirical reality… That at least seems to be an observable fact on this site. Talk about a political slant.

Wow, Finnsense I’m speechless. Tell me, how is Nth Korea this time of the year? Your rants have lost all meaning for you my friend are a true communist. No matter what your fellow politbuerau member mjr says, that comment was one to remember. Stasi, KGB and now this. Did you ever work at the old FinnSov tourism office?

Kristian,

I voted Kokoomus – some Communist.

Punter,

“Wow, Finnsense I’m speechless.”

If only.

Punter:
Wake up. You do the crime, you do the time.

Are you demanding that all speeding tickets be changed into prison sentences? Do you realise that the prisons are quite full as it is? Are you willing to pay more taxes to build more?

Income-based fines are a quite practical deterrent. I’ve yet to see any of you yahoos present a coherent argument against this fact.

Kristian:
“False. How much I’m worth doesn’t define the market rate for the service I’m providing.”
That’s what you think.

Right.

“I’m really a billionaire, but I think that coding is fun, and I’d just love to do it at your investment bank. When can I start?”

Then the fuckers send an SMS and find out that I’m really not a billionaire and don’t hire me. That’s what probably happened.

But I don’t think that verotietojen julkistaminen is very popular among most Finns these days. There’s a growing movement against it.

Yeah, there’s you, Phil and Sirkuspelle already!

mjr:
Kristian, are you off your medication? Do you know what a Communist is or what Communism is: have you heard of Lenin or Marx?

Kristian has taken Finnpundit’s place. Everyone’s a Kommie here.

It is disappointing certainly, I liked that less ideologically obsessed version… Maybe commissar Phil has brainwashed him!

Vi blir alla kommunister när vi dör
Vi blir alla kommunister när vi dör
I den Himlens högsta salen sjung vi Internationalen
Vi blir alla kommunister när vi dör.

You guys won’t know a communist even if he comes and bites you in the arse.

Franklin: “Then the fuckers send an SMS and find out that I’m really not a billionaire and don’t hire me.”

That’s not what I meant but a funny interpretation nonetheless

It’s like this… On most long-term assignments, you will experience politics. There will be those who like you and those who don’t. The ones who don’t will sabotage your efforts in any way possible—maybe even to get their own team in the door.

If someone points out to the guy in-charge of contracts that you only earned—e.g. 30K last year—it might not fit so nicely with your proposal to charge 85€/hr for the next 800 hrs. At the very least, your credibility will be questioned.

That’s one reason why it’s generally not preferred to keep Finland as your tax home if you are working abroad as a contractor.

“You guys won’t know a communist even if he comes and bites you in the arse. ”

Antti, I’ve spent many years working primarily with ex-Communists. Even shortly after the Wall fell. Very difficult. There were no telephones over there.

More recently, I’ve spoken to the same acquaintances about Finland’s publishing of personal financial data. They wouldn’t stop laughing.

Even real, old-time ex-Commies don’t embrace the zealotries of mjr, finnsense, et. al. :-/

Kristian, hey, reality check: I value societies based on their social mobility and openness, on the ability for people to get ahead based on their own capabilities, not their parents’ or foreparents’. Not very communistic or totalitarian that, eh? In fact, I think that Communism was every bit as evil as Nazism. etc. etc. So, you do sound bit deranged with this mindless parroting of the C-word… Having a bad day?

Back in the good old days, when a Communist was a real Communist and not some insult tossed out by people who have run out of arguments, members of the hard-line Finnish Stalinist faction would go to the Soviet Union and would schmooze with members of Soviet society, ordinary Joes and Natashas and other heroes of the proletariat, and the ordinary Soviet citizens would listen to the Finnish Stalinists and look at their blazing eyes and inflamed red cheeks, and they would laugh and grin and punch them jovially on the shoulder and then…

suddenly…

they realised in an awful epiphanic flash of understanding…

THESE GUYS ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS SHIT! THEY AREN’T KIDDING!

And then the Russians would go all quiet and thoughtful while they digested this shocking piece of information.

That’s how I feel about some of the people on this blog. You want to laugh, you want to ask them with a grin if they are on or off their meds, but by Christ, they actually BELIEVE this crap. Mad as a fish they might be, but it’s no act.

And that’s worrying.

Give me a decent internet troll anyday – you know where you are with one of them. But the Punters and the Kristians and the Phils, they’ve BOUGHT the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel.

Welcome to the past.

“There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight.
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again.”

Yeah, they have their all-encompassing Grand Theory that pre-explains all observations – so that you really don’t need any observations, at least not those that would counter the Theory (as such facts can’t exist, their seeming existence must always be an error of perception). There is no way then, in their minds, that the Theory could be disproved. It is, fundamentally, a matter of faith, just like Marxism-Leninism, Freudianism or any other closed belief system. Yep, we have seen this before, haven’t we now.

Everyone and their koira is a communist in finland. There’s no denying it! Think about Santa Claus the worlds oldest living communist! He rips the wealth out of American Worker Consumer’s persenahka and resdistributes it to poor kids in communist Cuba. Is it just a coincidence he lives in finland? Is he state funded? We must destroy him. Finnish Linus Torvals stole an American Operating System, Unix and named it after himself and distributes it for free. Finns cant create anything. They steal your money and your product and redistribute them for free. In the past finland was the world’s appendix: useless but harmless too. Todays Finland has grown into a cancer that is spreading its communist metastases all over the world. Finland must be destroyed!

#82 “Income-based fines are a quite practical deterrent. I’ve yet to see any of you yahoos present a coherent argument against this fact.”

