Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Taxes Lead Angry Birds Maker Rovio To Consider Move To Ireland

Posted by timothy on from the actually-it's-the-delicious-green-weather dept.

jones_supa writes with this news, straight from The Irish Times: "Rovio, the Finnish company behind Angry Birds, is considering moving its headquarters to Ireland, chief executive Mikael Hed has said. Rovio employs approximately 400 people, mostly in Finland, but Rovio is in contact with IDA Ireland about establishing headquarters here. The reason for the move would be corporation tax rate, which in Finland is 24.5%, while Ireland's rate is 12.5%. Companies such as Google and Facebook have also set up European headquarter operations in Dublin for the same reason. Hed said that if the decision was made to move to Ireland, the company would then decide exactly what elements of its operations would move. 'If we did make that decision then it would be a natural thing to do to have some production [in Ireland] also.'"

42 of 626 comments (clear)

  1. What will the complaints be... by QQBoss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if they will approach the level of condemnation that Saverin received for giving up his USA citizenship first before the IPO?

    1. Re:What will the complaints be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      cost reductions *rarely* result in lower retail prices -- they *always* increase profits, though.

      Increased profits result in increased competition.

      Increased competition results in lower retail prices.

    2. Re:What will the complaints be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah, that worked really good for ma bell.

      Let me guess, you're not old enough to actually remember Ma Bell.

      I am old enough, and I remember having to rush through long-distance (and even local) calls, so they wouldn't end up costing a fortune. That was when Ma Bell was a legal monopoly and didn't have to worry about competition.

      Prices dropped dramatically once competition was allowed in.

    3. Re:What will the complaints be... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No consumers will not see savings. Trickle down was never about consumer prices. However that money will be reinvested into the company to allow the company to grow, and hire more people.

      Trickle Downs failure like a lot of political mumbo jumbo is because it is too simplistic model for an advanced system.

      Trickle Down is part of a well balanced economy. Too much of it will just hurt because the company will make too much profit and will have less incentive to grow. Thus pocketing the money.
      Too Little, then the company is forced to pay taxes for services that they don't need and have the government holding them back, because they need to give the poor there "fare share" even though they are not going out on the line risking their money, and working really hard to get where they were.

      Like real life you need balance. The more complicated the system the more factors you need to balance and often it is more then left right you need to balance but up down and forward and backwards too...

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:What will the complaints be... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of this is by design. Creators should be able to profit from their work for a while, which is why we have patent / copyright laws.

      This is a misconception. Patents don't exist to help inventors profit from their invention. They exist to encourage inventors to reveal the technical brilliance behind their inventions to the rest of society, thus benefiting society at large. That's why they exist. In order to lure the brilliant people at Angry Boids to tip the hand of their overwhelming genius to the eternal benefit of a grateful society, they are offered by the government a time-limited monopoly. Not all inventors opt in, e.g. Google.

      Patents are not issued to help inventors make money or profit from their invention. They're issued to further progress in the useful arts and sciences.

      It's an important distinction. If the patent system doesn't have the effect of advancing the useful arts and sciences, then the patents should not be issued and the inventor be damned.

      This goes to the heart of the software patent debate. Do software patents advance the useful arts and sciences? In fact, they impede them. So they should stop being issued and those issued should be nullified. What about the inventors profiting from their work? That is not the concern of the government or the patent system.

    5. Re:What will the complaints be... by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "However that money will be reinvested into the company to allow the company to grow, and hire more people."

      Assumption. And even if that's what's being said, it's a rationalization. Effective tax rates for corporations are at the lowest they've been for decades. Many industries, like the aforementioned oil industry, are enjoying record profits and sitting on mountains of cash.

      And yet job creation is at a standstill. If giving more money to the rich "creates jobs", everyone would be employed by now. They're not.

      In all likelihood, the extra profit will sit on the companies books or be doled out to upper management in the form of bonuses and other executive perks. The only "reinvestment" likely to occur is in yet another Ferrari.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    6. Re:What will the complaints be... by Skal+Tura · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm a Finnish small business owner, and i can say that the tax caveats at Finland don't stop to the corporation tax rate.
      There's also VAT which is 23% which limits direct consumer customers heavily on the European market, nevermind all the taxes when you employ someone which are quite heavy, mostly in form of hidden taxes etc.

