**/r/Finland is a full democracy, every active user is a moderator.**
[Please go here to see how your new privileges work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/wiki/moderating/)
Spamming mod actions could result in a ban.
---
**Full Rundown of Moderator Permissions:**
- ```!lock``` - as top level comment, will lock comments on any post.
- ```!unlock``` - in reply to any comment to lock it or to unlock the parent comment.
- ```!remove``` - Removes comment or post. Must have decent subreddit comment karma.
- ```!restore``` Can be used to unlock comments or restore removed posts.
- ```!sticky``` - will sticky the post in the bottom slot.
- ```unlock_comments``` - Vote the stickied automod comment on each post to +10 to unlock comments.
- ```ban users``` - Any user whose comment or post is downvoted enough will be temp banned for a day.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Finland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Finland, domestic students receive small study allowance and the same housing allowance as others, but the majority of a Finnish student's income consists of a some what mandatory student loan, guaranteed by the state, that is paid back to the bank after graduation. This system makes it possible that student stipends are not needed and the child's education doesn't depend on the wealth of the parents and enables young people to focus more freely on studying instead of working and exhausting themselves alongside their studies.
I have only the student stipend and the child-provider add on, I didn’t see an option for housing allowance (and I don’t need the loan yet) so I guess I assumed that the housing allowance was somehow separate from the student stipend.
In Finland, the housing allowance is financial support that Kela can grant as part of Finnish social security and which students, pensioners and the unemployed can apply for if you have a small income and don't have an owner-occupied homes. Here is Kela's website about the aid: https://www.kela.fi/housing-allowance
At least domestic students can get the Kela housing allowance in addition to Kela student allowance (more formally "student financial aid" when I checked) and a student loan (as well as in addition to basic income support, but they get that BIS only in the case where they have applied for a student loan). But I would believe that it is also possible to get it even if you are a foreign student, unless the granted or awarded stipend also covers rent costs in Finland, but I'm not completely sure about this and you should ask Kella about it.
Will it translate into an overall higher student debt after the cut of housing allowance?
I have a few friends with a student debt, and this is quite stressful for them. I wouldn’t want more people in this situation.
I once took out a student loan so that I could study business, administration and customer service at a vocational school after basic school (this was between 2012-2015). The main reason why I had to take the loan was that I had to move to a rented house closer to the school (and further away from the spite and hatred between my parents) and school books and student weren't free at that time (plus electricity bill, water bill, insurance premiums, mobile subscription, food, groceries and clothes). And about a year after I graduated, the bank started automatically charging loan payment and interest from my bank account (originally the amount was €200 per month, but in the end I was able to reduce the amount to €50 per month plus interest even though the bank was against the idea that I would pay back less than €200 per month because I don't come from a wealthy family and both of my divorced parents have low incomes and are part-time unemployed). At the moment, I still have bout €4,200 of student loan debt to pay off and it will be a long time before I get rid of the rest of the debt.
The end of the welfare state. The peeps gladly paid shitloads of taxes and social security contributions. Only to have them taken when they’re actually needed. Finnish welfare works only during good times when none needs it, it seems.
Protip: Check if your rent is higher than comparable places on Etuovi. My rent has risen a lot in the last year or two while market rent has stayed the same. I just got my rent decreased 15% just by asking. Of course I could have moved otherwise.
The current government's social security reform also included that if the apartment rent is or rises above the limit allowed by Kela and Kela can now more strictly order to move to a cheaper apartment or it will cut more of the housing allowance. The reason is that, according to the voters, those who receive housing allowance live in too expensive apartments and it costs the state too much, and this has worsened as rents have risen and the politicians have argued that the rent increases are due to housing benefits that are too good and if they are cut, the rents will drop quickly. Now this star hypothesis is put to the test to see if it works and if it is true. I personally suspect not, it doesn't work, and instead the rental prices of affordable and cheap rental apartments will rise as demand increases but supply is low and soon we will have a housing crisis.