How do you justify it? Is it because if someone has an asset (wealth) then they should pay more of that asset or the same percentage as someone with less? In other words the use of the asset is equal thus the punishment, for the same crime, is equal?
Well fair enough. Now lets place myself for example against an unemployed, sossu sucking alcoholic park bum. We both get caught speeding and based on your theory I get a fine of lets say €5000 and he gets on (for the same crime) based on his finances of €120. Equal I take it?
Now lets say the crime is slightly more severe and involves prison time. Let us use your theory of assets, percentage and punishment to work out the right answer to this situation. I have young 2 kids and a wife that obviously take up a lot of my assets. My typical working week of 5 days involves around 65 hours of work, preparation and travel let alone occaisional weekends of prep and reporting. Now my asset of time is far less than the other defendant so according to your theory he should sit in jail based on this for far longer than I. I mean afterall, he has a lot more of this asset (time) than I have and as such should be punished accordingly. Saond fair to you now? Nah, didn’t think so.
In fact the other defendant in this case would be excused as he was probably drunk at the time of the crime and if punished, the State (you and I) would be left to pick up the fine while people like myself would sit in prison and pay an income related fine. Now tell me that this system is logical and fair.

#88, my intention was to criticize rather loose usage of the c-word. I haven’t seen the guys here promoting dictatorship of the proletariat, public ownerhip of the means of production or Lenin’s party theory.

Even the right has not always been a great protector of privacy or individual freedoms. A police state or military junta seems to fit quite perfectly in some right-winger’s agenda.

I think this whole ‘tax circus’ has more or less emerged from the old protestant notion, that if you have nothing on your conscience, you have nothing to be ashamed of, even if you are naked. Exactly the same thing, why the Dutch don’t keep their curtains closed; for good calvinists, there is nothing to be ashamed of letting people see a happy family having lunch or sharing a couple of hymns by the hapsicord together.

Punter:
Now my asset of time is far less than the other defendant so according to your theory he should sit in jail based on this for far longer than I.

Only if you are indifferent to spending a few months in jail, much like somenone earning 10M a year wouldn’t worry about a 150€ speeding ticket. I didn’t think so. Try a little bit harder.

Only if you are indifferent to spending a few months in jail

You or the bum, that is. The difference here is that small sums of money have very relative worth to different people, whereas everyone values their freedom.

mjr—

I’m not calling you a Communist for the purpose of insulting you. As I mentioned previously, I worked for a long time in formerly Communist eastern Europe. But more specifically, I worked for companies that were transitioning to the free market.

The bosses—who are some of my closest acquaintances today—were Communist party bosses prior to 1990. They are no longer Communist thinkers today. Rather, they are realists.

All of these companies had a few Stasi agents assigned to them prior to 1990. All of them were fired after 1990 once information about them was availed to the public. I’ve met some of them in passing—old alcoholics.

The concept of snooping wasn’t just limited to industry. It was encouraged in private life too. The idea of neighbors snooping on each other is of Communist origin. But one might also argue that it was used first by the Fascists. In any case, it’s used when heavy-handed state control is needed.

I don’t see anything to indicate that you are a Fascist, but your leanings are most definitely to the Communist side. As someone else already commented, you might not identify with Lenin or Marx directly; instead you have a more modern notion of it. Ideas tend to reinvent themselves I suppose.

But I’m glad that you’re in the minority. Like all iniquities, this system will disappear. I just hope to make it happen sooner rather than later.

Kristian:

“Especially if we have business interests outside of Finland—perhaps even business interests that help Finland….and you for that matter.”

Your used-car import business helps exactly nobody, except yourself.

Kristian:

“Also, I’m against income-based fines in general, unless they involve such things as corporate fraud, etc.”

Poll-tax-Kristian in his prime.

Fred Fry:

“Public tax information is a simple guidebook for which houses to go and steal from.”

Utter BS. Most people don’t keep their “money” at home. And for a burglar, it is easier to choose, based on the neighbourhood.

“And if the TRUE SOCIALISTS, like Thomas, ever get in chrage, it is those high earners that they will like up against the wall first and dispose of.”

I guess I would be lined up as well. Depending on the definition “high earners”, of course.

Finnsense:

“It is a standard premise of libertarian economic freedom that markets reach equilibrium (i.e. are efficient) to the extent the actors in them have perfect information.”

It is not only a STANDARD premise, but a NECESSARY premise. That is, for the theoretical competetive “market” (that doesn’t exist anywhere, never has, never will, but what do those economic libertarians care about such trivial things as reality) to be efficient.

Why the “libertarians” on this forum are so against full knowledge of such an important economic factor as salaries, is beyond me. Kristian even referred to the “market” whilst defending the privacy of salary information. How stupid can you get. How can you know the “market price” without public information?

Phil:

“If your neighbor is skipping out on some taxes, it’s none of your business, nor is it your responsibility to check up on them.”

In what sense do you think that the “state” by offering this information, makes it possible for neighbours check whether somebody is “skipping out on some taxes”? What taxes that you skipped, could I figure out by getting your info?

Libertarian paranoia exposed.

And, tax crimes are crimes as any other. Would you want your neighbours not to report a burglary into your house, because it’s “not their business”?

Kristian:

“The idea of neighbors snooping on each other is of Communist origin.”

This has got to be the most revealing – and most idiotic – comment you ever made.

Think again. Do you think snooping on neighbours was invented 1918 (or 1945, since Germany seems to be your only point of reference, besides – paradise on earth – Switzerland)? Are you serious?

Jeez.

That is the weakest answer to any suggestion, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, I’ve ever come across. Why can you not equate time and money as of equal importance? Everyone values their freedom indeed however most of us also value our financial freedom. Why, if we can punish based on differing amounts of one asset (ie wealth) can we not do likewise when it comes to the asset of time? It probably sounds as ridiculous to you as a concept as means tested fines sound to me, the only difference is they are more than a concept.

Thomas What you write makes no sense and you are just trying to twist peoples opinions. Dont you have anything better to do than come here and annoy others? People are trying to give good advice and you just blabber away at the mouth. Why does Phil let you post here?

Im no expert on Finns but in my experience most arent like you.

