[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.

[Retric]

The USSR acted as a serious meat grinder, but a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front which also included polish forces and the USSR had minimal impact on the Pacific front.

The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight via lend lease. To the tune of about $575 billion inflation adjusted, and 22% of that going directly to the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

So, the USSR played a significant role, but where far less effective than your suggesting.

[D_Alex]

>a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front

Where did you get this from? According to Wikipedia, and most other sources, 70-80% of German military casualties were on the Eastern Front.

>The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight...

More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled.

>the USSR played a significant role

...far greater than what you are suggesting.

[enriquto]

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

It is extremely callous to Finland to put it that way!

The USSR attacked Finland while Germany and the USSR were allies against Poland. Understandably, Finland defended itself from this attack and entered into a defensive war with the USSR. Two years later, while this war was still going on, Germany attacked its ally the USSR. Thus Germany and Finland became allies by accident, because they were both fighting the same country. As the Russians started defeating Germany, the Finns expelled the (very few) German troops that they had allowed into their territory, who had to escape to Norway (still occupied by Germany) through the north.

[mapgrep]

You are wildly incorrect. The Winter War ended well before the Continuation War began. See: The Treaty of Moscow. And it was not just a few German troops. Finland served as a staging point for a major if unsuccessful assault on Murmansk. More important, the Finnish invasion (and taking of Karelia) helped tie down Soviet forces near Leningrad. The alliance was eagerly sought by Finnish politicians convinced (not unreasonably) the Soviets would attack after many months of belligerence toward the Finnish ambassador by Molotov. But they were also convinced that Germany would inevitably defeat USSR and usher in a New Europe (code for fascist Europe - long racist toward Russians, the Finns relished the fraternal ties to Germany and the privileged place they could assume in this new world order).

Finnish leaders actually served time in prison after the war for their war crimes. I am sympathetic to Finlands position but to say the Winter War never ended is an absurd falsehood. An entire book was written about the period between the wars by AF Upton. Finland In Crisis. It is superb. It details extensive deliberate planning at the highest levels between Finland and Germany for months prior to Germany turning on its then ally USSR.

(Here’s a quiz for you. If it was only a few German troops in Finland who quickly left, why is it they burned so much of the north and center of the country e.g. Rovaneimi on their way out and why did Finland have to fight them to get them to leave? They were dug in in bases supplied by Finland.)

[refurb]

Yes, the USSR paid a very high price for the defeat of Germany. And yes, the US and UK could have stayed out of it and the USSR would have rolled up to the Atlantic Ocean and we'd be talking about the amazing growth of the Finnish economy since it's independence from the USSR in 1990.

[rsj_hn]

It's unlikely that the USSR would have been able to defeat Germany on its own. In addition to opening a second front in Italy and a third front in France, and sharing military designs to improve Soviet tanks - direct US aid included:

"more than 400,000 vehicles, 14,000 aircraft, 13,000 battle tanks, gasoline and explosives, and thousands of radio sets and motorcycles, as well as food, blankets, machine tools, factory equipment, and boots. The U.S. had provided 55% of the aluminum and 80% of the copper used by the Soviets."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/06/lendlease_h...

[kebman]

> Ww2 in Europe was largely won by the USSR.

fourstar isn't denying that. Yet the sacrifice of the USSR did not entitle them to hegemony over the free world. Instead it merely saved them and us.

[timsally]

> Ww2 in Europe was largely won by the USSR.

This comment is unrelated to the discussion you are replying to, but I'll give it a brief response. First, all you need to know about whether the Soviet efforts in WW2 and the American efforts in WW2 were better for Europe is to consider the outcomes of East and West Germany. Second, I have serious doubts whether the USSR alone could have prevailed against Germany and Japan. But as to whether the US and the UK could have, you need only ask Oppenheimer.

[Cocktail]

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

Key ally how? Beyond diverting troops from the southern front to the finnish theater, how did finland contribute to the german war effort? You also seem to forget that then leader marshall mannerheim refused to advance on key cities in the north, such as st. petersburg and petroskoi even though hitler was quite insistent.

[refurb]

Finland was basically blocking the Northern approach during the Siege of Leningrad which lasted 2.5 years and killed almost a million Russians.

[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?

[timsally]

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

Should we ask the founder in South Africa who was able to recruit the right technical talent and hold a majority share of a private rocket/satellite company while remaining in South Africa?

[Teever]

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

[timsally]

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

Exactly my point. If you want to start a company as ambitious as SpaceX, the US is the only place to do it. If you do it somewhere else, you incur serious risk of getting a large chunk of the company seized/taxed, even if you are successful.

[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.

[eru]

> 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.