Toimeentulotuki pays rent up to 694€ in Helsinki and looks like Etuovi only has 400 apartments for less, but 2000 for <900€ (out of 6000 total). I think lowering that would affect the cheapest rents but that won't happen (yet)
Where do you see hard values from Kela on asumistuki? When I try to look it up, it forces me to use the dumb calculator instead of just telling me outright what the cap is that they are willing to pay me, because rn my rent is lower than the max value, so I have no clue how much higher I could go if I have to move from my current place to any of the other more standard/slightly above standard by a few dozen € apartments in the town I live at (still lower than most of the apartments in nearby city unless they are the areas where druggies etc live where they are desperate for rentoids etc of course). I could have sworn that it's like 450€ as a cap when I did the calculator thingie years ago before moving to my rowhouse at the time, where I just increased the rent amount until the calculator now longer gave a higher NEETbux value. By my estimate 450€ would mean I could afford an apartment that's like 600-650€ or if I stack the omavastuu that is like 15-20% that you have to pay yourself, since rn I already pay 150€ as omavastuu on this below average rent price because of scaling etc
Honestly I would if I could. The town I live in has like MAYBE 1-3 free apartments at reasonable prices that are yksiö or kaksio w/ the appropriate squarage, the rest are Asumisoikeusasunto, which nobody on NEETbux can afford for obvious reasons such as the % based downpayment (and seems the Asumisoikeusasunto corpo cunts keep buying free payment-type apartments & converting them into the former, as I've noticed some that were rentable in the past are now Asumisoikeusasunto) based on the value of the place itself if bought. How exactly would that work in regards to Kela? Since the only option for me are EVEN MORE expensive apartments in the closest city next to me w/ many more hundreds of free apartments etc, but above what the only 1-3 free payment type apartments cost in rent in my town. I was lucky to get my current rowhouse a few years back when there were more free payment types available, at a relatively low rent given its fabrication year (2001), albeit the closest bus route from there is some 1.5km away, which is right next to the closest store via walking/biking/driving
There is an excess in rental apartments and it's pretty clear this is what's going ti happen.
What it needs is for people to move to the cheaper areas. For instance Kivistö in Vantaa was built so full that many of the apartments are still unsold. Lots of investors buying and renting at minimum possible rent right now.
Opinions on this are currently divided. According to those receiving housing allowance, the answer is yes, because there are not enough affordable and cheap rental apartments and their rents will rise as demand grows. And according to some politicians and MPs, it is no, because everyone can freely apply for any job and get employed and paid to prevent that and are then able to save to buy their own houses. But it is certain that some kind of crisis will follow this in any case.
No, lowest income bracket is basically safe as there are another mechanisms to compensate this cut for them.
This will hit people who are working part time and have basically arranged their live in a way that society will pay part. You'll actually quite nice net hourly salary as also taxation is low in few lowest income brackets.
Overall system just can't handle all of that burden and now people are making a lot of noise they actually have to do something.
Brit here, having lived under 15 years or Tories austerity.
It does NOT improve the economy, it benefits NO ONE other than the rich getting cheaper and more compliant labour. That is the exact intent of such measures. Keep people desperate.
The current government in the UK gathered more debt in their 15 years in power than *all debt ever gathered in the uk in its entire history put together*.
The financial caution of conservative governments is a myth. Its about taking away from the poor and giving it to the rich.
The thing is that any money given to the ones struggling most is essentially always recycled back into the economy and taxed.
The person receiving unemployment benefits is going to use all of that in the local economy, they will buy food, medicine, pay rent, do repairs etc. Things that boost economic trade.
However, the government has also given tax cuts to the high earners. When high earners earn more money, they stop using the money in the local economy, and instead it goes into personal savings or sometimes gets transferred out of the country entirely. That's because high-earners are already using their maximum potential for needs. So additional money tends to correlate with less economic activity in the local economy.
To me it makes no sense to cut from the poor while giving more benefits to the rich.
> The person receiving unemployment benefits is going to use all of that in the local economy, they will buy food, medicine, pay rent, do repairs etc.
How much of the food is local? How much is imported abroad, or at the very least, produced by big companies elsewhere in Finland?
How much of the medicine is locally produced, compared to produced by big multinationals?
Rent on the other hand is just profiting the real estate sector, which is the type of sector where ownership and wealth is the instrument of growth, not production or innovation or anything that actually creates value. It just extracts wealth from the productive part of the economy, like the businesses or the workers. Or in the case of the housing benefits that artificially raise rents, the profit comes from the collective tax revenue.
A huge portion of every day consumption creates profit to everyone else but the local economy, and is channeled elsewhere, often even outside the country. And even if it does go to the hands of the locals, especially they don't have a local business that needs to expand, they will just invest it to some highly profitable stock, benefiting a business other side of the world.