Kristian, the best reason for not calling me a Communist would really be the fact that I’m not a Communist, that should really be enough – I think being an anti-communist is just as honourable as being an anti-fascist, and I certainly am both. You might be in some ways closer to Hitler, or say Franco, than I am, maybe like a millimetre or two, who can say, it would still make me calling you a Nazi or a Fascist grotesque and preposterous. And because I wouldn’t want to be either, I don’t – it obviously doesn’t seem to stop you though. I think I really blame libertarianism: it seems to make observable facts so irrelevant to everything.

Punter:

“That is the weakest answer to any suggestion, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, I’ve ever come across.”

Talkin’ to me? If that is the case, wtf are you talking about. Time and money? What did I say about that?

Seeker of truth:

“Thomas What you write makes no sense and you are just trying to twist peoples opinions.”

What is it you don’t understand? If you tell me I can spell it out for you, so that even your brain makes sense of it.

“Dont you have anything better to do than come here and annoy others? ”

Don’t you?

“People are trying to give good advice and you just blabber away at the mouth.”

Censorship. You feel YOU are the judge concerning GOOD advice. Grow up.

“Why does Phil let you post here?”

You libertarians should really think about your “libertarian” ideals, since they seem to involve non-libertarian elements. How surprising.

Don’t be so paranoid Thomas. Follow the posts and you would see it was freeridin’ franklin I was talking to. Settle down and take a breath

Punter:

“Don’t be so paranoid Thomas.”

Maybe you should indicate what you comment, if it’s not self-evident?

As I said, follow the posts and you’ll notice if there is an exchange of ideas between people excluding yourself or whether the point is general
As I said, don’t be so paranoid Thomas (yes that one was for you)

There’s only one post on here really worth half a damn, and that is the one (#42) that points up the manifest difference in mindset between Europeans and Americans regarding the disclosure of information that they deem “sensitive”. The fear (I hesitate to use the word “paranoia” though I’m sorely tempted) of government espoused by some of our American cousins is not shared – call it our naïveté if it makes you feel better – by most Europeans. They fear, probably for equally silly reasons, that businesses will seek to exploit the information they have on us for their own profit and to move the goalposts in their favour relative to our buying decisions. They also find it very tiresome that their personal details (for example their telephone number) are passed to telemarketers who cold-call at awkward times. The tax office and the government seldom call.

As to WHY it seems endemic amongst some Americans that their government is out to do them ill, that beats the hell out of me, unless of course they are working from empirical experience that their administrations really are not to be trusted through corruption, graft, the pursuit of personal self-interest, or some other worrisome things that hardly belong in a developed Western society, and that we tend to associate rather more with emerging or Third World economies that the United States would not see as their equals. Perhaps it really is THAT bad over there. Go figure.

There is another factor that creates the divide we see over and over again in this so-called “debate”. It is abundantly obvious that for some their “net worth” is measurable only in financial terms, and much as some Muslim (and other) societies feel that having your photograph taken “steals your soul”, having your income known to all somehow performs the same function. To others of us, the size of our car, the number of square metres in our apartment, and the thickness of our wallet are – whilst important – by no means the most significant aspects of what we call our lives.

It is one of the things that many of those who have made their home in Finland actively appreciate: in this country, to a greater extent than in the increasingly materialistic UK or in the United States, you are measured by who you ARE, and not what you are worth at the Savings and Loan. Things are changing – this is becoming a harder, more money-grubbing society all the time, but we still have a ways to go yet, thank God.

Hence people are a lot more sensitive about the public’s access to their personal affairs than they are about the neighbours knowing how much in $$$ they made last year.

On another, tangentially related topic, would it have made a difference if there had been greater public access to the medical history of the disturbed young man in Virginia – and/or does this merely open the same can of worms: would it generate the same loopy arguments about the dangers of having access to someone’s prostate problems or impotence or incontinence (for this is roughly the level on which the argument about disclosure of incomes has been proceeding so far)?

Wow! This really seems to push some buttons! I found the article I was referring to. It is a part of a larger coverage on the privacy issues in the US.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15221111/
Interesting stuff. Different point of views, same basic concerns.

@ 44., Kristian:
As I said, my comment wasn’t aimed so much to this particular issue/discussion. This whole thing just reminded me of something I find quite facinating: the different point of views (on the society/good life) and fears on the different sides of the Pond, and the reasons behind them..

My personal “perstuntuma” to this particulas issue is a big no no to the fact that the tax records are made such a public past-time once a year. I believe in opennes and transparency in government and in the society in general, as well as admitting to being one of those treadded pro welfare state people, but really do not understand why it is this easy to get information about ordinary peoples’ incomes.

Tirlittan: I agree. It is tasteless and tacky and the downside of an aspect of openness in society that I otherwise relish. And yet if we examine the tabloids’ coverage of the subject it is mainly those who pass for “celebrities” (though I’m afraid increasingly few have actually crossed my radar these days, so either I’m becoming socially inept in the lööppi department or they are D- E-, and F-listers) who are targeted. And is the voyeuristic behaviour of Ilta-Sanomat and Iltalehti really SO different from the reading of the Forbes lists of the richest individuals? What is it that causes nobody to raise an eyebrow that we can know that some old geezer who owns Wal-Mart is worth umpteen gazillions but gets them all bent out of shape about knowing what some actor on a Finnish soap is worth? Has the WalMart geezer voided his rights by being as rich as Croesus? Not that I give two hoots in either case. I couldn’t be less interested in how much the old geezer makes, except insofaras were it a CEO of a large corporation who made 1,000 times what his floor-workers were earning I would find that rather obscene. But that is the egalitarian Finn in me coming out, I guess.

And the difference between the two sides of the Atlantic IS fascinating. And at its most fascinating when the U.S. government seeks on security grounds to prise out personal information about non-citizens wishing to visit the country that no American would dream of allowing it to know. Or when U.S. firms bitch and whine at the obstacles put in their way over accessing data about potential European consumers who are protected by national data privacy laws. Or when industry lobbyists line the pockets of U.S. legislators to water down domestic legislation that might protect American consumers from their prying, or…

So many intriguing questions, but such little sensible discussion of them…

And we still have not receieved any definitive answer on WHY government is so to be feared (apart from indirectly in the inevitable invocation of Godwin’s Law, but you sort of expect that on a blog). The fear seems strange, coming as it does from a country whose former leader spoke so hopefully of “government of the people, by the people, for the people…” that in 144 years there should have emerged such a colossal disrupt between the people and “their” government. Maybe it isn’t theirs any longer. Maybe the great and noble experiment of the United States has failed. It produced Winter, after all.

