Search

Piia Metsähonkala wrote that the welfare area saved on intensive care and cancer medications. She compared this to the fact that welfare areas spent about 35.3 million euros on interpretation and translation services, referring to information published by Yle on May 19, 2025. #sote #priorisointi https://t.co/Ld05Chzh7F #hyvinvointi #terveydenhuolto #sote (translated)

Rami Kurimo commented on the government's decision and wrote that in the future, people would have better opportunities to find out what the state, welfare areas, and municipalities purchased, from whom, and for what amount. He referred to Helsingin Sanomat as a source. https://t.co/8ALlDU3Vbc #hallitus #oikeudet #läpinäkyvyys (translated)

Juho Romakkaniemi wrote that taxation was eased for this year and the annual tax revenue estimate was adjusted upward by 1.1 billion. According to him, reducing high marginal tax rates on labor increases economic activity and consumption. Romakkaniemi assessed that raising taxes on high earners would likely not increase tax revenue, but would weaken the overall well-being of Finns. #verotus #talous #hyvinvointi (translated)

Jari Mäkäräinen criticized Yle for often choosing female journalists to incite moral panic, according to him. He interpreted Yle's analysis as showing that support for the National Coalition Party among women had dropped to 12 percent and that the Finns Party had surpassed this party. However, according to Mäkäräinen, women were not punishing the National Coalition Party for its policies but for its austerity measures, and men were supporting the state. Mäkäräinen believed that the decline in women's support was due to the impact of budget cuts on sectors predominantly employing women, such as social services, organizations, and public services. In his view, this did not make the cuts unjust, but rather highlighted their effects. He mentioned the Social Democratic Party, the Left Alliance, and the Centre Party as the most popular parties among women and claimed that the left proposed tax increases amounting to nine billion euros. According to Mäkäräinen, the costs of these increases would fall on men who work overtime, start businesses, and pay progressive taxes. Mäkäräinen assessed that the issue for the National Coalition Party was its attempt to soften difficult decisions, while the Finns Party spoke about the same issues more directly. He argued that men were underrepresented in the care sector and overrepresented in dangerous jobs, entrepreneurship, and at the high end of the tax revenue spectrum. In his opinion, the National Coalition Party should maintain its stance even if it lost some female support, as this could help it win over voters who support the sustainability of the state. https://t.co/DfwLyPN03s #Politiikka #NaistenOikeudet #Taloustieto (translated)

Seida Sohrabi reported that her initiative to ban face coverings was passed by the Helsinki City Council. According to her, Helsinki will add a requirement for visibility and recognizability of faces in the guidelines for schools, daycare centers, and educational institutions. Sohrabi justified the visibility of faces with safety, identification, interaction, and the principles of a safe space. She also referred to the city’s commitment to supporting girls' equal learning and the goals of the city strategy to enhance the well-being of children and youth and the equal right to education for every child. (translated)

The Ministry of Finance proposes a gradual increase of the retirement age to 70, which could increase the number of employed individuals, but at the same time, the ministry intends to cut home care support and reduce the number of municipalities and welfare regions. #Eläke #Työelämä #Politiikka (translated)

Maria Rautanen wrote that a law was being prepared in Finland that would require the installation of solar panels on existing public buildings larger than 250 m² starting in 2031. She linked the preparation to the EU's Energy Efficiency Directive for Buildings and asked whether the effects of the directive were adequately assessed in Finnish conditions. Rautanen argued that Finland could not be compared to sunny Mediterranean countries that used a lot of fossil fuels. She noted that Finland's electricity consumption emission factor was only 26 g CO₂/kWh in 2025 and pointed out that solar panels produced energy mostly in the summer when the electricity system was already low-emission and energy consumption was lower. She wrote that the solar panel production chain was heavily concentrated in China and that a lot of coal-generated electricity was still used in their manufacturing. According to Rautanen, 78,000 MW of new coal power was commissioned in China in 2025. Rautanen asked who would pay for the new investments while municipalities were balancing their budgets and welfare areas were looking for savings. She demanded a calculation of the costs and financing of the investments, as well as how much the solar panels made in China would reduce Finland's CO₂ emissions over their entire lifespan. She also questioned whether the panels would offset their carbon footprint during production and assessed that the rationality of the directive in Finland could not be determined without a calculation based on Finnish conditions. https://t.co/ba6sqYwZ2l #Aurinkoenergia #Energiatehokkuus #Suomi (translated)

Jari Sarasvuo believed that now was a historically opportune moment to get licensing authorities to change their practices. He justified his view with the well-being of the entire nation and called for mines, factories, and other sources of prosperity in Finland. Sarasvuo advocated for the reindustrialization of the country and the streamlining of licensing practices. #hyvinvointi #teollisuus #kaivokset (translated)

