Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/14/09
Second Point: This is awesome.
Third Point: Not sure I'd want a 40-50% income tax to pay for this stuff (I think thats what most EU citizens pay).
Fourth Point: Working in a restaurant in Finland is a career, not a job. I love that about the EU.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
Want to test this? Try to find a local polling place and vote for a different CEO of Comcast, or a different CEO of AT&T then, try to vote for a different state rep, or senator. You'll see who you have more power over.
10/14/09
10/14/09
Laissez-faire economics just doesn't work for the average consumer. There needs to be another party to ensure that the rights and well-being of the average citizen are maintained, and the government is usually the best tool to do so.
10/14/09
Shareholders get screwed by big companies almost as often as consumers do. In fact that's why there's been a shareholders bill of rights law making it's way to law, precisely because they get screwed over without government protection. Remember Enron? How much of a say did the shareholders have in that before their investments were wiped out.
The only thing you can trust anyone or anything who is only in something for the money is to screw you over as soon they can. Government has always screwed us over less than free markets at every point in history. Find me an exception, and I'll show you business men behind it.
Face it, the quality of life in these "damned pinko socialist" countries is so much higher than in our free market cluster f%#k, AND they have more freedoms. The only 'downside' is they don't create any super rich, which is also why their economy is more stable, and they have less crime due to the smaller gap between rich and poor. So not much of a downside at all.
Also, they're the best rally drivers on the planet.
10/14/09
And, go ahead and march right in there, some paper showing you own some AT&T stock and demand to speak to Ralph de la Vega.
Explain what you want him to do. I'm sure he'll have a long indepth conversations explaining the pros and cons, he'll articulate his position and then you'll leave with a better understanding of how and why certain things are done and then you can fly home on your unicorn because you live in fantasy land.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
The truth is, consumers have the ultimate control. Money. If you hated a place so much, then you wouldn't shop there or buy their services. If they were truly in the wrong, then noone will shop there. And, save for a government bailout, they will close. If someone holds a share of stock-just one-then they can go to the shareholder meetings and have their say. That's a pretty simple concept.
Stop confusing public and private sector. And stop attacking other people simply because they have more money than you... being poor and flustered doesn't make you right.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
All I want from the government is more of my tax money back so I can buy what I want from whoever I want.
10/14/09
Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, dude, at least it's an ethos.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
I mean, really. You're kidding right?
10/14/09
Next hateful comment.
10/14/09
10/14/09
Really. Last I remember, they don't pay taxes.
10/14/09
My family pays right at 50%. Plus the cost of broadband.
10/14/09
In 2009, the US Department of Defense's spending accounts for 4.8% of the total US GDP.
10/14/09
Dr. William F. Ford a professor at Middle Tennessee State University and expert on taxes and immigration, calculates that illegal aliens contribute $428 billion dollars to the nation’s $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006. "If anything we need more immigrants coming into the country, not less, especially with the baby boomers retiring," said Ford.
[www.msnbc.msn.com]
[www.examiner.com]
10/14/09
As a single parent, I pay 30%. Not happy about that but it's better than 45%.
10/14/09
[www.politicalparlor.net]
10/14/09
[usgovinfo.about.com]
10/14/09
I think you'll find studies by special interest groups to be less than fair to the facts. See what I did there?
That group is a joke:
[en.wikipedia.org]
10/14/09
Telling people to shut up and calling them dumb F's because your panties are in an uproar is a tad bit overboard.
10/14/09
Why do you think California has a budget crisis?
Here's the budget for California this past year:
[2008-09.archives.ebudget.ca.gov]
Ever wonder why K-12 and Health/Human Services gets the bulk of the money while each county pays for those through property taxes?
I have no problem against illegal aliens. In fact, I wanted to make all of them citizens just to start off with a clean slate and it will be easier to account for the total population which is important when the state wants to open a new program and determine its budget (or at least, back then).
Let me tell you a story. Several years ago, the state wants to start a health/human service program and have accounted for x amount of people to service. The cost for the services is determined to be $1 per person so budget allotted me $1(x). When the year comes, it turns out there were actually x+y people and pulled out $1(x+y) dollars for the year. No big deal, the next year we'll just budget $1(x+y) instead of $1(x). Oh by the way, we didn't foresee the extra cash from undocumented income. Bonus! We're rich!
A few years down the road, we're budgeting the same program now for $3(x+y+z) and we're still receiving undocumented income to compensate. All of the sudden, economic downturn. Layoffs. Jobs reduce. State income decrease. People seem to be holding on to their money more than before. Suddenly, that undocumented income is not coming in like its suppose to. No problem, we'll just account for that based on x. But that doesn't really reflect how much is needed, and when the governor tries to pull the plug, people cry foul. The state couldn't figure out why they were able to afford all the programs before and now, they can't. (Actually, Wilson and Davis knew exactly what was happening. The last one bailed out, and gave the problem to the new governator).
The problem was that ever since the program started, we never accurately projected how overblown the program is going to cost. Illegal aliens are not the problem themselves, but because they were undocumented, they were never accounted for when the cost of the program was projected in the first place.