Well fair enough. Now lets place myself for example against an unemployed, sossu sucking alcoholic park bum. We both get caught speeding and based on your theory I get a fine of lets say €5000 and he gets on (for the same crime) based on his finances of €120. Equal I take it?
Now lets say the crime is slightly more severe and involves prison time. Let us use your theory of assets, percentage and punishment to work out the right answer to this situation. I have young 2 kids and a wife that obviously take up a lot of my assets. My typical working week of 5 days involves around 65 hours of work, preparation and travel let alone occaisional weekends of prep and reporting. Now my asset of time is far less than the other defendant so according to your theory he should sit in jail based on this for far longer than I. I mean afterall, he has a lot more of this asset (time) than I have and as such should be punished accordingly. Saond fair to you now? Nah, didn’t think so.

Both you and your bum have the same amount of liberty as members of our society and it is fair enough for you both to pay an equivalent amount of it for an equivalent crime.

sorry for the missed closing tag for the quote above.

Punter, let me put it this way:

Would you like your kids to be run over by some rich guy who considered speeding a privilege to be bought with pocket change?

Déjà vu:

“The fear (I hesitate to use the word “paranoia” though I’m sorely tempted) of government espoused by some of our American cousins is not shared – call it our naïveté if it makes you feel better – by most Europeans.”

In the UK it was (is?) possible to identify yourself at the post or bank, by means of a rental bill (this according to a former collegue of mine). When I asked how this is possible (i.e. that you don’t need an id-card or passport or such, where a photo is included) he referred to vague “fear of government”.

“Perhaps it really is THAT bad over there.”

Seen Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11? There is an example (an old man who happened to critisise Bush in the gym) of WHY people in the US perhaps SHOULD be distrustful towards the government. McCarthy is another good example. Although he chased those people that some here seem to think are worthy of the fate.

“I couldn’t be less interested in how much the old geezer makes, except insofaras were it a CEO of a large corporation who made 1,000 times what his floor-workers were earning I would find that rather obscene.”

This is an off-topic comment (mine, that is). Sadly, CEOs making more than 1000 (or at least 100) times what their floor-workers make is rather the norm (when we talk about BIG corporations) these days. And this obscenity is upheld by the media, which reports about “self-made” billioneers and such, day in, day out. Interestingly though, one spanish BIG “company” seems to have a 1 to 6 ratio (this out of my memory – can’t find the source of the information very quickly browsing the web) in salaries, between “the floor and the ceiling”. Furthermore, this company (employing thousands – >70000 – of people) is owned by the employees. It is involved in various different branches of the economy. EVER heard of it? Neither had I, before I became interested in the co-op issue. It’s strange that the media hasn’t really attacked this issue, since so many modern companies are really only providing “human capital”, yet they are owned by selected few who reap the benefits at the end of the day.

“And the difference between the two sides of the Atlantic IS fascinating. And at its most fascinating when the U.S. government seeks on security grounds to prise out personal information about non-citizens wishing to visit the country that no American would dream of allowing it to know.”

Yes, this IS interesting. I think the US citisens should be made to provide the equal amount of data when visiting Europe. What goes around, comes around. That would (if that is possible, i.e. US citisens THINKING ) make people in the US think about their measures, and the sensibility of them. But the last time I visited the US you still had to fill in a card where you were asked whether you had been a nazi/communist or whatever. In what other countries do you need to fill in information on such topics – upon entering the country? Israel had (like 10 years ago) similar measures, but there they were interested in whether you have met “arabs”. Getting into the Soviet Union was way easier than getting into Israel. On the Helsinki airport I had to answer what I would be doing during a free day of a conference, that covered my activities for the rest of the visit (naturally I had to provide the Israel GESTAPO with the program of the conference, so that my visit was allowable).

“so many modern companies are really only providing “human capital”, yet they are owned by selected few who reap the benefits at the end of the day.”

Thomas, of all the meaningless and distracting blather you normally write, you’ve finally managed something intelligent. It was probably by accident, but I won’t hold that against you.

This has been a topic that I’ve discussed and written about extensively. That is, the “human capital” you talk about is provided by Finns and the “selected few who reap the benefits” are foreign entities and individuals. Have you read about this?

http://www.finlandforthought.net/2007/04/10/porssi-is-finland-afraid-of-wealth/

Exposing Finns’ financial data to the outside world only makes this situation worse by the way—that is, worse for Finns although better for foreign investors who benefit from Finn-labor. But hey, ideology above all else, right?

And I also agree with you about the CEO salaries. They should be lower by far—that’s my shareholder perspective. And perhaps also my own ideological perspective.

#117 “Would you like your kids to be run over by some rich guy who considered speeding a privilege to be bought with pocket change?”

What a stupid question. What difference does it make how much money the driver has? Why not ask if I would rather an unemployed drunk ran them over? What do you think my answer would be? I would of course however rather that the person driving, if a crime was comitted, was punished equally with the full force of the law and not based solely on how rich or poor they were. To make it clear for you, NO, I wouldn’t rather the driver was rich so I got more in the way of compensation. I hope it never happens. However one day, if I am the victim of a terrible crime I want to see equal justice dealt out by the courts and not some means tested crap that hopes to put a price on things that can’t be bought. Understand?

Kristian:

“Thomas, of all the meaningless and distracting blather you normally write, you’ve finally managed something intelligent. It was probably by accident, but I won’t hold that against you.”

Oh, thank you Kristian. Your “meaningless and distracting blather” is usually less productive, since it IS “meaningless and distracting blather” without ANY content.

