[brryant]

This is honestly a great way for tech entrepreneurs to experience Nordic living. The fact is Finland has one of the most startup friendly environments around:

— top schools (Aalto U. produces incredibly talented engineers)

— startup friendly ecosystem (cheap rents, cheap internet)

— Finnish work culture (direct, no nonsense, hard working but balanced)

— fantastic food and beverage scene in downtown Helsinki

My wife is originally from Finland but we live in SF now, but as soon as COVID is over we'll all go back to Helsinki so I can start Webflow's first EU office there. Hope this program stays around for that!

[0xfaded]

I moved from SF to the Nordics on a startup visa and feel obligated to temper expectations whenever I see these.

- There are good schools and people, but don't expect the density of top people to be anything close to SF. Finding friends to talk shop with requires active engagement.

- Every European country is trying to promote itself as startup friendly, and what you are seeing from a distance is being heavily curated by government funded marketing efforts. I recently declined to take part in an marketing video because I cannot in good faith suggest people leave SF/US unless it is for ideological reasons. Expect your company L's valuation to be 1/10th of what the would be back in the US. Expect to make up the private investment shortfall with hugely distracting public funding, both in terms of wasted time applying/reporting and tangental product development. Labour laws will require you to have a _at_least_ extra 3 months of runway on hand so that you can give the mandatory notice periods.

-Nordic work culture gets really old really quickly if you're a high achiever type.

- Nightlife is just one of those things America does bigger and better

- Finally, and this is admittedly tongue in cheek, expect to be taxed to hell and back on all things fun unless it involves making babies.

Anyone planning a move to Europe as an entrepreneur, please take time to talk to people and understand the downsides. It's still okay to move for ideological reasons or if europe offers a better environment than your home country. But understand a lot of what you are seeing is being promoted by marketing departments, not entrepreneurs.

[dharma1]

Where in the Nordics did you move to?

> - There are good schools and people, but don't expect the density of top people to be anything close to SF. Finding friends to talk shop with requires active engagement.

This is true in terms of density, but if you do put in a bit of effort, you can find lots of hardcore skilled people to talk shop with. Depends on your speciality but lots of good devs in Helsinki, across web/mobile dev, embedded, game dev, machine learning (check out papers coming out of Nvidia Helsinki office), audio and graphics dev (great demoscene legacy), also more exotic fields like quantum physics or SAR satellite tech.. In fact you can find experts in most fields to hang out with

> - Every European country is trying to promote itself as startup friendly, and what you are seeing from a distance is being heavily curated by government funded marketing efforts. I recently declined to take part in an marketing video because I cannot in good faith suggest people leave SF/US unless it is for ideological reasons. Expect your company L's valuation to be 1/10th of what the would be back in the US. Expect to make up the private investment shortfall with hugely distracting public funding, both in terms of wasted time applying/reporting and tangental product development. Labour laws will require you to have a _at_least_ extra 3 months of runway on hand so that you can give the mandatory notice periods.

There is some truth to this (though I would say early stage valuations are perhaps half, not 10%), but there is nothing fundamental stopping you from building a global company in the Nordics, there are many examples of this - Skype, Spotify, Supercell etc. Also I think there is more and more VC money available, also from US VCs, to Nordic companies - they are seeing the high quality of startups and attracted by the non-inflated valuations. If anything, I would say that as an employer, reasonable engineering salaries and somewhat less competition for talent is in your favour vs SF.

[JacobSuperslav]

I agree with everything you said, except that moving away from SF can only be ideological. To me there are some other advantages:

1. some of the cities here are walkable and cyclable. can't say the same about SF. 2. my kid goes to a free kindergarten and it's been fantastic 3. healthcare doesn't revolve around money, and again, great experience with the public sector, including my wife giving birth here. it's a breath of fresh air when you understand that money is not really a factor when it comes to diagnosing and treating you.

[biztos]

I lived in SF for 8 years and never once drove a car.

I don’t even ride a bike, but most of my friends do.

Why do you think SF isn’t walkable/bikable?

[JacobSuperslav]

That only works if you got a good salary and can afford good location, in my experience.

[0xfaded]

Healthcare is a good point, especially since good insurance outside of an employer is either expensive or requires a significant other with a job with good benefits.

In the scheme of things though, once you've incorporated and put yourself on payroll, health insurance becomes just a cost of doing business. If you're the type that thinks purely think in terms of maximizing lifetime earnings, or even lifetime impact, free health care won't make a dent in that. If that happens to be your thinking and you can afford SF or the bay, you're better off staying where you can maximize your income and impact.

[JacobSuperslav]

I've got a bunch of health problems which can really screw me over later in life (congenital heart defect + autoimmune disorder) and just feel safer knowing that my family will be taken care of even if the money isn't here or something goes wrong with my investments/life insurance.

[lm28469]

> Nightlife is just one of those things America does bigger and better

That's highly debatable, I'm European and lived in SF/LA for a while, night life over there always felt "fake" (I don't know how to explain it better but i know many people in my circles felt the same) compared to my experience in Europe, it was like being in a parody of an American feel good movie. So I guess it's very dependent on where you come from and what you grew up with.

[dharma1]

I would echo this. If you want to experience the best parts of Nordic living (clean/functional everything, super close to nature, great free education, egalitarian attitudes) and are a tech entrepreneur or an investor, Helsinki offers all of the above plus very skilled engineers for reasonable salaries compared to the Bay Area, to build world class companies.

People generally work hard but smart, tell you how it is to your face and are generally honest, kind and sincere.

And welcome to Helsinki, I think Webflow will do great there! Love the platform.

[kondro]

- Nationalised health care.

[Devils-Avocado]

Also:

24% VAT (sales tax)

18% employer payroll taxes

10% employee payroll taxes

20-30% typical income tax

Take your American disposable income and cut it in half.

Still worth it for 'free' education and 'free' healthcare?

Also a lot of cold and darkness.

[socialdemocrat]

It is not like taxes disappear into a black hole never to be seen. Most of that money comes back to you in the form of services Americans would have to pay for anyway.

What matters is what the taxes give you. A lot of American taxes don’t give people much of anything. Maintaining the worlds largest prison population is expensive but what exactly does that give the Average American? Worlds largest military also sucks up tax dollars but don’t give any benefits back. Finnish taxes give you education, health care, child care, sick leave, vacation, job retraining, great public transport and many other thing directly improving your quality of life.

[siavosh]

I wish humanity didn't need a military but saying the world's largest military doesn't give anything back is a bit misleading. Some would argue the world's largest military enable the post WW2 order and with it the free trade that most of the world depends on. So in a very concrete way, the American tax payer subsidizes much of the world's economy.

Now in a post cold war with the growing isolationist tendencies of Americans, this may require most of the world, namely western europe to start paying for their own physical security.

[xyzzy_plugh]

I think the point is that you can choose to go live somewhere that is not the USA and you continue reap the benefits you describe, all the while paying a different countries taxes and personally benefitting much much more.

If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either.

[siavosh]

That's a valid strategy, akin to geo-politicial arbitrage. But with trends as they are arbitrages don't last forever.

[geofft]

Yes, but I won't last forever either. I have, if I try very hard, 40 years of useful employment left in me. It's possible that the Holy Karelian Empire will displace US hegemony in the next 40 years, but it's not that likely. It's also possible - and much more likely - that Finland will end up on the wrong side of the US and maybe be a site of a hot proxy war between the US and some upstart superpower within the next 40 years, but that also seems fairly unlikely.