You are mixing up two things. First, Singapore doesn't have minimum wages for locals. There are much more interventionist for foreigners: there are different visa categories, and they come with restrictions like minimum salaries and various levies etc.

(And that's independent of any critique of the notion that outlawing jobs for people with low productivity does them a favour.

Interestingly, Finland also doesn't have a universal minimum wage. Just like my native Germany didn't use to have one.)

But yes, you are right to remind me that the EU is rather big and has parts that are much poorer than Finland where the Fins might draw construction workers.

About cars: for most people they are status objects here. There's more of a real need for cars for people with lots of kids, but even there ride hailing has gotten much more convenient in the last decade.

About the costs: the well to do foreigners that can afford private schools are also exactly those that the country is most open to offering permanent residency and citizenship to.

[dharma1]

You are right, Finland doesn't have universal minimum salary, but it does have a similar, interesting state sanctioned relic - most industries with unions have a union enforced, national minimum salary for their industry - this includes construction, hospitality, manufacturing etc. It has been criticised for creating lack of flexibility in the job market - perhaps so, I don't have a strong opinion.

Absolutely right that Singapore wants to primarily attract foreigners longer term who won't place a burden on the already stretched public services (state provided housing or schooling). Though even for many of them PR/citizenship can be a long, long time away.

Helsinki should also increase capacity of English speaking private schools to attract well-to do foreigners interested in living in Helsinki, that's one of the things this "City as a Service" plan isn't able to arrange at scale right now - there are simply not enough places since there are only 1-2 private schools for English speaking kids.

The tax situation couldn't be much different between the two, but beyond that I think both countries offer a high quality of living and a vibrant tech sector. Also, for people running their own companies there are always ways to plan your tax affairs, regardless of where you live.

[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.

[enriquto]

> to constantly use 20% of my brain when out in a cafe to keep an eye

Same thing for me. Singapore would stress the heck out of me, I'd have to constantly use 20% of my brain on whether I can drink that coffee or it is an illegal substance and police will just casually murder me. No way I'm setting foot on that crazy hellhole.

[eru]

Huh? The police doesn't just casually murder people, we have the rule of law and all that.

Most other places have illegal substances as well. It's just that the list differs from place to place.

There's no capital punishment for consuming illicit drugs here. That's reserved for dealing. (And in any case, there's no penalty for consuming anything by accident.)

It's all fairly boring. If you are set on wanting to be stressed out, you'd have an easier time complaining about long working hours in local companies. (Working for multinationals is fine.) See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiasu

It's a legitimate position that you want more drugs to be legal. But it's rather weird to clad your complaint in the words of stress.

[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?”.

[refurb]

That's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is "If black people are an underclass in the US, then why did a majority of them vote one of the "underclass" in as President?"

Which I think is a valid point.

Could you see an Algerian voted in as President of France?

[eru]

To be extra pedantic, Barack Obama ain't a classic African-American. His dad came to America as an immigrant.

Recent migrants with black skin seem to do much better than African-Americans who ancestors have been in the US for generations. Feel free to insert your own speculations as to why.

[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?

[labster]

Yes, the US military is obligated to defend Europe under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

[h0l0cube]

Techinically, you are right, but as with the treaty with Iran[0], or the Paris Agreement[1], etc. the US can leave. The US can basically do what it wants, and the political consequences are relatively minor.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Withdrawal_fro...

[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?

[Sharlin]

Oops, of course. Good point!

[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.

[disabled]

Worst case scenario, you go abroad within the EU for that, and pay out of pocket. You just make sure to vet out the dentists well. Italians often go to Croatia for dental care. But, Poland has good cheap dental care too.

[eru]

Hence me saying 'on average'. In a sane country, you can use insurance to convert variable payments into average payments (plus a bit of overhead).

Or, you just self-insure for dental, if you make a reasonable amount of money or have some savings.

(It's much more feasible for dental where the realistic maximum amounts are still quite small, compared to cancer treatment or similar.)

[herbstein]

> In a sane country, you can use insurance to convert variable payments into average payments

Consider tax paid healthcare to be a public insurance plan that doesn't need to skim billion dollar profits from their "customers" then.

[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.

[whitexn--g28h]

You absolutely pay for roads on a usage basis [1] unless you drive an electric car.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...

[ejolto]

That's not paying for roads, that's paying for fuel. You would be paying those fuel taxes even if you were only driving on your own private roads.

[seanmcdirmid]

The gas tax hasn’t covered the cost of road maintenance since the 80s.

[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.

[refurb]

It came across as very lazy and cynical.

[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?

[distances]

But the US citizen will have to save for retirement and kids' potential university education out of the remaining part, correct?

For such a middle class person Europe is likely to be better / more stable economically. Single software engineer will surely have it financially much better in the US though.

[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"...