Jari Sarasvuo wrote that wealthier nations received, according to him, income transfers for their pensions and home renovations. He estimated that this did not affect his own standard of living, but he felt a bit sorry for the young, less fortunate, and the elderly. #tuloerot #sosiaaliturva #hyvinvointi (translated)

Heikki Pursiainen criticized Finnish economic discussion as limited based on two recently published columns in Helsingin Sanomat. According to him, Korkman described what should not be cut and believed that adjustments were necessary but did not propose any cuts. Pursiainen claimed that Korkman also criticized the government’s policies without offering alternatives. Pursiainen wrote that he found Teittinen’s reflections good in themselves but believed they underestimated Finns' ability to impact matters. He argued that Teittinen suggested that adjustments would probably be politically impossible and that Finland's fate depended on economic conditions and Russia. Pursiainen assessed that there could be many actions: he mentioned more encouraging social security, cutting business subsidies, tuition fees, and abandoning incentives for staying home as a parent. He added that for conservatives, a smaller public sector was a goal and not a reason for lamenting, and in his view, adjustments did not threaten the foundations of the welfare state. Pursiainen indicated that economists should also present their own solutions for discussion and negotiation. #Suomi #Taloustiede #Politiikka (translated)

Päivi Korpivaara wrote that the focus on degrees in educational institutions, according to her, resulted in degrees instead of skilled professionals. She compared this to welfare areas, whose focus on diagnoses she claimed produced diagnoses instead of treatment. #koulutus #hyvinvointi #osaaminen (translated)

Distrust leads young people to seek a Plan B. Many save or invest. Faith is also wavering in healthcare and elderly care. Private insurance is being obtained for security. "This could trigger a spiral that destroys the welfare state." This is a completely unfounded fear, where cause and effect are confused. Young people’s Plan B reduces dependence on the state, as it should in this situation. As Milton Friedman noted, tax cuts are the only effective way to force public authority into real spending discipline and efficiency. When people have more of their earned income left in their hands, it also creates room for economic growth, without which no service can function. Our welfare society will renew itself as has happened in Sweden. This development should also be seen in terms of opportunities, not threats. Young people's voluntary preparation will not destroy the welfare state but will make it viable. Forward. https://t.co/3EvGbOOTRS #Hyvinvointivaltio #Nuoret #TaloudellinenKasvu (translated)

Since I opened my verbal archive, it seems appropriate to address the comments that this matter has gathered and Taija's response, which has also been linked to my original post. Firstly, the headline of the local news story is accurate. A proposed increase of that sum has been presented (note that the salary sum is not the same as salary). The proposal is Taija's own, as she states in her response. However, Taija's response notes that it also includes retroactively paid salaries. This is true as well, since the matter is ongoing and there may be retroactive salary payments. However, this detail does not make the headline incorrect in any way, but the reader might conclude from this that she is seeking a 68% increase in her salary, which is not true. The fact remains: that fair €54k is, in Taija's opinion, her money, meaning the headline is entirely correct in using the term "proposed for herself." In my post, I made a comparison: Keusote's financial difficulties and Taija's salary increase demands. The comparison is relevant. Keusote's financial difficulties have been known for a long time, even before Taija started her position in October 2024. For some reason, this matter has stirred strong feelings on both sides. Many have jumped to (wrong) conclusions too quickly, and many have passionately defended Taija. I rarely receive private messages about any post, but I received several regarding this post. They have shed light on the background of the issue, and I will not address them here in any way because they are private messages. However, I would like to collectively ask several of you, that when you have passionately been cutting public administration and state-owned companies' costs and criticized the significantly higher salaries of the public sector compared to the private sector, why does the issue become completely different when it involves a person familiar to us all? Were the salaries of the leaders and heads of the welfare areas not excessive now that it comes to Taija? #palkka #julkishallinto #hyvinvointi (translated)

Tuo ”korottamalla suurituloisen palkansaajan verotusta” on valitettavasti vaihtoehto, jota ei reaalimaailmassa ole olemassa. Näin korkeilla marginaaliveroilla veroprosentin korotus vähentää aktiviteettia: verotuloja ei tule lisää, mutta yhteiskunnan kokonaishyvinvointi laskee. https://t.co/bYhiiHGAkZ #verotus #talous #hyvinvointi