Forty years ago the world was not too different - the USSR and East Germany existed and China was not so strong, but the shape of the rest of it was otherwise broadly similar. There are very few countries that were prosperous and peaceful and lightly-armed in 1980 that are bad choices today.

[fourstar]

>If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either.

I think if you transact in dollars or any economy on Earth, you probably do.

[enriquto]

> footing the bill for Global Security either.

It is way too generous towards the USA to describe its military as "Global Security". The U.S. military main job overseas consists in defending north-american economic interests by military means. If this implies overthrowing democratic governments or supporting dictatorships, or the inverse, so be it. It is more a like a mafia (that protects the economic interests of the people who support them) than a police force (that is supposed to protect everybody).

[timsally]

> If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either.

There is a deep and nuanced conversation to be had here, though I will say fourstar already made one important point very succinctly. [1]

I will point out that it has been the position of the American people since WWII that we are happy to foot the bill for global security. So while you might not feel that way, Americans feel differently. I'll give a bit of background on how that came to be.

While Hitler was cutting through Europe there was a extensive internal debate in the US whether just focusing on defending the Pacific would be sufficient. During the time leading up the Battle of Britain, we decided the US view of security needed to be global-- if Hitler overran Britain the threat was just too large. It would turn out that the Brits won one of the most significant military victories in history [2], but prior that fact emerging American policy had come to the firm conclusion that we had to defend east as well as west. The Brits handled it, but it was tough to know that at the time.

Since WWII we have not really reevaluated this policy. Some in the US believe it is time to do so and the current election will decide much of this. But in the last 10 years we have witnessed the biggest land grab in Europe since World War II [3], so now might not be the time to dissolve the world order.

This may be more detail than you were expecting, but I hope you found it interesting. The world is a much more fragile place that I wish and at the end of the day we all need to chip in for global security.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004863

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Aftermath

[3] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/c...

[mapgrep]

Ww2 in Europe was largely won by the USSR. Britain and the US opened a western front quite belatedly after years of begging by the USSR, after the Soviets sacrificed 15+ million lives to turn the tide, and after a lot of wasted time focusing on minor gains in North Africa (at Churchill’s insistence). Combined US and UK military’s deaths were less than a tenth those for USSR. We love to pat ourselves on the back with movies about D Day though. (They should be about Stalingrad.)

Finland incidentally was a key ally for Hitler in his attack on the USSR.

[xyzzy_plugh]

This is an interesting discussion but wholly irrelevant. Either I'm in the US paying these taxes or I'm not. As an individual I'd rather have my taxes benefit me as much as possible. The US military isn't going to directly help feed my newborn child, especially if I'm not an American.

[dreamcompiler]

Yes but...a very large fraction of US military expenditures are based less on the need for defense than on the "need" to keep defense contractors in business absent a realistic threat model. Thus those taxes essentially fund make-work jobs that keep people employed but the fruits of their labor often have more to do with defense theater than defense. The F35 comes to mind [0].

Note I didn't say the whole DoD budget is a waste, but a huge portion of it is only justified by politics cosplaying defense.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightni...

[trevyn]

Frankly, it it not a coincidence that Silicon Valley and companies like SpaceX are in the US. They are direct results of the military ecosystem that has developed there.

The classic reference is Steve Blank's "Secret History of Silicon Valley": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo

[timsally]

> Frankly, it it not a coincidence that Silicon Valley and companies like SpaceX are in the US. They are direct results of the military ecosystem that has developed there.

SpaceX is the direct result of a South African who studied in Canada and came to the US because that's what he wanted to do. The idea that the US "military ecosystem" could claim "direct" responsibility for what Elon has achieved is an insult to him.

[vulcan01]

I think the GP is trying to say that because of the military ecosystem in the US, it was easier for him to 1. find a large customer and 2. get r&d funding. Note that he says "They are direct results of the military ecosystem that has developed there."

Why do you think Elon Musk chose to start SpaceX in the US?

[Teever]

Why didn't Elon start SpaceX in Canada or South Africa?

[triceratops]

> Some would argue the world's largest military enable the post WW2 order

I thought nukes and MAD did that.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

Also it was the defense spending that created the conditions for Silicon Valley.

[egsmi]

Also there’s this argument

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_to_War

[justatdotin]

That the rest of the world lives under the 'order' and 'free' trade imposed by the usa's overwhelming military power, goes beyond benefit or dependence: it's imposition.

[nonfinn1039]

I keep hearing this myth about that US taxpayer dollars go mostly to the military. Sure it's a big ticket item, but half of it goes to social programs: 2019 (USD):

- Health and Human Services: 1,215 Trillion(27%)

- Social Security: 1,101 Trillion (25%)

- Department of Defense: 658 Billion (14.7%)

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

[curun1r]

The DoD list item doesn't include the intelligence agencies, DHS, OCO, VA, defense share of debt servicing and other spending. A more honest number is $1.25 trillion [0].

[0] https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/05/making-sense-of-the-1-...

[refurb]

That's a bullshit number.

You want to roll in the entire Department of Energy budget?

You want to roll in the entire Department of Homeland Security budget? So airport security is now defense spending?

You want to roll in the entire USAID budget?

I mean, if you're going to do this, do it for other countries as well. Then the US spending won't seem all that out of line.

[curun1r]

It's much, much closer to the real number.

The DoE budget is almost 3/4 defense related (25B/35B [0])

DHS is far more than TSA, which is only 16% of its budget.

I wouldn't have rolled the entire USAID budget in, but it's disingenuous to not include peacekeeping operations and military aid, which are a big part of it.

Regardless, even with adjustments you've pointed out, the number is well over $1t, which is almost double the disingenuous number that GP threw out.

[0] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/03/f72/doe-fy20...

[ianai]

You can’t throw social security in there since that’s actually paid into from workers. Yes it’s a Ponzi scheme-government backed. That’s not the same thing as a money pit with no revenue incoming.

[traek]

They're all paid into by workers, taxes are taxes.

[ianai]

In order to withdraw from SS you must be eligible - including have had contributed to it in the past. The money is even accounted for separately from other government funds. The funds are supposed to go and have historically gone from contributor to beneficiary. It’s also not had funding problems until those funds got mishandled by past governments (congresses/presidents) and tapped for other things.

First link from google: https://chomsky.info/20050601/

[eru]

You can have lower taxes (than in America) and excellent public services in Singapore. Eat your cake and have it, too.

Very startup friendly as well and excellent food.

The tropical weather takes a bit of getting used to, though. I much prefer gloomy European skies.

[milchek]

I've been here for close to a year now and enjoying it. It is a very well run country that is clean, safe and modern. That said, I thought expats here can't really make use of most of the public health, housing and education services? Those that I know also are all sending their kids to international schools and have private health (thankfully the private health packages that come with employment are decent).

Have to agree on the tropical weather front. As someone who has lived in Australia close to my whole life you would expect I'd be used to heat, but it's the humidity that kills me. Australian heat is like being on a frying pan, Singapore heat is like being in an oven.

[eru]

I lived in Sydney for a while. The heat is usually worse in Singapore, but at least the ozone layer is thicker.

Expats can still rent HDB. Just can't buy subsidized HDB.

If you have kids here and want to use the local schools, I would suggest getting PR or citizenship perhaps.

