
Finnish-born journalist: Americans make crucial mistake in how they look at life - smn1234
http://www.businessinsider.com/anu-partanen-americans-make-a-crucial-mistake-in-how-they-view-aging-2017-11
======
762236
"Foreigners tend to view Nordic countries as "these socialist nanny states
where everybody has a collectivist mindset," Partanen said. But "in fact a lot
of these services really support everybody's independence.""

I pay a ton of taxes in the U.S. I don't get how Finland warrants an
accusation of a collectivist mindset, while America takes and redistributes
just as much money. Is it because spending on defense, instead of social
services, doesn't qualify as a collectivist mindset?

~~~
microcolonel
In Norway, you pay an annual tax on basically everything you own (update: yes,
everything you _own_ , not everything you _earn that year_ ) past the first
~$180k. I don't really care what sort of "independence" this supports for
somebody, I'm not going to live somewhere that makes you rent everything from
the state, after paying exorbitant taxes to "buy" it.

update: corrected the cutoff figure with new exchange rates and policy
updates, seems that two parties in NO are looking to eliminate the wealth tax.

added: keep in mind purchasing power differences in Norway, where basically
everything is more expensive relative to the U.S. exchange value of the
kroner. 1,480,000 NOK (source of the $180k figure) will buy you about 40 sqft
of suburban apartment in Norway, on average.

~~~
Xylakant
Taxes are not rent. Taxes are the share of expenses you pay for the services
and security the state provides. In European countries, especially in the
Scandinavian ones it’s commonly understood and agreed upon that the stronger
ones carry more of that burden. That may sound like communism to people from a
country with a stronger “each for his own good” mindset, but pretty much all
statistics point in the direction that it makes for fewer extremely rich
people but to an overall happier society. Not having to worry about health
care is one of contributing factors. And when looking at the fact that a
medical incident in the family nearly bankrupted the last Vice President of
the US, you really have to be one of the few insanely rich to be certain that
such an incident won’t hit you.

~~~
microcolonel
A wealth tax is exactly equivalent to a rent. There is a genuine owner (the
state) which has control of the property in a default, there is an unlimited
recurring fee set by the owner (the state), and access to the property is
predicated on paying that fee.

~~~
Frondo
Of course not. You still own whatever you own, and can still sell it, destroy
it, modify it, whatever.

You do pay tax on owning it, in a system that taxes wealth, but that does not
mean someone else owns it.

Calling it rent and calling the state the true owner doesn't really make sense
--you're conflating two separate ideas, I think, to play on people's emotions
("oh noes, the state owns everything!"). It's not true or accurate, though.

~~~
microcolonel
> _You still own whatever you own_

Not if you don't pay the rent.

> _and can still sell it, destroy it, modify it, whatever_

And when you sell it, you're basically selling a rental agreement.

> _Calling it rent and calling the state the true owner doesn 't really make
> sense--you're conflating two separate ideas, I think, to play on people's
> emotions ("oh noes, the state owns everything!"). It's not true or accurate,
> though._

Call it whatever you want, I want to actually own my property, instead of
having to pay for it on an ongoing basis on threat of deprivation. At the end
of the day, the state _is_ the owner, because they are the only ones who don't
have to pay to keep it. We can chase our tails all day and nitpick about
definitions, but in the purest sense, the government owns almost everything in
Norway, if people stop paying the rent/tax/fee.

~~~
Xylakant
If your definition of ownership is that the state can take things from you
because it has the monopoly on power there’s a very sad message I have for
you: It’s basically everywhere like that. Try not paying the taxes due on land
and housing property in the US and see what happens.

~~~
microcolonel
That may be the case for most or all land in the U.S., but it at least doesn't
apply to musical instruments, couches, computers, and cars (except in some
jurisdictions).

If the best I can do is pay the wealth tax _only_ on real property, then
that's what I would prefer.

~~~
Xylakant
The IRS will happily impound your valueable instruments if you fail to pay
taxes. Looks like the government still owns everything you call your own.

~~~
microcolonel
Sure, but owning a cello doesn't increase my real property taxes.

------
yawaramin
Two examples of the holistic view:

\- Finland is adopting a more holistic education system than compartmentalised
subjects [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-39889523](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39889523)

\- (Not Finland but really cool) retirement home with a co-located pre-school
benefits both the elderly and the young kids
[https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/the-
pr...](https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/the-preschool-
inside-a-nursing-home/424827/) :

> Another resident with advanced Alzheimer’s whose speech was incomprehensible
> garble was able to speak in complete, fluid, and appropriate sentences the
> moment she was wheeled into the baby room. “You could immediately see that
> she had accessed some part of her brain that had raised several kids,”
> Hoover says.

------
VeejayRampay
That guy was born in Finland and it shows. He should know only people from the
USA can criticize the anything American, due to the notion that America is
"special", which is being spoon-fed since childhood to all citizens through
movies, TV, politics, radio, etc.

------
SnowProblem
> "The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or
> kinship," Partanen wrote for The Atlantic in 2016. "This is what Americans
> fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch
> services for me."

This is an odd statement to me. Any wealth redistribution system has both
"givers" and "receivers". What do the "givers" in Nordic countries actually
think? Do the the "givers" share this perspective that the system isn't
altruistic? Or do they not consider this money theirs? Are they conditioned by
a young age to see themselves as "receivers"? Or do they not think about which
they are, and prefer the ambiguity? Or are they silenced? I'm very curious to
hear a "giver's" perspective, because this sounds a bit brain-washy to me.

~~~
jernfrost
The point was that a lot of the redistribution is in principle just moving
money from the the working age self to the young and older self.

I pay taxes which funds students today but I get that back later when other
fund my kids to go to university.

The point is that the bulk of the money is paid by the middle class for
services used by the middle class. You pay more in some stages of your life
than you receive but you get more back in other stages.

That was the finnish point of looking at this hollistically.

~~~
SnowProblem
That makes a lot of sense now, thanks. I think the point about people being
givers and receivers at different periods in life is a good one. Americans who
are fortunate do this at the family level, but obviously many cannot.

------
RickJWag
Hmmmm. But yet she moved to America.

I wonder why?

------
ungzd
Also americans love anti-adblockers.

------
holydude
Yeah yeah yeah I have heard it all. When nordic corporations stop spreading
corruption outside of their countries they can talk shit about other
countries. Besides not everyone would want social democracy. Believe me not
everyone in Europe is happy about that either. Just because it can work in
Finland it does not mean it can work anywhere else.

~~~
jernfrost
Except it is always people who have never even tried it who claims it wont
work elsewhere. Why not try proven ideas than some wacky idea you feel good
about but which has never proven itself anywhere?

The nordic model is not based on companies being angeles who do good by their
own accord. You need government, press, unions etc holding them accountable.

You can’t have frer for all capitalism and wait for private enterprise to
start being nice and take social responsibility.