HS kirjoittaa tänään eriarvoisuuden kasvusta Laboren laskelmiin pohjautuen. Toivottavasti kukaan ei muodosta mielipidettään vain tämän uutisen perusteella. Muutama huomio lukijalle taustaksi: -Suomi laski ylimpiä marginaaleja tämän vuoden alusta 58 % -> 52 %. Tätä suositteli jo vuonna 1994 presidentti Ahtisaaren asettama Pekkasen työryhmä. Toteutukseen meni 31 vuotta. Ylimmät marginaalimme olivat maailman korkeimpien joukossa ja ovat yhä laskun jälkeenkin. Tämä historiallinen päätös näkyy suurempituloisten ostovoiman kasvussa, mutta jutussa siitä ei sanota sanaakaan. -IMF suositti vuonna 2017 ylimmäksi marginaaliksi enintään 44 %. OECD-maiden keskiarvo on n. 35 %. Suomi on siis muutoksen jälkeenkin selvästi yli maksimin. -14 % eniten tienaavista maksoi 49 % kaikista tuloveroista. Julkisista nettotulonsiirroista ylimmät tulokymmenykset maksavat kaiken (Kuvio). Veronkevennyksillä heille ei anneta rahaa, vaan he saavat pitää hieman suuremman osan itse tienaamistaan ansioista. Oikeudenmukaisempaa. -Verohallinnon tilastojen perusteella alin 40 % tulonsaajista (alle 2000 €/kk) maksaa vain 6 % ja alin 57 % (alle 2800 €/kk) vain 16 % tuloverokertymästä. -HS:n juttu päättyy virkkeeseen ”Vastaavaa ei ole Suomessa ennen nähty” viitaten suurituloisten ostovoiman kasvuun ja pienituloisten laskuun. Kauhistelun sijaan kannattaa ymmärtää päätösten historiallisuus: kerrankin mennään suuntaan, jota on suositeltu vuosikymmeniä. Työnteosta tehdään kannattavampaa suhteessa sosiaaliturvaan. Tervehenkinen suunta hyvinvointiyhteiskunnassa, jonka velkaantuminen on kestämätöntä. -Suomi tasaa verotuksella tuloja OECD-maista eniten. -Ylimpien marginaaliverojen kevennyksen itserahoitusaste on tuoreen tutkimustiedon valossa hyvin todennäköisesti yli 100 %. Veroja laskemalla saadaan siis enemmän verotuloja. -Verotuksen keventäminen lisää työtä ja kannustaa kouluttautumaan ja etenemään uralla, mikä vahvistaa julkista taloutta verotulojen kautta. Kevennyksen perumista haluavalta kannattaa kysyä, mistä tulevat korvaavat säästöt? -Ylimpien marginaalien on myös hyvää tki-politiikkaa: tki-rahoituksesta tarvitaan enemmän irti ja työnteon kannustimet paranevat. -Suomen bkt asukasta kohden on polkenut lähes 20 vuoden takaisella tasolla. Talous kääntyi kasvuun 2024, kasvu jatkui 2025 ja tänä vuonna tahti on kiihtynyt. Kaikkien tilanne siis paranee, vaikka niin ei ole vielä käynyt. Työllisyyskin on nousussa. -Suomen gini-kerroin on pienempi kuin Tanskassa ja Ruotsissa eikä ole juuri muuttunut koko 2000-luvulla. Orpon hallituksen toimet muuttavat sitä 0,8, ja se on nyt lähellä EU-keskiarvoa. HS otsikoi: ”Suomalaisten välille on revennyt kuilu.” Missä todellisuudessa elämme? Syntyykö oikea kokonaiskuva, jos ihmiset ovat vain tämän uutisoinnin varassa? Miten voidaan keskustella järkevästi esim. yhteisö-, osinko- tai perintö- ja lahjaverotuksesta, jos jo ansiotuloverotuksen ja sosiaaliturvamuutosten tarkastelu jää näin kapeaksi? Missä on pitkä aikaväli ja talouden dynamiikka? Kuka kysyisi ruotsalaisittain ”miten tämä vaikuttaa kasvuun ja yrittäjyyteen?” Tämä on suomalainen erityispiirre. Ruotsissa kasvun ja kannustimien merkitys ymmärretään aivan eri tavalla: kaikkia kannustetaan tekemään enemmän, ei painamaan toisten menestystä alas. Kun kaikki tekevät enemmän, yhteiskunta voi paremmin ja on rahoituksellisesti kestävämpi. Jokaisen olisi hyvä kysyä, miten voimme Suomena vaurastua, jos kukaan ei saa vaurastua ensin? Ruotsi pääsi rikas-köyhä-vastakkainasettelusta irti noin 50 vuotta sitten. Ajattelutavan muutos teki siitä Euroopan pääomamarkkinoiden ja kapitalistisen muodonmuutoksen mallioppilaan. Milloin me pääsemme samaan Suomessa? Onneksi olemme jo hyvää vauhtia matkalla sinne, kun suomalaiset tienaavat, sijoittavat ja vaurastuvat aiempaa enemmän! #Suomi #verotus #yhteiskunta

Meillä ei ole varaa tälläiseen. Takuueläkettä saa nykymallilla vain kolmen vuoden asumisen perusteella. Asiaan pitää saada jotain tolkkua. Meidän liian kilttiä luonnetta käytetään armotta hyväksi. Pitää opetella olemaan tiukempi. 👇 https://t.co/9UutridEQc #eläkkeet #hyvinvointi #oikeudenmukaisuus