I've paid out of pocket for medical expenses recently. Wasn't that bad overall, and all fairly transparent up front. But am back on company provided insurance now. With gold plated insurance, my raw medical costs are sure to go up, since I don't care about keeping them low anymore.

[hestefisk]

I live in Singapore and my experience is healthcare is extremely expensive unless you have insurance (which I have). Schools for expats are incredibly expensive too unless you want to put them in local ones. Cost of living is very high. I pay SGD 6000/mo to live centrally but with no trees around me.

[andreareina]

Most parts of the city I've been to have patches of green at least. I guess the core CBD doesn't have much but even a little bit outside (River Valley, Tanjong Pagar) are quite nice. What area are you in?

[eru]

Even the CBD has quite a few spots of green, I find.

[wikibob]

What are tech industry salaries like in Singapore compared to Silicon Valley FAANG companies?

[eru]

Fresh grads at Google get about 5k SGD (~ 3.7k USD) a month plus equity. That's lower than FAANG in the US.

With any kind of experience, salaries quickly ramp up. For example, I know an unremarkable Facebook E6 with 550k SGD (~ 408k USD) total yearly comp. You can also work in the tech department of finance companies, like Goldman Sachs or some funds.

Take home pay is about 80% of gross. There's no capital gains tax.

[eru]

We pay 3000 SGD for 1,200 square feet right next to the CBD. Plenty of trees around here, too.

(We are looking for someone to take over our lease by the way, as we are moving into a bigger place.)

In the last few years I usually paid out of pocket for any medical treatments.

[dharma1]

I think Singapore is one of my other favourite cities in addition to Helsinki!

In many ways it's very different though - while the taxes are lower, its generally much more expensive, especially if you have kids. Singapore is a very dense, packed, hot city - you get a bit of island fever and are not so close to nature. Helsinki is literally the opposite. Singapore and Helsinki are both very, very safe, but I find Singapore has more extreme ends of wealth distribution (very badly paid migrant workers).

Both are super functional though, with good universities, and both great options for running a company/working in tech. I would happily live in either city.

[eru]

Helsinki could also have badly paid migrant workers, if they wanted to. Instead they don't let migrant construction workers nor gardeners nor cleaners etc into the country, which is worse for global inequality. But, out of sight, out of mind.

(There's more to say about income distribution in Singapore, but having migrant workers, even if badly paid, is a plus in my book.

If Singaporean immigration was more open, they would have even more low paid foreigners. Making the situation look worse, but be better purely in terms of global equality.)

With kids: I think it's mostly expensive if you are an expat and go the expat route with everything. If you go more local and earn a decent amount of money, the amount you save in taxes should more than make up for some extra costs.

(There's also a breakeven point for expats with kids at private international school, but it's obviously much higher.)

[dharma1]

>Helsinki could also have badly paid migrant workers, if they wanted to. Instead they don't let migrant construction workers nor gardeners nor cleaners etc into the country, which is worse for global inequality. But, out of sight, out of mind. (There's more to say about income distribution in Singapore, but having migrant workers, even if badly paid, is a plus in my book.

I also think low-skilled migrants are ok, to a degree. Migrants from EU can travel and work in Finland freely without visa. There are many Estonian, and some Bulgarian etc construction workers - but there also legally enforced minimum salaries for everyone. In Singapore there is no minimum salary and that is one of the causes of their extreme income distribution.

> With kids: I think it's mostly expensive if you are an expat and go the expat route with everything. If you go more local and earn a decent amount of money, the amount you save in taxes should more than make up for some extra costs. (There's also a breakeven point for expats with kids at private international school, but it's obviously much higher.)

This is true - but getting a space for a foreign child in local schools in Singapore is really, really difficult. So you almost have to factor in private school fees. Other costs are fairly comparable to Helsinki, except health care, and cars are even more expensive in Singapore - you don't really need one though. But you're right, post-tax income quickly becomes attractive in Singapore for people on higher levels of income.

[enriquto]

> I think Singapore is one of my other favourite cities in addition to Helsinki!

You have a really open mind if two such different cities are your favourites! In my view, Helsinky is a really nice place, but Singapore is a scary, hellish dystopia.

[eru]

Have you been?

It's perhaps not for everybody. But the usual complaint from the set of people who have been and don't love the place, is that it's perhaps a bit too boring and well ordered.

It's pretty much the opposite of scary here. I like that I don't have to constantly use 20% of my brain when out in a cafe to keep an eye on my stuff like in London, where things get nicked left and right.

[paxys]

And what if I want to smoke a joint or chew gum?

[trevyn]

Or support Internet freedom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singapo...

[princeb]

seriously don't come!

the locals who really want to do those things have long moved out of the country. those who choose to remain here enthusiastically enforce the order of the country. caning and hanging continue to enjoy popular support.

[eru]

Well, caning is arguably a better solution than prisons.

As for capital punishment: I'm not a fan. But have a look at the numbers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapor...

[eru]

Chewing gum itself is not illegal.

Don't come, if you like to partake in recreational drugs.

(Though plenty of expats usually just hop on a plane on the weekend and indulge in one of the surrounding countries. Drugs are no more legal there, but their governments are not as competent in enforcing their laws.)

[ponker]

If you are not ethnically Chinese you are an underclass in Singapore. If you are not black you are not an underclass in the United States. I have no idea what it is like to be black in Singapore but for anyone else, I would think "not being an underclass" is high on anyone's list.

[howlgarnish]

It's nowhere near that simple. Broadly speaking, Singapore is more classist than racist: moneyed expats of all colors have it pretty good here, and locals of all colors are treated much better than workers doing menial jobs. Yes, there's currently a backlash against Indian immigrants in professional middle-class roles, but not long ago there was a similar backlash against mainland Chinese.

[eru]

I think some of the backlash against PRC people persists.

[ghufran_syed]

Doesn't having a popular black president in the US from 2008-2016 rather undermine the idea that black people are an underclass in the US? As opposed to being a group that on average have lower income than other groups in society?

Couldn't assuming that any individual black person has low income or is part of an "underclass" be considered racist, in the sense of making judgements about individuals based on their skin color?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underclass

[raunakdag]

You’re reaching to find racism in a place where it doesn’t exist. Pretty bad faith attempt at understanding the point he was making.

Pointing to a country’s president as example of how black people are no longer underclass is akin to saying “he did it, why can’t you?”.

[adamsea]

Are you living under a rock?

Sorry if I'm being rude, but ... seriously, I would be curious how much you know about U.S. history and current events. What's your context / are you a young person / do you not watch much news, or know much history?

[ponker]

LOL. I'm definitely assuming that you don't live in the US otherwise you could not ever make a specious claim like "black people are not an underclass in the United States." Even the hardcore Trumpies will agree with this claim, they will just blame it on the black people themselves and say it's the consequence of poor choices rather than racism, they won't point to Barack Obama and Neil DeGrasse Tyson and say "no they're not."

[klipt]

> Worlds largest military also sucks up tax dollars but don’t give any benefits back.

It's easy to say a military is worthless until you actually need it. But, Finland was under Russian occupation for decades. I would guess plenty of Finns wished they had a better military then.

[h0l0cube]

> The approved 2019 Department of Defense discretionary budget is $686.1 billion.[34] It has also been described as "$617 billion for the base budget and another $69 billion for war funding."

