7 ms·

> "The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship," Partanen wrote for The Atlantic in 2016. "This is what Americans fail to

> "The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship," Partanen wrote for The Atlantic in 2016. "This is what Americans fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch services for me." This is an odd statement to me. Any wealth redistribution system has both "givers" and "receivers". What do the "givers" in Nordic countries actually think? Do the the "givers" share this perspective that the system isn't altruistic? Or do they not consider this money theirs? Are they conditioned by a young age to see themselves as "receivers"? Or do they not think about which they are, and prefer the ambiguity? Or are they silenced? I'm very curious to hear a "giver's" perspective, because this sounds a bit brain-washy to me.

jlarsson89 9y ago
As a Nordic citizen, I'm torn between believing that everyone, citizen or not, should have the same rights to healthcare, an education, transport, telecommunication and so on and that by enforcing this system we have effectively cut off the possibility of private services within those fields that some may need or prefer, specifically healthcare to get appointments at their own leisure rather than being assigned one that you're practically force to abide by or the ability to privately tutor kids rather than sending them to a public school that doesn't necessarily fulfil their needs or potential. That said, I much prefer the system of everyone having the same basic rights at a very affordable rate than potentially having to struggle to live a decent life at the expense of getting a better service if you happen to be able to afford it.
- SnowProblem 9y ago
  Thank you. I can definitely understand that. It's nice that we live in a world with different systems, and can see the pros/cons and learn from each other.
jernfrost 9y ago
The point was that a lot of the redistribution is in principle just moving money from the the working age self to the young and older self. I pay taxes which funds students today but I get that back later when other fund my kids to go to university. The point is that the bulk of the money is paid by the middle class for services used by the middle class. You pay more in some stages of your life than you receive but you get more back in other stages. That was the finnish point of looking at this hollistically.
- SnowProblem 9y ago
  That makes a lot of sense now, thanks. I think the point about people being givers and receivers at different periods in life is a good one. Americans who are fortunate do this at the family level, but obviously many cannot.
Moenghus 9y ago
Pretty sure I would count as a "Giver" and a fairly average one. There are knock-on effects of living in a system with less desperation such as lower crime rates, better infrastructure, and more opportunity which is enjoyed by everyone. The "givers" in your example would in all likelihood not have been givers their entire life. They will have been educated at a university, gotten their first job when someone was off for a year on maternity leave, etc.
- SnowProblem 9y ago
  Thanks your sharing your experience. That's a great point, about people being givers and receivers at different points in their life. I hadn't heard that perspective.

jlarsson89 9y ago

As a Nordic citizen, I'm torn between believing that everyone, citizen or not, should have the same rights to healthcare, an education, transport, telecommunication and so on and that by enforcing this system we have effectively cut off the possibility of private services within those fields that some may need or prefer, specifically healthcare to get appointments at their own leisure rather than being assigned one that you're practically force to abide by or the ability to privately tutor kids rather than sending them to a public school that doesn't necessarily fulfil their needs or potential. That said, I much prefer the system of everyone having the same basic rights at a very affordable rate than potentially having to struggle to live a decent life at the expense of getting a better service if you happen to be able to afford it.

SnowProblem 9y ago
Thank you. I can definitely understand that. It's nice that we live in a world with different systems, and can see the pros/cons and learn from each other.

jernfrost 9y ago

The point was that a lot of the redistribution is in principle just moving money from the the working age self to the young and older self. I pay taxes which funds students today but I get that back later when other fund my kids to go to university. The point is that the bulk of the money is paid by the middle class for services used by the middle class. You pay more in some stages of your life than you receive but you get more back in other stages. That was the finnish point of looking at this hollistically.

SnowProblem 9y ago
That makes a lot of sense now, thanks. I think the point about people being givers and receivers at different periods in life is a good one. Americans who are fortunate do this at the family level, but obviously many cannot.

Moenghus 9y ago

Pretty sure I would count as a "Giver" and a fairly average one. There are knock-on effects of living in a system with less desperation such as lower crime rates, better infrastructure, and more opportunity which is enjoyed by everyone. The "givers" in your example would in all likelihood not have been givers their entire life. They will have been educated at a university, gotten their first job when someone was off for a year on maternity leave, etc.

SnowProblem 9y ago
Thanks your sharing your experience. That's a great point, about people being givers and receivers at different points in their life. I hadn't heard that perspective.