“This has been a topic that I’ve discussed and written about extensively.”

Yes, but you write about it ONLY from the capitalists’ point of view. You have NEVER brought forward the idea of employee ownership. NEVER. What I’m saying is, in a “human capital” intensive company, is there ANY need for non-employed owners. Like SOL. What do they provide, except “human capital”. But Liisa Joroinen is interviewed frequently, as the FEMALE representative of business. I think she’s the FEMALE representative of age-long opression of workers right.

Or look at ANY SW company, the knowledge of their employees is all they sell.

Your comments on the topic, are sadly very non-productive, since you ONLY care about OWNERSHIP. Regardless of who the OWNERS are.

“Exposing Finns’ financial data to the outside world only makes this situation worse by the way—that is, worse for Finns although better for foreign investors who benefit from Finn-labor. But hey, ideology above all else, right?”

The ideology involved here is one that “libertarians” such as you should embrace. But somehow you “libertarians” are oh so non-libertarian, once the fundamentals of your ideology is exposed. Like your idea about the “market” salary that is somehow mysteriously determined without anyone knowing each others salaries. Are you really this dumb Kristian.

Thomas, why should my salary or even better my entire financial situation as known by the Finnish government be available for all to see? This is the basic question here. Why? What has it got to do with anyone how much I earnt last year and how much in the way of investments I am currently sitting on? Surely I am entitled to some privacy? I have little to hide here but the problem for me is a simple question of privacy.
As for your idea that you would need to know your colleagues salaries in order to determine your own, I’m just grateful you don’t work for me. Why do you somehow think that what someone else is paid is relevant to your own rate? Not how it works I’m afraid.

Punter:
What a stupid question. What difference does it make how much money the driver has?

Because of the deterrent, the rich guy might actually adhere to the speed limit and not run over your kids. It is really not that difficult to grasp, even for you. I can draw a picture if that would help.

What do you think my answer would be?

Perhaps you, as a proud non-Kommie, would be happy to sacrifice your offspring so that an important rich person wouldn’t have to slow down to the pace of the hoi polloi. That could, God forbid, slow the economy down. Indeed, there might be a case for reparations for cleaning the remains off the Jag’s windshield.

As for your idea that you would need to know your colleagues salaries in order to determine your own, I’m just grateful you don’t work for me.

While this was not directed at me, I can assure you that the feeling is mutual.

Why do you somehow think that what someone else is paid is relevant to your own rate?

Yes, why would that be indeed? It’s not like the job market is a market. Since Finnish employers in particular like to muddy the waters regarding the issue (in IT, it is not uncommon for two people of equal qualifications working in the same department with the same job description to have a 100% difference in their paycheck), it is useful to have at least some tool for a reality check. Employers frequently tell the employees not to discuss their salaries. Wonder why?

Punter:

“I would of course however rather that the person driving, if a crime was comitted, was punished equally with the full force of the law and not based solely on how rich or poor they were.”

So in this instance, for the FULL FORCE OF THE LAW to be meted out, you would I assume have no objection to this principle:

The day-fine (Finnish: päiväsakko, Swedish: dagsbot) is a unit of fine payment that, above a minimum fine, is based on the daily personal income. A crime is punished with incarceration for a determined number of days, or with fines. As incarceration is a financial punishment, in the effect of preventing work, a day-fine represents one day incarcerated. It is argued to be just, because if both the high-, and low-income population are punished with the same jail time, they should also be punished with a proportionally similar income loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_fine

Seems perfectly straightforward to me. But perhaps we should do away with fines altogether and simply put people to work making roadsigns or mailbags (do they DO that any more?), in which case your sense of the full force of law would not be so aggrieved. Both rich and poor would get six days inside.

That way we wouldn’t have to worry about the discomfort of being parted from the contents of our wallets. We could all live with the loss of liberty, I assume.

It seems to me that everything is equal to you people in so far as the rich get screwed. While that doesn’t shock me at all in this country I for some reason fail to see why the day fine would be a deterrent if as you assume the rich can afford it and as a secondary thought why it is not capped at a level like claims or payments against The State are.

Punter: “Why do you somehow think that what someone else is paid is relevant to your own rate? Not how it works I’m afraid.”

Oh yes it is Punter. In Thomas’ simple mind, he’s being treated fairly as long as his pay is commensurate with his co-worker’s. Nevermind if they’re both underpaid.

That type of thinking is probably what’s kept salaries low in Finland for such a long time.

The reality is that checking salaries according to market data is the only reliable way. It’s really irrelevant what your co-worker earns.

Driving tickets according to salary… Great, the young, low-earning driver gets off free. Unfortunately, he’s the one who’s most likely to cause harm to others.

But the highly paid person who’s probably been driving safely for over 20-years gets a 1000€ fine for going 15km over the speed limit. Great system.

Why not treat them equally by revoking their driving licenses?

“The reality is that checking salaries according to market data is the only reliable way.”

And not only market data from Finland.

“In Thomas’ simple mind…”

Sorry, I should have said simple and jealous mind. I’ll bet his employer can play him like a fiddle.

It seems to me that everything is equal to you people in so far as the rich get screwed. While that doesn’t shock me at all in this country I for some reason fail to see why the day fine would be a deterrent if as you assume the rich can afford it

So, the rich get screwed but there is no deterrent. I guess it takes a libertarian to reconcile that.

Screwing the rich isn’t an end in itself, of course. However, the bitching and whining on this blog among other places provides evidence for the efficiency of the deterrent.

Kristian:
Exposing Finns’ financial data to the outside world only makes this situation worse by the way—that is, worse for Finns although better for foreign investors who benefit from Finn-labor. But hey, ideology above all else, right?

Are you suggesting that absurdly high CEO salaries are an exclusively Finnish phenomenon? If anything, they are still relatively modest compared to the US insanity.

And not only market data from Finland.

Absolutely. There should be more international comparisons of salary levels, especially as employers constantly whine about the high cost of labour in Finland.