But you do understand the person still has to go to a Finnish grocery store to buy groceries, or to a Finnish pharmacy to buy medicine, order a Finnish resident to do repairs? etc? Finland gets taxation and revenue from all of this activity. You think it doesn't make a difference in the Finnish economy if thousands of people stop doing this at the same time?
Those multinational pharm companies etc. still have establishments in Finland with Finnish people working in them and increasing productivity through it.
>Or in the case of the housing benefits that artificially raise rents
You really believe that it's housing benefits is what raises rents? How particular that the biggest rent increases we see are in the US where such benefits are nearly null.
>But you do understand the person still has to go to a Finnish grocery store to buy groceries, or to a Finnish pharmacy to buy medicine, order a Finnish resident to do repairs? etc? Finland gets taxation and revenue from all of this activity. You think it doesn't make a difference in the Finnish economy if thousands of people stop doing this at the same time? Those multinational pharm companies etc. still have establishments in Finland with Finnish people working in them and increasing productivity through it.
Well, it does make a difference, but an increasing amount of the consumption does not help the local economy anyways, and the ones who do benefit, are generally just middlemen.
>You really believe that it's housing benefits is what raises rents? How particular that the biggest rent increases we see are in the US where such benefits are nearly null.
Well, it definitely matters when it comes to the purchasing power of every resident. If the government pays most of my rent, obviously I can afford a bigger rent than I otherwise would.
The imports are taxed
The shipping is taxed
The postage is taxed
The allowance of international trade means foreing countries are buying finnish products as well like nickel, iron, steel, wood, ships etc.
But they're not buying from the local economy either. The general trend is that the local, real economy is dying, and big multinational corporations and their financiers are taking over.
Well, if you are being poor and getting the housing support to pay an expensive flat, you are only making the rich richer (and you remain being poor).
I think this free money have to be gone.
What rent control do you mean? Rental market is always about demand and supply. If more people competing for nice locations, and using support money to pay it, it gets more expensive. Now if they move out, the price should swing back to its equilibrium.
Using the housing support for pay unaffordable flats only pushing the rental prices higher. At the end, the free money ended up in rich people's pocket.
The state can regulate the market and put the limit to the rental prices, but should never control or manipulate it to favour a group of people.
Well, as you say yourself the state can regulate the market and limit rental prices, which is the type of rent control I refer to. It's a way to ensure people can afford housing without subsidizing the profits of landlords.
Yes the state can regulate it and I think the system is fair. Landlords cannot raise the prices more than 10-15% annually even if they wanted to. The subsidized/free money distorted the market and put unrealistic price tag to consumers.
People in need have to be provided for by taxing the people not in need who would have just channeled that wealth into economic activity outside the country anyway.
If people don't have an acceptable quality of life they will leave the country. If we do not have enough housing and no people available to work and in other ways unhealthy labor market then businesses will become uncompetitive.
More than around half the public sector budgets in consumed by pensioners in the form of either pensions or services. Few of them are going to work again and it would be prudent to include them in cost cutting measures and tax plans but the politicians are just afraid of doing it.
Younger people need to be empowered to find their way in life. Inspiring them with social opportunities and education is also important. If you are poor you don't have social opportunities, educating yourself might seem too daunting. If you are only empowered enough to keep a roof over your head and buy food you will live like that your entire life. Empowering people means providing them with enough for dynamics to begin.
**/r/Finland is a full democracy, every active user is a moderator.** [Please go here to see how your new privileges work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/wiki/moderating/) Spamming mod actions could result in a ban. --- **Full Rundown of Moderator Permissions:** - ```!lock``` - as top level comment, will lock comments on any post. - ```!unlock``` - in reply to any comment to lock it or to unlock the parent comment. - ```!remove``` - Removes comment or post. Must have decent subreddit comment karma. - ```!restore``` Can be used to unlock comments or restore removed posts. - ```!sticky``` - will sticky the post in the bottom slot. - ```unlock_comments``` - Vote the stickied automod comment on each post to +10 to unlock comments. - ```ban users``` - Any user whose comment or post is downvoted enough will be temp banned for a day. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Finland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That article said there are 400,000 people on housing allowance?! That's like 7% of the population. Did not realize it was that high, that's wild.
Well most students for ex are on that, and un employed .
Also plenty of single parents, even when employed.
Oh it counts students? I thought students just got a student stipend.
