3 ms·

Remove the 6% from Finland’s income, Fix the spending at current levels, and see a budget hole form. The US is famous for supposedly favoring the rich. Half of

Remove the 6% from Finland’s income, Fix the spending at current levels, and see a budget hole form. The US is famous for supposedly favoring the rich. Half of the population pays no federal income. They may pay state taxes if the states collect tax and if the states don’t return based on income. It is possible for people to pay almost nothing, aside from SS and Medicare taxes in the US, while costing hundreds of thousands of dollars over their life. We call them welfare queens. 5 generations of people contributing nothing to the tax rolls, yet wasting fund to maintain them and allow them to procreate. The bottom 40% of all tax payers cost the US $621. If they paid their cost, the US would take in an extra 48 billion each year. Those people would be contributing to the republic. While 48 billion is not, relative to the national tax a lot, it’s fair. It’s money that could go to paying debt.

distances 8y ago
I don't subscribe to your view. We each receive different lots in life, some with more options and better support networks than others. Being poor is not an enviable position, and it's only fair that everyone contributes according to their abilities. To me, having a considerable part of citizenry receiving rather than contributing doesn't sound like a taxation issue, but rather income inequality issue. Having more equal income distribution would automatically mean more equal tax base. It's hard to achieve through legislation though, so the second best option seems to be a heavily progressive taxation. I think it could even be worth it to emphasize that even more -- perhaps to tax capital income like regular wages, and negative tax rates for the lowest income brackets to encourage working? Finally, lots of Finnish citizens are obviously currently net receivers from the state. Unemployment, health problems, or troubled upbringing combined with strong safety nets do mean that there may be considerable costs to be borne by others. I know I'm one of the luckier ones, and very happy to pay taxes knowing they contribute to a fairer society where everyone has a realistic chance to go as far as their capabilities allow.

distances 8y ago

I don't subscribe to your view. We each receive different lots in life, some with more options and better support networks than others. Being poor is not an enviable position, and it's only fair that everyone contributes according to their abilities. To me, having a considerable part of citizenry receiving rather than contributing doesn't sound like a taxation issue, but rather income inequality issue. Having more equal income distribution would automatically mean more equal tax base. It's hard to achieve through legislation though, so the second best option seems to be a heavily progressive taxation. I think it could even be worth it to emphasize that even more -- perhaps to tax capital income like regular wages, and negative tax rates for the lowest income brackets to encourage working? Finally, lots of Finnish citizens are obviously currently net receivers from the state. Unemployment, health problems, or troubled upbringing combined with strong safety nets do mean that there may be considerable costs to be borne by others. I know I'm one of the luckier ones, and very happy to pay taxes knowing they contribute to a fairer society where everyone has a realistic chance to go as far as their capabilities allow.