Franklin: “employers constantly whine about the high cost of labour in Finland.”

Well Franklin, much of that excess cost is due to the tax wedge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_wedge

Notice on the graph, the blue Supply curve can represent labor supplied by workers. The red Demand curve can represent labor demanded by employers.

The gray area is the tax wedge. The vertical distance between the curves at any given point is the difference between the cost of labor to the employer (including all taxes; some paid by worker and some paid by employer) and what the worker receives in net pay.

If taxes are lowered, and the wedge is made smaller (hence, moved rightwards, closer to the equilibrium), then:
1). labor cost to employer decreases;
2). your net pay increases; and
3). all is done within the context of increased labor supply.

And what does the the OECD recommend?

“The medium-term goal must be to reduce the high tax wedges on labour”
http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,2340,en_2649_34569_36552804_1_1_1_1,00.html

The OECD knows that reducing that labor cost will be important for competing against other economies like those in eastern Europe. It’s unavoidable, and even Sweden knows it must adapt.

Ok fine. The employer is happy because his costs are reduced, and he is more competitive. The worker is happy because his net salary is increased, and he lives better. But there’s still a slight problem.

You see, despite the increase in labor supply, decreasing that tax wedge will mean a loss of gross tax revenue. It needs to be replaced somehow.

How?

You can make people work faster and work more to increase GDP. But that has its limits.

What Finland really needs are venture capitalists who will risk their own money to get capital from the outside world. Finland can tax them on their winnings.

They can be both small ones and big ones. In any case, the more successful they are, the better it is for Finland.

But then there’s another slight problem:

No venture capitalist in his right mind—not even a Finn himself—will make Finland his tax home if—e.g.—he faces prospects of 20K traffic fines or getting his income data published. That’s the way the ball bounces whether we like it or not: Make things fair for everyone or accept a lower amount of public funding.

He only faces the prospect of 20k traffic fines if he BREAKS THE LAW. What’s so unfair about that? Does the death penalty stop people moving to the United States? Or is the rumour true, white venture capitalists aren’t covered by it?

At what point does your slippery slope stop – excusing useful people like geriatric-care nurses from taxation? A waver on sexual assault charges for goal-scoring HJK strikers? Free penguin-suits for opera conductors? (no, I thought not) Rent-free homes for train conductors or bus drivers to improve that public transport system you are always grumbling about? We could have a whole host of mini-socieites within “society”, all with their own little perks – and who needs society anyway?

“Hello, Sir, can I help you? Oh, you’re a VENTURE CAPITALIST. Very good, Sir, would you like to rub my tits, Sir?”

Your social engineering is not likely to go down terribly well with those who do not find themselves availed of the kind treatment you would offer to the providers of this much-needed external capital. If people are already writing nasty things on the Astrid Thors site, just think how they’d behave in your scenario. OECD or no OECD.

“those who do not find themselves availed of the kind treatment you would offer”

What treatment?

I said take their licenses away. Rich or poor, who wants to be without a driving license for 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, etc?

You just wrote a 250-word strawman argument. And quite a bizarre one at that.

Punter:

“As for your idea that you would need to know your colleagues salaries in order to determine your own, I’m just grateful you don’t work for me. Why do you somehow think that what someone else is paid is relevant to your own rate? Not how it works I’m afraid.”

May not be the way it WORKS, but it is an necessity for a MARKET ECONOMY. Didn’t know you’re so totally against that concept.

And I’m equally glad that I don’t work FOR you.

Punter:

“It seems to me that everything is equal to you people in so far as the rich get screwed.”

The RICH have ways to avoid being screwed. In HeSa today a tax-law-professor gave examples on how THE RICH, thanks to the new government, can avoid inheritance taxes more or less completely.

Kristian:

“Sorry, I should have said simple and jealous mind. I’ll bet his employer can play him like a fiddle.”

You base your argumentation on a false interpretation made by somebody else (Punter) that you now have used twice.

I haven’t – afaik – said what Punter claims, and what you now pour out as the TRUTH. Punter said the following: “As for your idea that you would need to know your colleagues salaries in order to determine your own”.

I didn’t say you need to know “your colleagues salaries”, but I said, how can there be a knowledge of a MARKET SALARY, if salaries are secret?

Btw. it’s clear who benefits from secret salaries within individual companies, and it’s not the employees.

And rightly so too. Everyone should be able to “avois” inheritance tax, rich poor or otherwise.
As for a 20K fine acting as a deterrent, if I’m so rich to be fined like that, is it going to stop me? I think not…. I agree with Kristian in that taking away the right to drive for 3, 6 or 12 months is a far greater deterrent, at least in my case. The fine can always be paid however the loss of income due to not being able to drive really slows me down (most of the time)
One more point I agree with Kristian on is the fact that the so called wealthy will generally have a longer driving history, are statistically safer drivers and certainly are driving safer modern vehicles capable of higher speeds. On the other hand, the boy racer type are the high risk group in their 20 yo modified BMWs heh heh heh and drive like idiots before they have the ability to handle the car and conditions. When caught, they pay a pittence and get off basically scott free while in reality risk not only theirs but all road users and pedestrians lives each and every day.
Now is that what we want????

Kristian:

“Well Franklin, much of that excess cost is due to the tax wedge.”

The employer pays the net-salary (+ employer fees), not the taxes. So the tax-wedge is of no interest to the employer, only the net-costs. The net-cost of engineers in Finland is what made Nokia. The LOW cost, that is.

Punter:

“And rightly so too. Everyone should be able to “avois” inheritance tax, rich poor or otherwise.”

Now we have a situation where THE RICH, that you so wholeheartedly defend, do not pay the tax. Everybody else pay. And then we have to read people like you whining about the rich getting screwed.

Get a life will you.

And the inheritance tax is a good thing. imho.