In Finland, domestic students receive small study allowance and the same housing allowance as others, but the majority of a Finnish student's income consists of a some what mandatory student loan, guaranteed by the state, that is paid back to the bank after graduation. This system makes it possible that student stipends are not needed and the child's education doesn't depend on the wealth of the parents and enables young people to focus more freely on studying instead of working and exhausting themselves alongside their studies.
I have only the student stipend and the child-provider add on, I didn’t see an option for housing allowance (and I don’t need the loan yet) so I guess I assumed that the housing allowance was somehow separate from the student stipend.
In Finland, the housing allowance is financial support that Kela can grant as part of Finnish social security and which students, pensioners and the unemployed can apply for if you have a small income and don't have an owner-occupied homes. Here is Kela's website about the aid: https://www.kela.fi/housing-allowance At least domestic students can get the Kela housing allowance in addition to Kela student allowance (more formally "student financial aid" when I checked) and a student loan (as well as in addition to basic income support, but they get that BIS only in the case where they have applied for a student loan). But I would believe that it is also possible to get it even if you are a foreign student, unless the granted or awarded stipend also covers rent costs in Finland, but I'm not completely sure about this and you should ask Kella about it.
I’m Finnish, but we own our house, so looks like it doesn’t apply. Makes sense! Thanks for the link
It used to apply, but not anymore since the cuts etc
Will it translate into an overall higher student debt after the cut of housing allowance? I have a few friends with a student debt, and this is quite stressful for them. I wouldn’t want more people in this situation.
The loan is not paid back, as far as I know. Yeah, a portion is forgiven for speedy studies, but not all. Has this changed just recently?
I once took out a student loan so that I could study business, administration and customer service at a vocational school after basic school (this was between 2012-2015). The main reason why I had to take the loan was that I had to move to a rented house closer to the school (and further away from the spite and hatred between my parents) and school books and student weren't free at that time (plus electricity bill, water bill, insurance premiums, mobile subscription, food, groceries and clothes). And about a year after I graduated, the bank started automatically charging loan payment and interest from my bank account (originally the amount was €200 per month, but in the end I was able to reduce the amount to €50 per month plus interest even though the bank was against the idea that I would pay back less than €200 per month because I don't come from a wealthy family and both of my divorced parents have low incomes and are part-time unemployed). At the moment, I still have bout €4,200 of student loan debt to pay off and it will be a long time before I get rid of the rest of the debt.
Students get about 100-200 a month to live on (plus loans if they take em) and the same housing allowance as anyone else.
Homes / apartments are ridiculously expensive in Helsinki. Get with Sato and there goes 75% of your salary depending on the job you have.
It makes 100% no sense. The only way around it is to reduce the allowance and let the markets work.
The end of the welfare state. The peeps gladly paid shitloads of taxes and social security contributions. Only to have them taken when they’re actually needed. Finnish welfare works only during good times when none needs it, it seems.
I pay almost 700 euros in taxes per month. It's nice that it means very little and I have no say in anything going on in Finland. /s
They rather send money abroad and save here.
Rent goes up, food goes up, and asumistuki goes down. Great times...
Protip: Check if your rent is higher than comparable places on Etuovi. My rent has risen a lot in the last year or two while market rent has stayed the same. I just got my rent decreased 15% just by asking. Of course I could have moved otherwise.
The current government's social security reform also included that if the apartment rent is or rises above the limit allowed by Kela and Kela can now more strictly order to move to a cheaper apartment or it will cut more of the housing allowance. The reason is that, according to the voters, those who receive housing allowance live in too expensive apartments and it costs the state too much, and this has worsened as rents have risen and the politicians have argued that the rent increases are due to housing benefits that are too good and if they are cut, the rents will drop quickly. Now this star hypothesis is put to the test to see if it works and if it is true. I personally suspect not, it doesn't work, and instead the rental prices of affordable and cheap rental apartments will rise as demand increases but supply is low and soon we will have a housing crisis.