You don't think it possible the US military could be any smaller and still defend its nation? Invading Iraq hasn't really had any fruitful outcomes, but absorbed more than a trillion of dollars of tax payer funds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Aftermat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

[kaitai]

My sibling commenter will be happy to know that Finland takes defense against Russia very seriously. Might be interested in this article: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/15/finland-army-russia-lit...

[thehappypm]

The US military is designed to defend 2 continents at once since Europe has shown zero interest in actually paying for its own military. Of course that’s going to be expensive as hell.

[h0l0cube]

The US military is under no obligation to do so.

Edit: People are getting caught on semantics here. Change 'is under no obligation' to 'not required' if you please. There's no pressure for the US to remain (see comment to reply for examples of the US breaking treaties). Perhaps there are incentives to stay that are privy to policy-makers, but are those incentives what the average tax-payer wishes for?

[pavlov]

Which decades are you talking about? Finland was part of the Russian Empire between 1809 and 1917, but hasn’t been invaded since — although Stalin gave it a good shot.

[Sharlin]

Invaded twice, but not occupied. Indeed, I believe Helsinki and London were the only capitals of non-neutral European countries that were not occupied during the WW2.

[eru]

Moscow wasn't occupied either, was it?

[Mediterraneo10]

Finland was definitely invaded. While the Finns are often considered the victors in the Winter War because they managed to maintain their independence in spite of Stalin’s onslaught, they nonetheless lost a considerable slice of Karelia to the Soviet Union.

[pavlov]

Ok, but that’s very different from “decades under Russian occupation” claimed by the grandparent post.

[ngcc_hk]

Quite right. The us$ is up with a large support of the 20 aircraft carrier you have. As said you cannot pay the firman when there is fire.

[stjohnswarts]

Military is a big benefit and you can bet it helps Europe as well, especially countries bordering Russia between 1945 and the late 80s, including Finland. That said we (USA) are spending too much on it.

[Devils-Avocado]

In Europe those services pay for a huge welfare and pension system, and healthcare which is mostly used by the elderly. Very little benefit will be received by a working-age expat.

[Mediterraneo10]

> In Europe those services pay for ... healthcare which is mostly used by the elderly.

Finnish public healthcare encompasses things like regular dental visits that people of every age use.

Also, those high taxes pay for world-class public libraries and child daycare which the broad public use, even expats in the IT sectors.

[eru]

Private dental visits shouldn't cost you more than a few hundred quid per year on average. (In a sane country.)

So they would only justify perhaps about 0.1% higher taxes?

[astura]

For just routine cleanings, sure. If you need work done it can get real expensive.

[rtkwe]

It’s not strictly about getting more out of the system than you particularly put in. On top of that no one knows if their the average or the one who’s going to need expensive life saving intervention. It levels out some of the randomness of the world for everyone, it largely removes one of the big causes of bankruptcy in the US which is medical debt.

[purerandomness]

As a working-age expat, you might still have an ambulance called after an accident or a drug overdose after partying, having cancer surgery, a flu shot, a pregnancy or an IVF, all for free.

[emteycz]

They have ambulances in the US too. Also, isn't Finland a country where you pay health insurance? If that is free, a lot of things in the US suddenly are free as well.

[purerandomness]

> They have ambulances in the US too.

We were talking about costs. In the US, calling an ambulance is not guaranteed to be free.

OP claimed that as a young, healthy expat, you don't benefit from a system where your tax payments finance health care.

I showed examples where a young, healthy expat directy benefits from this system, by having medical emergencies that would potentially bankrupt you in the US.

Not sure I followed your point here.

[Mediterraneo10]

> Also, isn't Finland a country where you pay health insurance?

Not really. You pay income taxes in general, and some portion of that funds the public healthcare system, but healthcare isn’t something you ever have to think about in particular.

[seanmcdirmid]

You don’t have to pay to use most roads in the USA, on a usage basis at least. The use of the word free but not really isn’t foreign to Americans.

[sellyme]

It also pays for education, and you don't need to look at the US for long to see why it's worth investing in having literate citizens.

[indecisive_user]

Is this supposed to be an insult to the US? The literacy rate is 99%, and a higher % of the population has a tertiary education than finland, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiar...

[sellyme]

>Is this supposed to be an insult to the US?

Yes, but it's one I hope I'll one day no longer be able to use.

> The literacy rate is 99%

So, there's a decent chance you Googled "US literacy rate" and copy-pasted it from there. I would recommend clicking the actual article and reading through it, because Google's quote is... not exactly representative of what's contained within.

If you didn't do that, you're probably citing this from the World Factbook, who use a definition of literacy broadly encapsulated by "is capable of reading". By that definition, if you can look at some words and then say them out loud, you're literate. Useful for developing countries or historical contexts, but not exactly meaningful in a modern society with many resources.

These days most literacy studies look at actually understanding content, and being able to reason about it. This typically includes some level of numerical literacy (not necessarily mathematics, but e.g., being able to understand the difference between a million and a billion), as well as things identifying internally contradictory statements. By those standards, the United States does abysmally.

It's worth noting here that the U.S. does disproportionately suffer in some studies that look specifically at literacy in a small number of official languages (English for the U.S., occasionally also including Spanish), rather than counting literacy in any language as sufficient. My comments here are in regards to the latter.

> and a higher % of the population has a tertiary education than finland

The people who choose to go to tertiary education in the United States (or indeed any other country) are not usually the people in desperate need of better education. The problem is predominantly in insufficient primary and secondary schooling, combined with a cultural attitude of anti-intellectualism that leads to many people thinking they never need to learn a thing once they exit the school system.

Not a uniquely American phenomenon (Michael Gove's "the people have had enough of experts" quote being a particularly flagrant European example), but one that's uncomfortably persistent there. For example, it takes a very unintelligent person to be in the middle of a global pandemic, yet think that the opinion of a reality TV host is more important than the professional advice of a doctor. Those people exist everywhere, but they exist in astonishing concentrations in the United States.

> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

My point is that, as someone who lives in neither North America or Europe, if I had to pick a random adult citizen from the population of either the United States or Finland to make a rational decision for me, I'm picking Finland.

[zurn]

If you look closer at the list, the difference in completed tertiary degrees (against many other countries too) comes from the youngest age bracket. It's probably because in the US people tend to have short university educations that they complete young and move more quickly to industry.

[refurb]

I hate to see intellectually lazy comments like this on HN.

It could have been phrased in a much more engaging tone rather than an attempt to "score points".

[sellyme]

I'm Australian, I have no interest in scoring points for Finland. It's an honest representation of the differences in how those two countries are seen by an international audience.

[Teever]

That's a great generalization about the entire continent of Europe but do you have any specific issues with how taxes in Finland are used?

[fulafel]

In the big picture welfare pays for a society with decreased social strife. For a working age expat this means not having to harden yourself and your family against homeless people on the streets, be afraid of getting mugged, and having educated & skilled coworkers because free education doesn't waste the potential of the economically disadvantaged.

[jen20]

> Very little benefit will be received by a working-age expat.

Speak for yourself: I've never paid a penny for healthcare in the UK, besides an effective tax rate lower than I now pay in the US and the occasional prescription charge where an OTC version of the relevant medicine was not available at lower cost.

[spicyramen]

Agree, as a Bay Area SWE, health-care is not a problem as many companies give you very good insurance, HSA, dental and vision for free or with family (wife + 1 kid) 1K per month.