      --
      Pulsed Media Seedboxes
    7. Re:What will the complaints be... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would it not make sense, to have the US charge 0% corporate tax, since in thought, these taxes just get passed to the consumer in price considerations?

      It's a silly argument.

      All taxes are ultimately passed to the consumer. Personal income tax, too - since the company has to pay higher to its employees to entice them to work for it, and of course it also needs to raise prices for compensate. Ditto for sales and property taxes, since they affect the cost of living, and therefore indirectly how much people will ask in wages.

      At the same time, you could similarly argue that taxes are "passed on to the corporations" - if I'm taxed higher, I'll ask for a bigger wage.

      The truth it, taxes aren't "passed on to" anyone. They are simply extracted from the economy. Both companies and physical persons are actors in that economy, so both pay.

  2. Same problem here in the US by guises · · Score: 5, Insightful

    State governments here in the US try to raise revenue by luring companies to set up shop in their states using tax incentives. The net result is a sort of tragedy of the commons - overall tax revenue is lower and even though politicians try and claim they're "creating jobs" they're really just stealing them from other states.

    When governments (collective entities) try to act like businesses (competitive entities) it seldom works out. Usually only a few who are able to take advantage of the situation benefit.

    1. Re:Same problem here in the US by SniperJoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would respectfully disagree. In certain cases, such as some of new automobile manufacturing facilities (Volkswagen in Chattanooga, TN, Kia in Georgia, etc.) they aren't causing a plant to move from one state to another, but encouraging the building of a new facility that wasn't previously existing in the US. Now, the potential argument could be that if they didn't build it in one state, they would simply build it in another, thus you wouldn't have a net increase overall, as it would be built regardless. However, the counterargument to the previous statement is that competition between states is providing a more attractive locale to building a manufacturing facility overall. Frankly, I'd rather have them say, "which state" than "which country." End result being more jobs for Americans.

    2. Re:Same problem here in the US by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just another race to the bottom. Corporations are going to end up tax-exempt and we're all going to end up living in a Neo-Feudalistic society where instead of an aristocracy we've got C-levels and their retinues while national governments sputter out with less and less tax revenue coming in and become more and more irrelevant.

      The saddest thing in all of this is, though, that there will be a sizable number of middle- and lower-class people out there cheering the shit, even as their own well-being is threatened directly by it. When you've got people in trailer parks arguing that taxes do nothing but punish success and cheering on the dismantling of the social programs they're actively using (such as Medicaid, welfare, public schools), you know that we're fucking doomed...

    3. Re:Same problem here in the US by SilenceBE · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The funny thing is that the low tax rates for some is the reason why Ireland had a deficit crisis.

      And ironically it is then those countries that they are trying to undercut that needs to bail them out.

      The problem with a lot of corporations is that they are narrow minded. They want to have a healthy and educated workforce. Companies like Rovio have benefit by being situated in a country where (I presume is like the average European country) where good education and healthcare is quite accessible. And the fact that is very accessible and like in this country is not because those things are heavily privatized.

    4. Re:Same problem here in the US by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Indeed, and Finland is compared to the size of it's economy one of the largest contributors to the EU rescue package for Ireland.

      It is indeed time for the EU to further level the playing field and make countries like Ireland adjust their taxes to the expenditures they have.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:Same problem here in the US by xelah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why tax corporate profits in the first place? Their taxed when they become someone's income. Wouldn't it be fairer, cost less in administration and drastically reduce the number of tax games people waste resources on playing, if corporate taxes and labour taxes were abolished, and if the tax on all kinds of income and capital gains was equalized at a level which raises the same revenue? There's been a big public argument here (the UK) over the reduction of the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%....but most people seem to remain unaware that salary is one of the most highly taxed forms of income, and that those who can manipulate how they receive their income or can receive it through dividends, royalties or capital gains can do much more than that to reduce their tax burden.