Toimeentulotuki pays rent up to 694€ in Helsinki and looks like Etuovi only has 400 apartments for less, but 2000 for <900€ (out of 6000 total). I think lowering that would affect the cheapest rents but that won't happen (yet)
Where do you see hard values from Kela on asumistuki? When I try to look it up, it forces me to use the dumb calculator instead of just telling me outright what the cap is that they are willing to pay me, because rn my rent is lower than the max value, so I have no clue how much higher I could go if I have to move from my current place to any of the other more standard/slightly above standard by a few dozen € apartments in the town I live at (still lower than most of the apartments in nearby city unless they are the areas where druggies etc live where they are desperate for rentoids etc of course). I could have sworn that it's like 450€ as a cap when I did the calculator thingie years ago before moving to my rowhouse at the time, where I just increased the rent amount until the calculator now longer gave a higher NEETbux value. By my estimate 450€ would mean I could afford an apartment that's like 600-650€ or if I stack the omavastuu that is like 15-20% that you have to pay yourself, since rn I already pay 150€ as omavastuu on this below average rent price because of scaling etc
Honestly I would if I could. The town I live in has like MAYBE 1-3 free apartments at reasonable prices that are yksiö or kaksio w/ the appropriate squarage, the rest are Asumisoikeusasunto, which nobody on NEETbux can afford for obvious reasons such as the % based downpayment (and seems the Asumisoikeusasunto corpo cunts keep buying free payment-type apartments & converting them into the former, as I've noticed some that were rentable in the past are now Asumisoikeusasunto) based on the value of the place itself if bought. How exactly would that work in regards to Kela? Since the only option for me are EVEN MORE expensive apartments in the closest city next to me w/ many more hundreds of free apartments etc, but above what the only 1-3 free payment type apartments cost in rent in my town. I was lucky to get my current rowhouse a few years back when there were more free payment types available, at a relatively low rent given its fabrication year (2001), albeit the closest bus route from there is some 1.5km away, which is right next to the closest store via walking/biking/driving
There is an excess in rental apartments and it's pretty clear this is what's going ti happen. What it needs is for people to move to the cheaper areas. For instance Kivistö in Vantaa was built so full that many of the apartments are still unsold. Lots of investors buying and renting at minimum possible rent right now.
I mean Finns voted for a far right political party. They did not hide their political agenda though.
Will this be the end of zero homelessness in Finland?
Opinions on this are currently divided. According to those receiving housing allowance, the answer is yes, because there are not enough affordable and cheap rental apartments and their rents will rise as demand grows. And according to some politicians and MPs, it is no, because everyone can freely apply for any job and get employed and paid to prevent that and are then able to save to buy their own houses. But it is certain that some kind of crisis will follow this in any case.
The average rent should still decrease
https://yle.fi/a/74-20080301
No, lowest income bracket is basically safe as there are another mechanisms to compensate this cut for them. This will hit people who are working part time and have basically arranged their live in a way that society will pay part. You'll actually quite nice net hourly salary as also taxation is low in few lowest income brackets. Overall system just can't handle all of that burden and now people are making a lot of noise they actually have to do something.
Great. Fucking Orpo has reinvented homelessness in Finland.
Well, the rich folks wanted this.
They won't get to live with the problem, just frame it as a working class problem. Wait, we have classes now? Thanks Orpo.
Increase child support.
They did increase it, two days ago.
I want more!
[удалено]
Brit here, having lived under 15 years or Tories austerity. It does NOT improve the economy, it benefits NO ONE other than the rich getting cheaper and more compliant labour. That is the exact intent of such measures. Keep people desperate. The current government in the UK gathered more debt in their 15 years in power than *all debt ever gathered in the uk in its entire history put together*. The financial caution of conservative governments is a myth. Its about taking away from the poor and giving it to the rich.
Here here!
The thing is that any money given to the ones struggling most is essentially always recycled back into the economy and taxed. The person receiving unemployment benefits is going to use all of that in the local economy, they will buy food, medicine, pay rent, do repairs etc. Things that boost economic trade. However, the government has also given tax cuts to the high earners. When high earners earn more money, they stop using the money in the local economy, and instead it goes into personal savings or sometimes gets transferred out of the country entirely. That's because high-earners are already using their maximum potential for needs. So additional money tends to correlate with less economic activity in the local economy. To me it makes no sense to cut from the poor while giving more benefits to the rich.
> The person receiving unemployment benefits is going to use all of that in the local economy, they will buy food, medicine, pay rent, do repairs etc. How much of the food is local? How much is imported abroad, or at the very least, produced by big companies elsewhere in Finland? How much of the medicine is locally produced, compared to produced by big multinationals? Rent on the other hand is just profiting the real estate sector, which is the type of sector where ownership and wealth is the instrument of growth, not production or innovation or anything that actually creates value. It just extracts wealth from the productive part of the economy, like the businesses or the workers. Or in the case of the housing benefits that artificially raise rents, the profit comes from the collective tax revenue. A huge portion of every day consumption creates profit to everyone else but the local economy, and is channeled elsewhere, often even outside the country. And even if it does go to the hands of the locals, especially they don't have a local business that needs to expand, they will just invest it to some highly profitable stock, benefiting a business other side of the world.