[crooked-v]

'Bay Area SWE' is an outlier even for the tech industry.

[kaitai]

1K per month = not a problem! hahahahaha!

Ok, for a (male or lesbian, since you specify 'wife') Bay Area SWE, you're right. But do look at that election map and notice the scores of people living in the rest of the US, in large part voting against their own health-care interests but still. In Missouri the median income is around $55k. Putting $12k of that into health insurance (not health care, but insurance) is pretty hefty.

[martinald]

You do realise that $55k even with $12k insurance taken off ($43k "effective' median) is higher than any EU state, apart from maybe Luxembourg. And taxes will be significantly higher in EU states than MI (even if you are paying healthcare privately), which will further tilt it?

[mattigames]

Yeah, as an expat I would love living next to an elderly dying because he can't afford treatment and is waiting his gofundme to work out, I also would love being 5 times more likely to be a robbery victim[0] thanks to lack of social welfare and social support for people in economic struggles, I would also love to have at least a few more veterans begging for money in the streets, and don't get me started on how much I would love to live with a poorly-funded educated system that raises people that end up becoming anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers among many other colorful irrational believes.

[0] https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Robber...

[refurb]

elderly dying because he can't afford treatment

The US has universal Medical coverage for the elderly.

[mattigames]

Sure, that's great, now we just need the same for the rest: https://i.imgur.com/qRWoLg3.jpg

[drevil-v2]

The American military that you scoff at is what gives Europe it's freedom. It did against the Nazis, against the USSR and now does against Russia and China.

I just have this to say to the folks who despise the era of American power and hegemony, you are absolutely going to love the Chinese one. Good luck buddy posting similar comments about them in that world order.

[justatdotin]

I just have to say to the folks whose only defence of the american militarist empire is the threat of a chinese one, you are absolutely bankrupt.

[kebman]

> What matters is what the taxes give you.

Indeed. Like less trust from the state in how you use your own money, and less power to decide over what to do with the money you've earned from your own hard work. Instead you are forced to trust that the government is better at allocating that money than a private company.

You effectively get no choice in the matter either, except every fourth year. And that isn't even a real choice, because you're not choosing a better medical company, or a better insurance deal against joblessness when you vote. Instead you're hoping that more than 50% of the people who are eligible to vote in your country, will agree with you that the medical deal or accident insurance (and a whole swathe of other stuff, take it or leave it) offered by some politician that you like, is also liked by them. If not, then you're forced to take whatever the people—who do not have your own best interest at heart—wants instead, because they just happen to be in the majority. On top of that, you're supposed to celebrate it, and thank the guys who forced you to accept what you'd rather not have. That's what's known as a democracy, and somehow you're supposed to think that that is the pinnacle of "freedom"...

[jjav]

> Still worth it for 'free' education and 'free' healthcare?

No brainer, absolutely worth it.

Even making good money in Silicon Valley I'm perpetually afraid of medical bankruptcy if something were to happen. And the cost of education here takes another 15% off my salary for schools far lower quality than in Finland.

[PopeDotNinja]

I had a six figure income in San Francisco & insurance, and still ended up medically bankrupt. Bike accident, head trauma, unable to work, work tied to job... employer sponsored healthcare sucks if your ability to work is compromised.

[pkaye]

Your employer didn't provide short/long term disability insurance?

[jjav]

Disability insurance provides a percentage of your salary while disabled. It does not provide medical insurance and often you'll get dropped by the company insurance because you're not working.

[soul_grafitti]

Do you live and work in America?

[pkaye]

Yes I do. If you have a six figure salary (or even a bit less), an employer will certainly buy a short/long term disability plan for their employees. Its a perk even small startups can afford.

Also California is unique among the states in that it runs a mandatory short term disability plan through payroll deductions but employers are able to buy enhanced plans which cover higher income thresholds.

[ryandrake]

Barring the few lucky people with those platinum-plated insurance policies, American workers with normal insurance are one random cancer diagnosis away from total bankruptcy. You can have a great salary, do everything right, be frugal, save in your 401k invest well——it all goes poof when you get sick. Honestly, I’d trade half my salary to not have to avoid the doctor because his diagnosis might ruin me.

[jlmorton]

There's an $8,500 annual maximum out-of-pocket per individual under ACA. That's a lot over several years, but it's not going to be retirement-destroying for most SV workers.

[geofft]

This is only true of Marketplace plans (which are, increasingly, very bad deals is you're not actively using your insurance - even back in 2015 when I was looking for Marketplace plans for myself, I could easily spend close to that amount on the premiums of plans that had high deductibles/coinsurance/etc. and it's not like the Marketplace has gotten more competitive since then), and I think it's only true of expenses that the insurance company is willing to cover - if you get treatment out of network, or if you get treatment beyond what's insured (e.g. you get "elective" surgery on the medical advice of your doctor to avoid a bigger problem later), I don't believe those are covered by the out-of-pocket max.

[jlmorton]

The out of pocket maximum also applies to non-grandfathered group insurance plans. There were some plans allowed to be grandfathered, so the plans wouldn't terminate as non-compliant, but in practice the vast majority of plans terminate every year, and essentially everyone with health insurance now has an $8,500 per individual annual out of pocket maximum. I'm sure if you look at your own insurance, you'll find $8,500 or less.

It's true this cap only applies to in-network, approved care. But that's the same under any health plan, whether universal, or not. For instance, Sovaldi and Harvoni are curative for hepatitis C, but it costs $50,000 for a 12-week course of treatment in the UK. There are 210,000 people with hepatitis in the UK, but the NHS only furnishes 10,000 courses of treatment per year. If you're not approved, you can't get it from the NHS, but you're free to buy it yourself, of course.

[camhart]

Don't most policies have a max out of pocket? Everyone I've seen/had did.

[jjav]

Out of pocket does not mean what normal people think it should mean. Your actual out of pocket can be far larger, up to unlimited.

First, every dollar you pay does not count towards the insurance company tally of "out of pocket". Often it is a tiny fraction. I've personally had years where my true out of pocket was in the several thousands but according to the insurance company my "out of pocket" was less than $100. With that kind of multiplier you can see one can easily spend many tens of thousands before reaching the nominal limit according to insurance company. How do they do this? Because they can and there's nothing to stop them.

Also, insurance plans have caps on what they'll pay. End up in the hospital for months and exceed the limits and it's all out of pocket, which can be in the millions.

Also, these don't include things like prescriptions. A friend (working at a FAANG in SV) spends about $50K/year out of pocket on medicines for chronic conditions.

[camhart]

"The current law bans annual dollar limits that all job-related plans and individual health insurance plans can put on most covered health benefits."

https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/benefit-limits/....

"The health care law stops insurance companies from limiting yearly or lifetime coverage expenses for essential health benefits."

https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/lifet...

I wonder what's included in "covered health benefits"/"essential health benefits" and what's not.

[disabled]

Well, wait until you get on Medicare. There are no maximum out-of-pocket limits with Medicare, unless you get a Medicare Advantage Plan (which is almost always an HMO).

Medical underwriting is permitted for Traditional Medicare Part B supplemental/Medigap plans, so pre-existing condition clauses apply, even with the Affordable Care Act.

In other words: once you go on a Medicare Advantage Plan (an HMO) you can never truly go back to traditional Medicare.