    6. Re:Same problem here in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Government cannot create private sector jobs" the military industrial complex disrespectfully disagrees.

    7. Re:Same problem here in the US by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem for you is that you want to tax corporations for no other reason to raise revenue for government tyrants

      Then be a goddamn citizen and start keeping tabs on your government.

      who then benefit you with their blessings in the form of things you should be willing and have to work for.

      Well, that's why we pay taxes, right? Or are you suggesting something else?

      They only thing government can do is take from the productive and give it to those that are not productive.

      Bullshit. You're saying the only purpose of government is to give money to the lazy?

      What about public infrastructure?

    8. Re:Same problem here in the US by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hard to keep tabs on government when the lazy and the idiots keep electing people like Reid, Pilossi, GWB, Obama, and Santorum.

      Taxes for infrastructure is such a small number, that I think most people would be willing and happy to pay them, and we already do (fuel taxes etc). I don't have a problem for government doing what private sector cannot, like infrastructure and a standing army. I oppose taxes for social engineering and feel good/do good liberal causes. There was a recent study that showed that of the government programs designed to help people get jobs, the only real jobs those programs actually helped with were for the people running the programs. However it is impossible to cut those worthless programs off, because some liberal somewhere will claim that "the evil _____ doesn't want people to get jobs", so we are left with worthless programs that don't actually do anything. It would be better and easier and less expensive to just give the money to people who needed it.

      Government is supposed to be of the people, for the people and by the people. It is supposed to be the glue for society, not fix all societal ills.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Same problem here in the US by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gas taxes are a tiny fraction of the cost of infrastructure for automobiles. We heavily subsidize the costs of our auto-infrastructure through general taxes. We do this because if people paid the real cost of gasoline we would be alarmed and outraged --demanding we lower the price of gasoline.

      Gas taxes are also extremely regressive. If you are min wage and need to drive to McDonalds you pay the same or more than the yuppie who drives their Prius to Apple every day. If anything the person picking up a $150k a year check is benefiting *more* from the road access than the McDonalds worker since every mile they drive gets a substantially higher return on investment.

    10. Re:Same problem here in the US by Alomex · · Score: 5, Informative

      Government cannot create private sector jobs. Period.

      Creation of infrastructure is a net producer of jobs. For example a highway connecting two cities increases the wealth of both cities for decades after, due to the increased efficiencies of trade. This is a well known and studied phenomenon.

      "Government cannot create private sector jobs" is a meme from the republican party. Initially it was "Governments cannot create jobs" [Senator Shelby, Republican, 2010] . When people pointed out the absolute falsehood of that statement, particularly during recessionary times, the GOP went back to the drawing board and reissued it in its current version. It is still false, but as all memes, that doesn't stop it from being passed on.

  3. Greed by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They benefited from the system all their lives but when it's their turn to pay in, they leave. For what? A 10% reduction on taxes on profits? Currently, Rovio has a net income of 48 million Euros according to Wikipedia (for how long is anybody's guess, Angry Birds won't stay popular forever and that's the only game for modern phones that they have, the rest appears to be old J2ME games, none of which gained any real popularity), so that means saving about 4 million euros in taxes, while at the same time dealing with both a perception of greed which can certainly hurt them among conscious consumers as well as the costs associated with moving the operation to Ireland.

    1. Re:Greed by Kymermosst · · Score: 4, Informative

      A 10% reduction on taxes on profits

      Nice try. There is a difference of 12 percentage points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point).

      The reduction in taxes is nearly 50%.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  4. ok but by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    how do you pronounce Hämäläinen , Räikkönen , or Jääskeläinen in Gaelic?

    will you assholes in the rest of the world just speak the American language please?

    it's like a goddamn Lord of the Rings movie in here

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  5. Re:People do what you incite them to do by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For better or for worse, betting on self-interest over altruism usually wins.

    Don't bet on it yet. The government sponsored benefits in Finland are much better than in Ireland. If management (and possibly staff) move to Ireland with their families they'll be giving up things they take for granted at the moment. This could result in higher salaries and benefit costs. It may not rise to the 12.5% they'll be saving on corporate taxes on profits, but it will surely eat into it ... and affect their quality of life.