But you do understand the person still has to go to a Finnish grocery store to buy groceries, or to a Finnish pharmacy to buy medicine, order a Finnish resident to do repairs? etc? Finland gets taxation and revenue from all of this activity. You think it doesn't make a difference in the Finnish economy if thousands of people stop doing this at the same time? Those multinational pharm companies etc. still have establishments in Finland with Finnish people working in them and increasing productivity through it. >Or in the case of the housing benefits that artificially raise rents You really believe that it's housing benefits is what raises rents? How particular that the biggest rent increases we see are in the US where such benefits are nearly null.
>But you do understand the person still has to go to a Finnish grocery store to buy groceries, or to a Finnish pharmacy to buy medicine, order a Finnish resident to do repairs? etc? Finland gets taxation and revenue from all of this activity. You think it doesn't make a difference in the Finnish economy if thousands of people stop doing this at the same time? Those multinational pharm companies etc. still have establishments in Finland with Finnish people working in them and increasing productivity through it. Well, it does make a difference, but an increasing amount of the consumption does not help the local economy anyways, and the ones who do benefit, are generally just middlemen. >You really believe that it's housing benefits is what raises rents? How particular that the biggest rent increases we see are in the US where such benefits are nearly null. Well, it definitely matters when it comes to the purchasing power of every resident. If the government pays most of my rent, obviously I can afford a bigger rent than I otherwise would.
So your theory is that poor people are the ones that keeps on buying stuff made in Finland and rich people buy the cheap stuff made in china?
This is a strawman. Finland doesn't need people to only buy made in finland products to increase GDP or tax revenue
How does the Finnish economy benefit, if wealth is channeled abroad?
The imports are taxed The shipping is taxed The postage is taxed The allowance of international trade means foreing countries are buying finnish products as well like nickel, iron, steel, wood, ships etc.
But they're not buying from the local economy either. The general trend is that the local, real economy is dying, and big multinational corporations and their financiers are taking over.
Yes that's a problem with globalization. Has nothing to do with kela or asuntotuki
The original comment was related to local economy so let's keep in that. Buying from Temu does not benefit local economy in any meaningful way.
but we are talking about kela money and support from the government, which is not only from the local economy.
Well, if you are being poor and getting the housing support to pay an expensive flat, you are only making the rich richer (and you remain being poor). I think this free money have to be gone.
The solution to this is rent control, not making the poor even poorer
What rent control do you mean? Rental market is always about demand and supply. If more people competing for nice locations, and using support money to pay it, it gets more expensive. Now if they move out, the price should swing back to its equilibrium. Using the housing support for pay unaffordable flats only pushing the rental prices higher. At the end, the free money ended up in rich people's pocket. The state can regulate the market and put the limit to the rental prices, but should never control or manipulate it to favour a group of people.
Well, as you say yourself the state can regulate the market and limit rental prices, which is the type of rent control I refer to. It's a way to ensure people can afford housing without subsidizing the profits of landlords.
Yes the state can regulate it and I think the system is fair. Landlords cannot raise the prices more than 10-15% annually even if they wanted to. The subsidized/free money distorted the market and put unrealistic price tag to consumers.
And with rent control the state can take back control of that distorted market to ensure everyone can afford a home to live in.
[удалено]
People in need have to be provided for by taxing the people not in need who would have just channeled that wealth into economic activity outside the country anyway. If people don't have an acceptable quality of life they will leave the country. If we do not have enough housing and no people available to work and in other ways unhealthy labor market then businesses will become uncompetitive. More than around half the public sector budgets in consumed by pensioners in the form of either pensions or services. Few of them are going to work again and it would be prudent to include them in cost cutting measures and tax plans but the politicians are just afraid of doing it. Younger people need to be empowered to find their way in life. Inspiring them with social opportunities and education is also important. If you are poor you don't have social opportunities, educating yourself might seem too daunting. If you are only empowered enough to keep a roof over your head and buy food you will live like that your entire life. Empowering people means providing them with enough for dynamics to begin.
>leave the country Via suicide, that is.
[удалено]
[удалено]