If you have cancer or a rare disease (it's not uncommon to have a rare disease--about 7% of the general population collectively has some sort of rare disease) you likely cannot risk being on an HMO if you want to stay alive.

I have 2 rare immune-mediated neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system, and I have traditional Medicare. I require a blood product, called subcutaneous immunoglobulin (administered in that form--it is the only medication that has ever worked for me and has put me in pharmaceutical remission).

If I come back to the United States, I can expect to pay $50,000+/year for my healthcare (mostly due to the subcutaneous immunoglobulin) due to something called the Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage level.

A lot of people, and I mean a lot, get screwed due to the part D catastrophic coverage level. Actually, because of this "program" I never plan on living/working in the US ever again, unless things drastically change.

[thehappypm]

Yes. Out of pocket maxima are extremely common—basically the reverse side of high deductibles.

The parent is fearmongering for some reason. The real scenario is a 2-3 year illness that takes you out of work so long that your lose your employer sponsored plan, have to hoof it with whatever ACA plan you can find, and not have income in the interim.

[ciarannolan]

You're "making good money in Silicon Valley" and don't have health insurance? Are you freelancing and choosing not to purchase insurance?

[bleepblorp]

The overwhelming majority of Americans who experience medical bankruptcy have health insurance.

[purerandomness]

You're obviously not from the US.

In the US, they have this concept of a "pre-existing condition", and depending on your situation, a health insurance might cover it, or not, as far as I understand.

Even making good money in SV, you can still end up with a medical bankruptcy (or your family, for that matter).

[sgerenser]

Since the ACA became law in the US (10 years ago) all health insurance has to cover preexisting conditions.

[ciarannolan]

You're about a decade late with this comment.

Just like I won't expound on German healthcare policy, maybe you should reserve judgement on US healthcare policy until you actually know what you're talking about.

[misterpigs]

You're assuming that whatever you're stricken with leaves you in good enough health to continue working.

[refurb]

But that’s true in Canada as well. The medical expenses might not bankrupt you, but not being able to work will.

https://bankruptcy-canada.com/bankruptcy/causes-of-bankruptc...

[refurb]

You work in Silicon Valley, have good insurance and you’re worried about medical bankruptcy?

I was in the same shoes as you and had zero concerns about it (yes I realized that a very lucky position to be in). Even if I had something horrible happen my max out of pocket was like $4k for the year with no limit to coverage.

If I lost my job, had zero income and no insurance I’d qualify for Medi-cal.

[tclancy]

How did it go when you had a really serious medical situation? My eye opener was my first programming job when one of the owners had twins with really serious health problems at birth. Turned out a million dollars was the cap the insurance was willing to cough up for them.

[klipt]

I think lifetime caps are now illegal thanks to Obamacare?

[refurb]

No more lifetime caps.

[reader_mode]

>Even making good money in Silicon Valley I'm perpetually afraid of medical bankruptcy if something were to happen.

Let me get this straight - you are covered by medical insurance (assuming on "making good money"), and you're "perpetually afraid" that you will be forced in to bankruptcy after being treated for life threatening condition ? Not the fact that you'll first need to have a life threatening condition that requires a huge amount of money to treat, which you will need to overcome to get to the bankruptcy part, but the fact that you'll need to go through bankruptcy afterwards ?

I mean there are ways to hedge against that scenario if you have the money and are really afraid of it - maybe start treating family better and share your money so you have a support network to fall back to if you get in to such situations, or work on building it - going through those scenarios alone is going to suck without it - ignoring social safety net and economic factors.

You people make it seem like bankruptcy is worse than death.

[didip]

It is a very legitimate concern. All it takes is one cancer.

[geofft]

This is an entirely reasonable concern and I agree with it. If you're not in the US (or you're young / otherwise don't know people with horror stories) it may not make sense to you, and yes, it's awful that it's realistic, but it's still realistic.

1. Coverage by medical insurance, in the US, does not generally translate to 100% coverage. For a variety of reasons, including coinsurance, copays, out-of-network coverage (especially common if there's some sort of emergency), in-network coverage beyond what's covered (e.g., the doctor says "this is medically necessary" and some bureaucrat at the insurance company says "I disagree"), and so forth, you can have a medical insurance plan and still be on the hook for large amounts of money.

(I don't think you implied this, but just to clarify, "making good money" is typically not strongly correlated with having good insurance. Because of how byzantine medical insurance is, it's hard for a potential employee to figure out what their offered benefits will actually cover, so it's generally not a factor in negotiations at all, unlike actual salary, and in turn higher-paying employers don't have a particularly strong reason to offer better insurance plans.)

2. You can have a "life-threatening condition" that is easily manageable via modern medicine. Take diabetes, for instance - life-threatening if unmanaged, but very well-understood in how to manage it. I have a friend with a chronic condition that requires taking an (expensive, only partially covered by high-tech-employee insurance plans) injection once a month. As long as they take that injection they're fine; their body becomes effectively unusable without it. I know multiple people who have beaten cancer; I don't think any of them would say that the actual process of beating it was easy (or cheap). The whole reason you care about medical care is so that "life-threatening conditions" stop being life-threatening.

Also, we have this pandemic going around which absolutely can be life-threatening, but even among the people who get very sick with it, many of them come out of it fine provided they have immediate high-quality medical care.

3. Beyond the assumption that the person you're replying to is treating family poorly... the amounts of money in question are generally larger than can even be pooled across many family members and large support networks, even if they all have substantial savings on their own. And even if technically I can manage to pay off a medical bill by exhausting my life savings and those of my extended family, what happens when someone else in the family gets sick?

[reader_mode]

Coverage issues happen in EU with public insurance as well - years back one of my coworkers son had an eye tumour, the experts in country didn't want to treat him because they knew their equipment wasn't precise enough to treat it without blinding him, the medical insurance would not cover out-of-country treatment because the procedure could be performed in-country. He ended up asking for charity to pay for it out of pocket (can't cash out retirement fund). Another coworker needed to get a private surgeon for his father because he was old and the waiting list on cardiac surgery was months, he was not a priority because age/condition.

I don't understand how those amounts can be larger than you can pool from a support network if you have insurance. Even if you lose your job/insurance your spouse can cover you ?

[kaitai]

My friend in graduate school (making $18k a year) had a baby who had some complications; the final bill was $1.5 million dollars. She was an immigrant from the Caribbean; her family there was reasonably paid by national standards there, but... $1.5 million is a lot to cover. And remember, the spouse can't cover you unless you're registered on their insurance.

A few weeks in the NICU and a couple surgeries and there you are, and there is no 'lifestyle change' that really can prevent that sort of thing.

[usr1106]

Having lived in several European countries I'd say Finland has probably one of the weaker health care systems.

* every legal resident has access to basic health care in their own municipality. A visit costs around 30 euros, max 700 euros a year (Which is a lot compared to Germany, cheap compared to the US). Queues can be long, several weeks. Negotiation skills help, but as a foreigner you might get blocked completely as a trouble maker if you think to negotiate in English

* nearly everybody with a full employment contract has basic health care coverage by their employer at a private provider. Normally you get an appointment the next day or so and you pay absolutely nothing. So most employed people just skip their "free" public health care, because it is worse. Yes, the employement health care is subsidized by tax money (although they are cutting back). This is not mandatory, so the details especially for mor expensive treatments and examinations vary a bit. When your employer stops paying you need to fall back to public service or pay yourself.

