Samu Mökillä wrote that in Finland, with its long distances, many families needed a car for their daily lives, and that the fuel prices raised by the Middle East crisis had increased the cost of essential transportation. He criticized the proposal to use the commuting tax deduction to alleviate the situation, arguing that it mainly benefited commuters. According to him, the support would not help, for example, farmers, the transport sector, or lawnmowers. Mökkilä asked why fuel prices could be lowered elsewhere in the world but not in Finland, and considered the commuting tax deduction insufficient if the cost of living was also rising. He estimated that individual support lost its significance as general inflation consumed purchasing power. The rise in fuel costs would also increase freight rates, food production, industry, and logistics, which would be reflected in the prices of many products. He called for a reduction in distribution obligations and taxes instead of subsidies and described the commuting support as a small band-aid for a broader increase in living costs. According to Mökillä, politicians wanted to appear to be doing something, even if the support's impact on people's wallets was overshadowed by rising prices. Mökkilä also wrote that the state budget was heavily in deficit and dependent on revenues collected from motorists. He stated that high fuel taxes were part of climate policy, but rural residents, actors in the transport sector, and small entrepreneurs often had no opportunity to change their fleets or reduce driving. He criticized politicians for disregarding the situation of ordinary Finns, saying that while there was talk of savings, millions were sent to a terrorist organization. #Suomi #polttoaine #talous (translated)