  6. Don't quite agree by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real issue with states giving tax breaks to entice companies to move there isn't simply them "stealing jobs from other states rather than creating them".
    The reason such measures usually fail is a state's failure to demand specific goals as part of the deal.

    Time and time again, companies took advantage of huge tax breaks only to plunk down some sort of office or warehouse that doesn't actually hire more than a few dozen employees. That, or they may only stay as long as the tax break continues, uprooting the whole operation after the 3 or 5 year deal ends.

    IMO, there's nothing inherently wrong with state trying to encourage businesses to set up shop within their borders. Even though we're a group of 50 United States, each one still competes with each other internally, much like corporations with multiple divisions often operate each division so it competes with the others.

    The PROBLEM is, states need to get a clue about such deals, ensuring it's beneficial for both parties. (Most likely, corrupt politicians simply don't care, because they're getting some kind of kickback or garnering support they need by making the deals happen, at any cost to the citizenry of the state.) Any such arrangement should include contingencies, such as "You will lose the tax break AND owe back taxes from the time you moved here if you don't consistently keep X number of people employed, at wages no less than $Y per year." and "Moving out of the state for a period of 10 years from the time this tax break expires constitutes breach of contract, and again, is subject to back taxes."

    A company who genuinely has a desire to move to the state (with a belief it really benefits them in the long-haul) would still gladly accept such an arrangement, IMO. The ones who complain it's too restrictive were likely just trying to milk the system to the state's detriment anyway.

    1. Re:Don't quite agree by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The PROBLEM is, states need to get a clue about such deals, ensuring it's beneficial for both parties.

      No, that's not the real problem, either. The problem is that they are, as you put it, deals. Instead of having a set of tax rules that are applied uniformly to everyone, some companies get special deals. Since those deals are done at the discretion of some politician or appointee, the politician is given more power to toss tax breaks and unfair advantage to his/her friends or people that will contribute the most money/votes to his/her re-election. The deal is beneficial for both parties -- the politician and the company. Like much of modern politics, it is all about amassing power to take money from one group of people and give it to another, rather than benefiting society overall. How many times have you heard that small companies are the real job creators? How many times have you heard of these deals going to small companies?

    2. Re:Don't quite agree by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The entire process is rife with opportunity to rip off taxpayers. Here in Madison, WI, a locally based company, Spectrum Brands, hired a Florida firm to make overtures to the state government for tax breaks in consideration for "moving their business to Madison". Yes, a company that was already located here had a firm from another state negotiate for a 7-figure forgivable loan to move where they were already located.

      Then, when the Madison public got wind of it, they moved to Middleton, anyway. With their loan, of course.

      Gotta love corporate extortion and the transfer of public funds to private corporations. Oh yeah, plus the CEO of Spectrum Brands received a compensation package last year worth 13.7 million dollars. He couldn't take a little bit of a pay cut rather than bilking the government out of 4 million bucks? Heavens, no! That's just punishing success, right?!

      And these are the "job creators" we're supposed to bend over for and throw money at for the privilege of working for them (which obviously generates them more revenue then it costs otherwise the job wouldn't exist in the first place)? America! Fuck Yeah!!

  7. Re:Seems fair to me by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know where you live, but Finland is not the same as the US. Like in all Nordic countries, the taxes are actually used for something other than military ventures - namely providing education and healthcare for everyone and a stable society with functioning infrastructure. The authors of Angry Birds have benefited from free education at the Helsinki University of Technology, free healthcare all their lives, etc.
    Is it not reasonable that when they become successful, they too should pay into the system in order to pay for the education and health of the current generation just as others paid into the system to provide these services to them, providing an educated and healthy workforce for the benefit of among others their own company?

  8. Re:People do what you incite them to do by Shienarier · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can attest to that. I lived in Ireland for six years. I'm now back in Scandinavia and is more then happy to pay my tax here again.