I have a life and thank God my inheritance will be out of the hands of the Finnish government on that sad day it inevitably comes. Only problem is that the government here by having this ridiculous tax will not profit from me spending a cent of it here. They even tax me as a foreigner bringing money I inherit from abroad into Finland to spend.
Now tell me WTF has money earnt in my home country, by family members there have to do with this country? Why do they suppose I would have to pay a tax to this country for the hardwork and profit earnt without the help or assistance of Finland by family members abroad? I’m not sure if all the foreign people are aware of this matter but IMHO it really stinks. I have to pay the 22% ALV etc etc etc and capital gains from investments made here with money inherited and that I understand but to pay an inheritance tax on money left to me from family abroad is really pushing it too far.
Again Thomas, just so you understand, I said EVERYONE should refuse to pay the tax, rich or poor. There is no justification for it period!

I thought it was the devaluation of the FIM (twice) all those years ago combined with the large foreign markets with large personal wealth that made Nokia?
Low cost? Is that why we are constantly under the threat that without tax reform Nokia may well pull out of Finland and move somewhere else more business friendly? Probably just a right wing conspiracy.

Kristian:
I said take their licenses away. Rich or poor, who wants to be without a driving license for 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, etc?

But which venture capitalist would want to live in a country that took your licence away for a little road racing? It’s so much better just to pay the cop $50 plus tip.

Most societies take drivers licenses away. It always made me laugh here the fact that you could speed and pay your fine (or drink drive) and then apply to the local police for permission to continue to drive to and from work, during weekdays so you would not be inconvenienced too much or risk losing your job. Great way to make people responsible for their actions.
A former colleague took close to 3 months to serve a 1 month license suspension as he explained his need to drive to work and due to the fact he worked shifts, public transport was not an option. Just made a program with the local police and served it at his own leasure. Now that is punishment. The cost of the ticket had no effect and he chooses when to sit out his punishment. Go Finland. Thank God that has changed!!!!!

mjr: “the best reason for not calling me a Communist would really be the fact that I’m not a Communist”

Interestingly, my eastern German colleagues also don’t accept the Communist designation, insofar as their former selves go. They consider themselves former Socialists.

Technically speaking, they’re right. None of the so-called Communist countries were ever able to make the full transition from Socialism to Communism.

For example, if it weren’t for the self-employed auto mechanic who took barter payments on the black market, then not only would cars have stalled, but the entire economy also would have followed suit.

The auto mechanic was the richest guy in town, bar none. Even richer than the party bosses. There were many who were in such professions and benefited handsomely due to Socialism….far more than everyone else. There was really nothing the state could do against them without hurting itself.

It illustrates the fallacy of Socialism perfectly. We can all talk about how—e.g.—inheritance taxes are fair and wonderful. But in reality, anyone with half a brain will insulate themselves from those taxes. And the state can’t do anything about it….without hurting itself that is. Only the little guy who doesn’t have a choice gets screwed.

Kristian:
It illustrates the fallacy of Socialism perfectly. We can all talk about how—e.g.—inheritance taxes are fair and wonderful. But in reality, anyone with half a brain will insulate themselves from those taxes.

Interestingly, William H. Gates Sr., Bill Gates’ father, has written a book in defense of the inheritance tax. I would think he has a full brain. If he doesn’t even have a half, it is not a very strong argument for free-market worship, would you think? (He is quite wealthy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Gates%2C_Sr.

Franklin: “Interestingly, William H. Gates Sr., Bill Gates’ father[...]not a very strong argument for free-market worship, would you think?”

Even more interesting is that the Gates’ fortune—all 24-billion of it—is nicely secured in a Charitable Foundation. That means the family neither pays taxes now (aside from on the comparatively small incomes they possibly draw from it) nor will they pay inheritance taxes on the amount in the future. Therefore any such advocating by Gates Sr. only has an effect on those with comparatively less wealth—those who can’t afford to store their fortunes in Charitable Foundations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_%28charity%29

Franklin, if you’d stop hanging around with elementary Thomas so much, you might actually learn something.

Kristian -

If they have given all of their fortune to charity, how does that weaken the argument for inheritance tax? All they want is that the wealth dynasties disappear rather than increase. It can be done either with charity or tax, and only the second one is something you can force on them. The tax is a charity without will, or at least should be.

Elaborate or admit your argument sucked.

Pave: “given all of their fortune to charity”

Pave, please inform yourself before you criticize others’ arguments. For example…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_Kamprad#Net_worth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_Kamprad#Stichting_INGKA_Foundation

Even more interesting is that the Gates’ fortune—all 24-billion of it—is nicely secured in a Charitable Foundation. That means the family neither pays taxes now (aside from on the comparatively small incomes they possibly draw from it) nor will they pay inheritance taxes on the amount in the future.

Kristian of spoo, so much for all your endless blabber about how the attracting of high wealth individuals would make Finland so much better off.

Ingvar Kamprad lives up to the stereotype of people from Småland very well!

Kristian:

“Even more interesting is that the Gates’ fortune—all 24-billion of it—is nicely secured in a Charitable Foundation. ”

Whatever the fate of the Gates’ fortune is, and whatever Bill Gates father has said about inheritance tax, doesn’t change anything concerning the role of the inheritance tax. And the fact is that, the bitching about DOUBLE taxation, people like you constantly produce as an argument against inheritance tax, is LAUGHABLE.

If I work, and earn a salary, why should I pay taxes for that, whereas some person INHERITING – and possibly doing nothing useful – pays nothing? The salary I earn, may be paid by the income of other (tax-paying) salary earners, whose income nay be paid by other (tax-paying) salary earners… Quadruple-taxataion. The double-taxation concerning inheritances, is typically spread over a very long time. This argument ought to be finally tossed out into the garbage bin with all other tax- and economy-myths we have had to endure too fucking long.

Kristian of spoo, so much for all your endless blabber about how the attracting of high wealth individuals would make Finland so much better off.

Indeed, what is the point of attracting high net worth individuals when they have the means to avoid taxes anyway? Perhaps their presence is ideologically important to Kristian.

@153 No Franklin, I have no such ideological preferences. Only practical reasons.