* for kids around 50% have private insurance to avoid the queing at the public service

* medicines are expensive compared to Germany, but cheap compared to market prices. Well, basically they are covered by the public health insurance, but the compensation is far from 100%, own contribution max 600 euros a year.

* hospital care is 50 euros a day, max 700 a year. There can be some queues, but for acute cases there should be no problem. (Non-acute cases can be a pain.)

In real serious cases the 1500 or so Euros you pay a year is of course cheap compared to complete bankruptcy or even remaining without good treatment. Being relatively healthy paying several 100 Euros a year is more than you would pay in many European countries with a public health insurance systems.

[djhn]

Actual data from OECD is available, so we don't have to rely on anecdotes.

It is by far not "one of the weaker health care systems".

https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-care-quali...

[usr1106]

> one of the weaker health care systems

Definitely not worldwide, maybe not even over whole Europe. I said of several European countries that I have experience of. That's a huge difference.

Remember the old saying: Don't believe any statics that you have not manipulated yourself.

Fact is that even OECD statistics about Finland is made by Finns. And Finns take a lot of pride in having their country look well internationally. The whole 90 day program is such a sign. Systematic doping in skiing happened over decades. After a big scandal in 2001 when it became public results have been much more mixed.

Normally these good international rankings are celebrated by the press. When the first World Happiness Report win came 2 or 3 years ago, for the first time the reactions were mixed: Local social research could not really find any explanation. Happiness is certainly not noted in the country on a regular basis.

My daugther, grown up in Finland, showed me the explanation posted on her social media channels: All those who are not happy are driven into suicide and no longer count.

While I don't say that that's the truth, there is a background to the cynicism: Suicide rates in Finland are 50% [1] higher than in Sweden, which is pretty close. Some say a neighbor country, but that might exaggerated because there is a sea in between.

Remember Nokia being the world leader in mobile phones? Less than a decade later they were out of business. All the time they were hiring those best engineers in the world...

I am far from claiming that everything is bad in Finland. But I have learned that these international comparison studies have to be taken with extreme caution. They report things that you don't necessarily see in your daily life, when you see people just not getting that doctor appointment.

Edit:

[1] That figure is either 20 years old or covers just young adult males. I cannot find fresh reliable figures now. But there has always been significant difference. OECD wrote: "Suicide rates in Finland fell by 25.8% from 2000 to 2011 compared to the OECD average reduction of 7% over the same period, and are still falling. Despite this impressive fall, Finland’s suicide ratesremain one of the highest in the OECD."

[enra]

> Then the first World Happiness Report win came 2 or 3 years ago, for the first time the reactions were mixed: Local social research could not really find any explanation. Happiness is certainly not noted in the country on a regular basis.

What I remember reading about this is that the researchers pointed out that there are cultural differences, so "happiness report" has to normalize for it. For example Americans often talk how happy or unhappy they are, or how much they "love" something, but Finns don't generally think this way or almost ever say "I'm happy (olen onnellinen)". There is also a certain cultural modesty, so in conversations you rarely make extreme statements like "I'm really happy" which could make you seem superior to others, you would rather say something like "things are good". I think what the happiness report concluded that while many people don't state or show extreme joyful happiness, many are more content or in peace with their life and have less anxiety.

That's my personal observation following my friends or family in Finland and comparing that to friends and family in California. See that people in US have more extreme need to achieve, work very long hours, compete and be better than others, be joyful constantly, but also have lot of fear and anxiety, especially when it comes to children. Many of my Finnish friends have both parents working and they have to do very little for the kids schooling. Kids go to the school by themselves and are expected to do their homework by themselves.

In US one of the parents have to be almost 100% homemaker and even then it's a lot to raise a family since you get very little help from the society. They also more have worries and anxiety of their own future and their children futures. Are they safe? If they get sick will do we afford healthcare? Can they get educated? Can they get a job and live good life? Can I retire when you need to? The competitiveness even seeks in to the very first years of the children's life where in Finland you don't even get grades and there are no standardized testing until you're 18.

In Finland, people might have similar fears or anxiety, but in lesser degree since most of those situations are covered by the society.

[deanclatworthy]

This is very accurate and has been my experience too. Public has been great when acute (broken limbs) and frustratingly slow with chronic but dehabilitating conditions.

[zooweemama]

I live in Finland and can confirm that this accurate.

[refurb]

Thanks for sharing these details. It’s always interesting to read what the system is like on a day to day basis versus talking about “universal care” as if every system is identical.

[ksdale]

If these numbers are correct, the payroll taxes total about 13% higher than American payroll taxes, but if you add in what Americans pay for the health insurance that’s presumably included in one of these taxes, it’s probably fairly similar. 20-30% is a very normal marginal American tax rate, and the VAT is high (looks like it may be lower for certain things), but not ridiculous compared to a lot of American state income taxes (Since the income tax is on income and not just consumption). I’m skeptical of a halving of disposable income, especially for someone moving from somewhere like California.

[Sharlin]

> (looks like it may be lower for certain things)

Namely, 14% for food (both groceries and restaurant, excl. alcohol), 10% for books, exercise services like gyms, culture/entertainment tickets, hotel accommodation, public transit, and over-the-counter drugs (prescription drugs are heavily subsidized by the state).

[ashtonkem]

14% for food is quite high, but I've personally lived in two cities with a 10.25% sales tax (Chicago & Santa Monica); so that's not far out of line with at least some American cities.

[tbrake]

Ah yes, a healthier, better educated populace - the historic marker of a society in decline.

[voidmain0001]

Thank you for that belly laugh!

[Jommi]

As an engineer you're already going to be making enough money to be comfortable in Finland for the rest of your life. In addition to that, there is no stress from minmaxing your whole life like in USA. Real life isn't diablo, you're supposed to enjoy it.

There's a reason Finland tops satisfaction/happiness charts every single time.

I think it says a lot about the person on how they value these decisions

[disabled]

> Still worth it for 'free' education and 'free' healthcare?

Yes. The taxes are worth it, for a stable society.

This US 2020 election:

An Associated Press analysis reveals that in 376 counties with the highest number of new cases per capita, the overwhelming majority — 93% of those counties — went for Trump, a rate above other less severely hit areas.: https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-coronavirus...

2016 US election (there are multiple studies on it but there was one from Boston University public health that was the most revealing): Study: Communities Most Affected By Opioid Epidemic Also Voted For Trump: https://www.npr.org/2016/12/17/505965420/study-communities-m...

I am a dual US|Croatian (European Union) citizen. I happily pay Croatian taxes, just for the stability. I don’t have to worry about amassing a huge amount of savings for retirement as an EU citizen and I can work/live/retire in 30+ countries. (By the way, if you save for retirement, in the millions range, it may not pay for your cancer or rare disease treatment, even if covered by insurance, due to Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage level. I know this because my out-of-pocket responsibility for my blood product costs $50,000+/year under Medicare Part D, under catastrophic coverage level. 7% of the general population has some sort of a rare disease and obviously cancer is a common diagnosis)

> Also a lot of cold and darkness.

Well, I’m from Seattle and I have to say, you eventually get used to the dreariness, cold, and darkness.

[sterlind]

Yeah, that sounds like a good trade to me. Having free education and free healthcare means I can take risks and join a start-up or get another degree, rather than worrying about losing my coverage and getting sick from my chronic illness. Also I love the sound of the language, and would like to learn it, and the cold never bothered me anyway.