  9. Re:Corporate tax... not sure. by GuldKalle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should that same money be taxed yet again at the corporate level ? Does the Finnish gov't do anything of value with those taxes ? Mine does not (Canada).

    Depends what you consider value. Some things that might be worth the extra tax rate: Infrastructure, public healthcare, well educated workforce.

    --
    What?
  10. Re:Seems fair to me by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it not reasonable that when they become successful, they too should pay into the system in order to pay for the education and health of the current generation just as others paid into the system to provide these services to them, providing an educated and healthy workforce for the benefit of among others their own company?

    That's only reasonable when your view of the future reaches beyond the quarterly results your bonuses depend on.
    Caring for the educating your future employees and consumers is not part of the Anglo-Saxon company moral.

    Oops, I used company and moral in one sentence...

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  11. Rich people are most dependent on government by mozumder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is it with people that take advantage of the high social development afforded by higher tax rates only to run off to a low tax rate area when they become rich?

    We really need to make sure people understand that ALL wealth comes from government. Government makes sure your employees are educated instead of brain-dead religious morons, that roads/trains/airports exist to deliver your products to customers, that the banks holding your money don't have disappearing bank accounts, and on and on.

    None of this would have been possible without a government paid for by taxes.

    The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government, as a larger portion of your wealth came about because government made it possible for you to be wealthy. You can't be rich in a libertarian paradise like Ireland or Somalia. Does anyone even know any rich Irishman? Do they even exist?

    It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves. They have no idea the kind of infrastructure and work government put in to get that one dollar to travel into their hands in the first place. No, the wealthy didn't magically conjure up that dollar into their pockets.

    1. Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >Does anyone even know any rich Irishman?
      >Do they even exist?
      Bono, but he moved to Holland to pay less in taxes.

    2. Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a hell of a lot of government in North Korea, why aren't they rich?

      All babies come out of females, but why do you never see babies coming out of a convent, or the ladies senior bridge club, or a girl's elementary school.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    3. Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves.

      No, people become Republican after they become rich, and suddenly believe they got where they are because they "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and had no help from others, no privileges of birth, and no other contributing special circumstances, They honestly believe that the most valuable members of society are people who can succeed just by putting in extra effort, and therefore deserve extra protections and rights. They tend to see public corruption as a greater evil than private corruption.

      People become Libertarian when they believe the liberal philosophy (in a classic sense) they were taught, and lack either the life experience or practical knowledge that in a vacuum people will be ruthlessly selfish rather than act towards the common good. The only way someone who is rich becomes Libertarian is if they can't stomach the social policy of the GOP (which is tailored to attract the religious social right). They tend to see both public and private corruption as evil, but seem to think natural laws will overcome that.

      For completeness sake, people become Democratic when they have faith in the system of checks-and-balances and believe in the common good, without realizing that what will happen is half your money will go to the rich (because they'll get it anyway) and the other half will go to the poor (because of your social programs) and you in the middle will just be paying higher costs for everything. They tend to see private corruption as a greater evil than public corruption.

      It also depends somewhat on what your life goals are and how you define success or happiness, but that's how I see it.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    4. Re:Rich people are most dependent on government by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      North Korea is the perfect example of *WHY* all wealth comes from government.

      If your government refuses to allow you to have wealth... you won't have wealth. If your government allows you to have wealth then you can have wealth.

      Now you can say "oh well I just won't live in a region without a government. Ok... then the first roving gang that comes along will take your wealth and all wealth comes from roving gangs--at which point roving gangs are essentially your form of government.

      Someone is going to determine the rules by which you 'play the game'. If you don't setup a government of sufficient strength then someone else will impose their rules on you--and you might not get to participate in its decision making process so it behooves you to establish a sufficiently powerful organization that you can control. In our case the government is "of the people" therefore we are self governed. Therefore all wealth comes from "The People". It's a fine line between this distinction and circular logic but ultimately all wealth comes from the government (which establishes the rules by which property ownership is determined) and all government derives its power from various source. If that's the military then ultimately all wealth is from the military. If it's from the people then all wealth is ultimately from the people but sanctioned by their manifestation of will which is the government.

