[mvindahl]

If you buy stocks in a publicly traded Finnish company, then you're taking on a risk in the hope of making a profit. But you are also putting your money at work in the Finnish economy, stimulating job creation and growth. Everybody wins, hopefully.

If, on the other hand, you put down your money in bitcoin or at the online blackjack tables then you're gambling, not investing. Win or lose, your gamble creates zero domestic growth. Why should any government incentivize that?

[21]

What if you were to invest in a publicly traded non-Finnish company, let's say Apple? How do you think the government should treat that?

[charlesdm]

Apple might be a bad example, but I can't imagine them treating investing in, say, a German company different than a Finnish one. That would be discriminatory and would not be allowed under EU law.

[yunesj]

Stocks aren't really a direct investment in a company like you're assuming.

Instead, investing in stocks and cryptocurrencies benefit the economy in very similar ways. In both cases, companies hold on to these assets, and can sell them to raise money for doing projects, buying companies, hiring employees, etc.

But government's probably shouldn't be incentivizing or de-incentivizing any investing. Saving money is sometimes the best thing to do with it.

[trinitry3]

> Why should any government incentivize that?

Well maybe they shouldn't, but it's shitty to apply this kind of policy retroactively. (I don't know when they actually announced the fact that you can't deduct losses.)

[brlewis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Finland

"Generally, the Finnish legal system does not permit ex post facto laws"

[zokier]

Strictly speaking I don't think this thing is a law, but rather a policy. Also the same paragraph continues

> In civil matters, such as taxation, ex post facto laws may be made in some circumstances.