[jperras]

> Still worth it for 'free' education and 'free' healthcare?

Yes.

[peterburkimsher]

Yes, because I'd rather live in a society where everyone has a decent education, instead of segregating the population based on who can pay to become smarter.

[gitgud]

Perfectly sums up my feelings.

Sidenote: I would have the internet would have made paying for education obsolete... But it seems information and education are not equivalent...

[fapi1974]

Yes.

[todsul]

There are certainly downsides to living in Finland, but you picked a poor comparison in taxes. Taxes in the US are NOT low. Income tax is only one of many taxes in the US. In some states/cities, your property tax can exceed income tax. My state has extremely high taxes on cars too. It all adds up to a lot of money and a relatively high total tax rate. I wouldn't be surprised it a significant number of people in the US have a higher total tax rate than the Finnish average. Of course you can choose low-tax states, but the US as a whole certainly isn't some sort of tax haven.

[usr1106]

Not an expert an the area, but from what I read the US is a tax heaven for the super rich, Finland certainly is not. Progressive tax rates are high. There are creative ways to get your (should I say their?) income avoiding progression, then it's flat 30%.

Both are taxing the normal mortals, Finland probably slightly higher.

[tipiirai]

I live in Helsinki. People here are generally happy to pay the taxes to get all the good stuff from the goverment. I would personally support higher tax levels.

[stevekemp]

I moved to Helsinki from Edinburgh, my taxes are higher here in Finland than they were in Scotland but I don't complain.

The public transport, the child-friendly facilities, and similar things make me "happy" to pay.

Lovely city and I regret nothing about my time here.

[dkdk8283]

Personally I’m against higher tax: I’ve paid a lot in and gotten very little out.

[tipiirai]

In Finland?

[shitgoose]

anywhere

[trynewideas]

> Take your American disposable income and cut it in half.

Cancer already takes all of it here, tyvm, so I'd gladly like to see half of it back.

[jrockway]

I am not sure that this is much worse than the US. The government gets about 44% of what it costs to employ me (that is, I'm including taxes that the employer pays the government, but come before the negotiated salary, if that makes any sense). I then pay about 9% tax on everything I buy (8.875% technically). This doesn't include any healthcare, housing, food, or savings for my retirement.

The cost of having a society is high. The big difference between Europe and the US is that there is some sort of safety net if you become unable to work. Here, you get a cardboard box under the highway and a stern lecture to try harder next time from a 104-year-old politician that's never had a real job in their life. It's good when it's good, but it can get bad fast.

[elviejo]

Hell yes!!

In other posts people are complaining about the homeless people living in SF...

you know how you avoid homeless persons?? by having taxes paid healthcare (there is no free), taxes paid education, taxes paid home support.

[ghufran_syed]

living in a place too cold to survive on the street probably makes a difference too...

[artursilva]

I mean if you do the math on it, it's a lower upfront cost for everyone with insurance that you won't be bankrupted by chance, thus creating more stable more incremental wealth.

So it depends, but as a general policy it's far more sensible to have stability than not.

The question should be whether we could lower those costs (taxes) and still have the free education and free healthcare, and if so what are the compromises to be made in order to do that.

Remember it's not a zero sum game, which means a nation can start to produce wealth or save on costs, bringing up efficiency and lowering the required taxes per person to deliver the same goods and service.

The real problem is corruption, and inefficiencies.

[6177c40f]

Would you not be saving (or at least not spending more) money by not having to pay for your healthcare needs. Besides the fact that if the rents really are cheap, then that would also be a huge savings for a lot of people.

[distances]

Rents are not cheap, except maybe if compared to SF.

[kaitai]

Hey, when I was paying $14k/year for childcare... yep. Now I'm only paying like $8k/yr for childcare. If I had two-three kids, Finland would be an easy financial win. And just think about college there!

My sib went there for grad school because of the finances & stayed. Thinking about following.

[msh]

Why do you put free in quotes?

Weather its wort it is still a personal question, but my education was certainly free including my masters degree (I even got paid a stipend to study like everyone else).

[jusssi]

Your list has some inaccuracies and omissions.

There are also quite significant 14% (e.g. groceries, restaurants) and 10% (some specific services) VAT categories.

Most of employer payroll "tax" (~18%) and employee payroll "tax" (8.4%) is actually mandatory pension fund payments and counts toward your accumulated pension.

Many people choose to pay the 1% church tax, even though it is entirely optional (most of those people participate in any church stuff only for weddings and funerals).

We also pay ridiculously high taxes for cars and fuel, tobacco and alcohol.

Additional things we get for our taxes:

* 'free' defense against our eastern neighbor (we only have to pay with our blood, if they ever decide to try again)

* 'free' mental health care and basic necessities for the crazies in the subway, so I don't have to be their therapist and they're slightly less likely to murder me for my pants

* 'free' police force who are respected by the society, rarely need to resort to lethal force, and don't get to keep the money from traffic tickets and impounded property

* 'free' elections, with no armed mobs demanding the vote to be changed to their desires

* 'free' air conditioning, just open a window (also there's no need to pay for sunblock, you won't need it)

[theshrike79]

4-5 weeks paid vacation. No "sick days" to keep track of, if you're sick you still get paid.

It's only dark half the year, the other half is all light all the time.

[speedgoose]

Yes, definitely.

If you only think about you and your family, in this system you can also be sure that your children will have access to free education and free health care, and your grandchildren too.

It's also nice to live in a society where everyone has access to free education and free healthcare. The inequalities are not as big and it benefits you indirectly.

[eepp]

> Still worth it for 'free' education and 'free' healthcare?

Yes.

[fogihujy]

> Still worth it for 'free' education and 'free' healthcare?

For me? Yes. Without the shadow of a doubt. I'd stay out of Helsinki, though. Too many people! :D

[params]

That's funny, because when viewing those numbers from a Swedish perspective they're not that controversive or high. I would go so far and say that they're below medium, some of them reaching low. I would get to keep so much more of my salary in Finland, since my income tax is at around 40% here in Sweden. Add to that all the other kreeping taxes added over time.

I love Sweden tho, no tax can change that ;)

[briffle]

I pay federal and state income tax, plus my employer pays payroll taxes, plus property tax. My state has no sales tax, but pretty high property tax. Plus, my employer and I pay about $1800 a month for healthcare, plus a few hundred a month in student loans. My disposable american income is probably much less..

[quickthrower2]

I don't see this as a relocation opportunity. It sounds like a travel opportunity. I think digital nomads will go for this, then that's 90 days of those tax levels, which makes no difference as they are optimising for experience not income (otherwise they'd stay working onsite for a FAANG)

[hyeomans]

Yes. Come and live in a banana republic and it will be worth it.

[markdown]

> Take your American disposable income and cut it in half.

All that disposable income but no vacation time to spend it.

[cpach]

It used to be that tech employees in the US had very few vacation days compared to people in Europe. However, AFAICT now the FAANG companies seem to offer more vacation days and it seems to get closer to what is typical for Europe.

[conanbatt]

You can take all the vacations you want if you have money

[donkey-hotei]

Yes.

[ponker]

I doubt the co-founder of Webflow gives a crap.

[hestefisk]

I’d take higher taxes and welfare state over Trump and American private health payer system any day.