Insulating one’s wealth using charitable foundations is an extreme case reserved for ultra-wealthy individuals. It’s not the norm. But despite the tax refuge, a country benefits from the capital albeit indirectly—for example, it benefits the financial sector, which in-turn DOES contribute to the overall tax base.

For less-than-ultra-wealthy individuals, there are much easier ways to preserve wealth. As I mention regularly, inheritance taxes, forced income disclosure and overtaxation in general only ensure that productive capital resides outside of the country. That means all profit it generates will also be taxed outside of the country, thus leaving we the little workers with all the tax burden of funding the infrastructure.

Just to re-clarify, because I know there are varying levels of reading comprehension here…

My point is not that inheritance taxes, forced income disclosure and overtaxation in general are morally right or wrong. I’m only saying that they don’t work.

Or otherwise stated, they only affect those who don’t have the flexibility to structure their finances to avoid them (I’m speaking of legal ways, of course). Hence, they only serve to keep the ‘little guy’ poor.

In the big picture though, our misguided policies provide a nice boost for—e.g.—developing Asian economies. We don’t mind helping them at our expense, do we?

Notice the little Asian money piggies
http://www.finlandforthought.net/2007/04/10/porssi-is-finland-afraid-of-wealth/

Kristian you make absolutely no sense to me! So the uber-rich are avoiding the tax by using charity foundations – that’s why we should abolish the inheritance tax altogether? Is that really how you make up opinions about how society should work or is that just a useful excuse? I think it’s the latter.

I also think that the Gates family is serious about charity. Call me naive. I know there are ways to avoid the inheritance tax but apparently they’re not that great if the richer folks still want it abolished so badly. I very much support more govt. action to get the cheaters.

“Kristian you make absolutely no sense to me!”

Stick around. You might learn a few things.

“I very much support more govt. action to get the cheaters.”

I’m only talking about legal ways here.

I’m only talking about legal ways here.

As am I.

The inheritance tax is an idea I fully support. It might not work perfectly but that doesn’t mean we need to get rid of it for good. Same with universal healthcare etc. If you ask me, the reason these things don’t work is that a large part of the people (and those who have more money generally) don’t support them and thus are trying to disable them.

That was of course me.

Right – that does it. I’m self-employed. I have a company here and a company in New Zealand. I’ve known about this privacy thing (and had issues with it) pretty much since I got here.

I’m definitely going to be officially paying myself next-to-nothing in this country, whilst officially remaining resident for tax purposes, and instead paying myself in New Zealand, which has extremely strict privacy laws, and doesn’t tax on income earned outside the country, and which has a double-taxation treaty with Finland.

A perfectly legal (though technically questionable) method of not paying taxes AND remaining practically anonymous through the fact that (most of) my income will only ever be in Finland in the form of actual hard currency, and I would technically still be eligible for many of the benefits (due to very little income being declared here, I could appear to be another struggling foreign entrepreneur).

I’d better talk to the person I like to call “the VERO lady” and make sure I’ve got all that right, though Does anyone else think that this is feasible/logical/legal/questionable etc?

Hrm. After reading some of the comments more carefully, I support further my statement above. Hanks post (#16) struck me: I get dubious investment offers *all the bloody time*, and I get people calling me up from all over the world on all three of my phone numbers – one of which is almost brand new and has only been *given out* to a limited number of people.

One day a couple of months back, I happened to be waiting around in PRH and got a call from some investment firm in Japan who informed me (upon some questioning) that they had got my details from public records. As I used to live there (and am a semi-frequent visitor), I said that it would be best to meet them near their office to discuss investments, at which point I was promptly hung-up on! I later sent them an email, but was never replied to. I got a call again more recently from (I think) the same firm, and I told them that I had already spoken to someone a couple of months earlier…

Sirkuspelle: re: comment #35:

In Germany, cars are (generally) less expensive, too!

Base prices of Porsche (as per http://www.porsche.fi)
Boxster 2,7 litraa, 180 kW / 245 hv – 5 vaihdetta 71 900€

Base prices of Porsche (as per http://www.porsche.de)
Boxster 2,7 litre, 180 kW / 245 hv – 5 vaihdetta 45 071,25€ inkl. MwSt.

Stark, I know, but hrm! It seems one doesn’t have to be *as* wealthy to own a nice car.

Mercedes-Benz C Class (as per Preisliste_C_Klasse_Limousine.pdf at mercedes-benz.de):
C200 CDI 40 757,50€ inkl. MwSt.

Mercedes-Benz C Class (as per C-sedanW204_040607.pdf at mercedes-benz.fi):
C200 CDI 46 800,00€

…but why?

I will cross-post this to somewhere like FinlandForum and/or IESAF, but, a question to anyone in the know: (Hank? Kristian? Phil?)

I am currently seeking both private and public venture capital.

How do I, as a non-EU citizen (New Zealand), essentially (legally) insulate myself from VERO, Finnish Taxes etc whilst retaining the right to live and work here? Do I, as a person and primary representative of that branch, have to stay in Finland for more than the 180-days per year or whatever it is…

have As per my previous post, my company is currently set up like this:

NZ Limited Liability -> Sivuliike Suomessa (Finnish Branch).

Should I:
1. Set up a trust in NZ
2. Set up a trust offshore (Isle of Man?)
3. Set up a trust somewhere else (in the EU or UK)
4. Set up a trust or company in the other country that we operate in (currently Japan, China, Russia)
or

Do all business in Finland through the NZ company, all funds through NZ, and use the company somehow, possibly in order to make a loss (loss attributing company) or something else?

Do all the business through the Finnish company, which then has to pay the parent company in NZ some sort of fee (like a franchise) so that it technically makes nothing (or is at least under some threshold)

Basically, I want there to be as little information about me as possible, but I would also like to be able to continue doing things here (working, buying an apartment, having the right to reside and all that)… similar to the way that “no Finnish entrepreneur makes Finland his tax home”… thats what I want, I guess…

Ideas?