Of course, no one will ever know the real story because, too late, everybody is busy pointing fingers.
10/14/09
If I had to compare MSNBC to F.A.I.R., I would say that yes, MSNBC is much less bias.
I'll concede that MSNBC's commenters and show hosts (in the later half of the day) are more liberal, that doesn't mean the journalism, the reporting, etc... is.
I called 'em a dumb fuck for not knowing what was going on, not because I disagree.
And, what in the world makes you think you know where I stand? Contrary to my posts I'm not an open borders immigrant hugger.
In fact I would say I'm pretty well down the middle. Having lived in California and Florida, I have empahy for immigrants who want a better life for themselves and their family, but my bleeding heart starts to clot when it's detrimental to American workers.
Groups like the Minute Men and people like Lou Dobbs do nothing but make ruin informed debate.
10/14/09
*looks around paranoid*
10/14/09
10/14/09
Thank the almighty lord Jesus Christ that i live in America where i pay for everything myself and am yet offered inferior everything compared to those sad commies in europe.
Gun + McDonald Free healthcare, education and broadband
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
Please do so before making such abhorrent statements.
10/14/09
Their debt is def. better (lower) than ours... :) ... well unless you do a person/dollar ratio... then maybe not. :(
10/14/09
When you compare our enormous, #1 in the world economy to that of finland, then you do some minor calculations, you'd see that if we had better system we could easily surpass many western European in countries in public welfare dept.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
94 95 96 97 98 99
European Union 11.1 10.7 10.8 10.6 9.9 9.2
United States 6.1 5.6 5.4 4.9 4.5 4.2
Finland 17.9 16.2 14.6 12.6 11.4 10.2
Not sure for this decade. Here is my source:
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1377_unemployment_rates_by_cou....html
10/14/09
10/14/09
Pro-tip: Google
Unemployment rates: March '09
Finland: 7.4%
US: 8.5%
Only France, Ireland and Spain had higher unemployment rates in March '09
And when you compare the US to the unemployment rate in the EU27, in March 2009, our rate was higher:
US: 8.5%
EU27: 8.3
Unemployment figures are not a fair way to compare economic stability of one country to another. Regardless of them being more Capitalistic or a more "Socials" country.
10/14/09
10/14/09
Are you kidding? He said he didn't know current figures; I provided them. My use of current data is FAR LESS arbitrary than his use of data from the 90s.
I'm just using current data because, well, its current.
His/her statement was that high unemployment is a "cost" of being a "socials" country, I was showing that being an unregulated capitalist country has those very same "costs". While their unemployment rate went down, ours has gone up.
You're not even trying now.
10/14/09
(and other big scary words to intimadate you into thinking this is really bad)
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
*supported by the 4th highest tax rate in the world at 49.5%
I'd rather pay 25% and pay cox $50 a month...
10/14/09
Finland was 7th.
And the US is one of the lowest in the world at 28.3% for 2008. (along with Mexico, if you're looking for context)
Is the most basic of Google searches really THAT difficult?
The problem is those numbers do not reflect effective tax rates for individuals.
"The ratio of total tax revenues to gross domestic product at market prices is a widely used measure of the extent of state involvement in national economies. Countries with high tax-to-GDP ratios tend to pay more from the public purse for services that citizens would have to pay for themselves - or do without - in lower-taxed countries. However, comparisons are not always easy to make: for example, many countries with high tax-to-GDP ratios provide family benefits as cash payments rather than as tax reductions, increasing the apparent tax burden as measured by the tax-to-GDP ratio." [www.oced.org]
When taking into account the social programs and over all higher standard of living, I think many people can justify the trade off. Sure you're giving up some financial freedom (ie you have to save a little longer to get that new TV) but at least your kids will have healthy teeth and you won't go bankrupt if you're in a serious car accident.)
A little more info here, ya know, just to drive home the point:
Finland Individual income tax rates (national tax) 2009:
Tax (%)___Tax Base (EUR)
0%_______1-13,100
7%_______13,101-21,700
18%______21,701-35,300
22%______35,301-64,500
30.5%____64,501 And Over
The difference in individual income taxes is negligible. The one big difference, which is similar to a state tax is, in addition to direct taxation there is also municipal tax. This tax is payable by an individual on his or her income and it fluctuates between 16% - 21% depending on the municipal authority.
The municipalities account for half of public spending which means, while you are paying slightly more in your local community gets MUCH more out.
Also, if you're seeing this as an affront to economic freedom, you should note:
Finland is ranked 16th (ninth in Europe) in the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom. The United States was ranked 9th.
As a further note: The Index of Economic Freedom was created by the WSJ and ultra conservative Heritage Foundation which compares IMF and World Bank data of 179 of the roughly 196 countries.
10/14/09
10/14/09
@hooshies:
You people and your details and facts and context and not some idiotic black and white perspective.
10/15/09
Besides, 4th or 7th isn't that big of a deal. my point is it's high.
@hooshies. Are you implying that anything over $34K is rich? because the 25% rate starts there. 34K is about $1600 a month after taxes, (California) #finland