      Now the fox news paranoid survivalist says "ahh but I have GOLD! The government can't control bartering of gold!" Sure. But the government is sufficiently powerful to take said Gold from you. So the fact that the government doesn't use its power to take your gold by force isn't thanks to your impressive weapons collection (however much you have isn't enough to stop a navy seal team) it's thanks to the governments lack of *desire* to take your gold.

      ALL wealth comes from the government because the freedom to live ultimately is held by the most powerful organization in the land. And the most powerful organization in the land is your defacto government. The Taliban in many parts of Afghanistan isn't the "Government" but seeing as it controls the territory and is capable of writing the rules by which those living in the territory will behave it's the "Government".

      The libertarian who thinks the government hasn't done anything for him is ignoring the fact that the government is protecting the libertarian rule-set. It could just as easily use that power to say that nobody can own anything and the state has absolute power.

      So participate in your government and ensure it's the most powerful force in the land--so that it's actually the government and not a proxy for another interest but also participate so that it's acting as a proxy for the people who give it authority.

  12. Re:Too little competition is also bad ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finland's taxes are high, but then again by most measures it is a country that uses those taxes to fund a very comprehensive social benefits system.

    Ireland, on the other hand, is a basket case economy that became attractive in no small part by funding its low corporate taxes by irresponsible borrowing, which now means the rest of the Eurozone has to bail it out.

    By most American measures, Finland is an overtaxed Socialist wasteland, and Ireland's low corporate rates make it a responsible government.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  13. Re:People do what you incite them to do by pnewhook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Canada has 15% corporate tax rate (http://www.canadabusinesstax.com/corporate-income-tax-rates/), 52 week combined maternity/parental leave, free health care, and federal pension plan.

    There is no reason the US cannot provide the same level of benefits except for political bickering and the close to 2 billion *per day* the US spends on its military.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  14. Greedy bastard by jopet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    like so many others, another asshole who just wants to take and not to give. For the likes of him there should be an island where there are no taxes and consequently nothing what is made possible by taxes - just a bunch of other greedy assholes who all want to get richer by taking the money of the others.

    Society would be a better place without people like him.

  15. Finnish education by ryzvonusef · · Score: 4, Informative

    benefit by being situated in a country where (I presume is like the average European country) where good education and healthcare is quite accessible.

    I don't know about healthcare in particular (although this being a Nordic Economic Model country, it's most likely good) but Finland's education is the best, even beating Fellow Nordics.[1]

    It's level[2] is frequently top three, if not the first. And that's a country with NO private schools, and with system that does *not* urge absolute competition between students.

    Got to admit, despite their other possible faults, Finns got this education shit covered.

    Links:
    [1]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm
    [2]: http://stats.oecd.org/PISA2009Profiles/

    --
    I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
  16. Re:People do what you incite them to do by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Canada has 15% corporate tax rate (http://www.canadabusinesstax.com/corporate-income-tax-rates/), 52 week combined maternity/parental leave, free health care, and federal pension plan.

    There is no reason the US cannot provide the same level of benefits except for political bickering and the close to 2 billion *per day* the US spends on its military.

    Canada can afford to do all this with a piss-poor military. With a population of just over 30 million, Canada's military is so small that it's barely adequate to protect one quarter of their territory. The truth is, part of that 2 billion a day you lament the US military is spending goes in part towards providing military security to countries like Canada that don't spend enough on their own defense.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  17. Re:People do what you incite them to do by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

    The truth is, part of that 2 billion a day you lament the US military is spending goes in part towards providing military security to countries like Canada that don't spend enough on their own defense.

    Finland, the subject of this Slashdot post, offers some evidence against this common claim. For decades Finland refused to joined NATO, managing its own defense. Nonetheless, it has built a welfare state comparable to its Nordic neighbours while at the same time maintaining one of the stronger armies in the world.

  18. Re:People do what you incite them to do by Alomex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would I want a Canadian-style health care and retirement plan when I already have a better private plan in the US?

    For the time when you get fired from your current job.