Yeah, this hits the nail on the head. They don’t look at capital income, but they do look at capital gains. Pretty funny. In principle, they really think that investing is “professional” and will eventually turn a profit anyway 
It would be quite simple to just look at the capital income at the end of each year, like with other benefits, and then perhaps claw back the benefits.
Yet another reason why people are tempted to move assets abroad.
I suppose those collections can be disputed and stalled for a while? In the meantime, one could argue that it makes no sense.
Would it be worth instructing one’s own Member of Parliament?
Even though these blunders likely stem from the arbitrary interpretations of officials, Parliament can, if it wishes, rectify the situation by amending ambiguously drafted laws. A decree or even just a new administrative guideline issued by the ministry might suffice.
Siloed administration is what’s behind this. When every administrative sector is allowed to regulate even basic matters themselves, nothing but contradictions can arise.
[quote=“Monopoly_of_bees, post:27, topic:38827”]
This is because authorities do not have a uniform definition of income. Capital income as defined by the tax authority can therefore be a different thing than capital income as defined by Kela.
[/quote]
Rahapodi has tried to get a representative from Kela to answer this question as well. No one can be found at Kela who would come to answer for these matters.
I’d be interested to know what deductions can be made from rental income from a property in the means-testing for labor market subsidy? I’ve waded through Kela’s website, but can’t find a direct answer.
For an apartment, apparently maintenance charges and loan interest are accepted?
Edit: Kela accepts these for social assistance, at least according to their own guidelines.
Are there different rules for labor market subsidy then?
For real estate, loan interest and what else? Is there any practical information?
Maintenance fees are accepted, but not interest or financial charges.
Properties typically don’t have a maintenance fee, at least not in the case of a detached house.
Does it increase or decrease problems when an investor faces unemployment?
Problems will arise if “universal credit” has a limited duration. Once the entitlement period ends, the unemployed person moves to social assistance, which means they must first deplete their investments to zero before they are eligible for support.
However, it seems that matters regarding the duration (among others) are still under review.
Of course, the simplification itself is a good thing. It saves money that would otherwise be spent on greasing the wheels of bureaucracy.
There is also the possibility that this “general support” could become a type of basic income, supplemented by a housing allowance applied for on the same form. It is not really possible to create an insurmountable incentive trap with a 600-euro unemployment benefit. For a retail investor, such a 600-euro payment would make living in Finland possible, even if their ability to work were to decline.
Now, quite a few other changes have come/are coming before the possible general support (yleistuki). I’ll open up (vent?) a bit about my own special situation, and if anyone is interested in the Kela jungle…
Status at the TE Office (Public Employment and Business Services) is “employed jobseeker”. A debt-free owner-occupied apartment, for which I have received about half of the maintenance fee + water in housing allowance, depending on income. Savings accumulated over years, some funds and stocks significantly in profit. A part-time and low-wage job where I’ve been able to influence my own working hours quite well. For about five years, everything has been perfect! I’ve aimed to work 3-5 days/month; let’s calculate the income as €100/day for simplicity. So, with three workdays a month, I’ve reached a net income of €1000/month. Basic unemployment allowance + housing allowance + salary. In addition, as long as I ensured that working hours averaged at least 18h/month (cutting corners), I stayed on the basic unemployment allowance instead of the labor market subsidy. This, in turn, allows for unlimited capital income without affecting the unemployment benefit. The housing allowance does get cut, but we’ve been talking about €100/month at most.
So, what is changing now? First, the €300 exempt amount (suojaosa) for earned income was removed from both the unemployment benefit and housing allowance, which one could previously earn regardless without it affecting any support. At the turn of the year, housing allowance for owner-occupiers will be abolished entirely (and in passing, I could mention that the maintenance fee has risen by 90% in just over a year!). Also, staying on the so-called basic unemployment allowance (i.e., fulfilling the employment condition) is changing from hour-based to euro-based. So instead of the previous 18h/month of work, one would need to earn about €480/month, or about €960/every second month (euros are approximate, I can’t be bothered to check). If the condition is not met, every euro of capital income reduces the unemployment benefit by 50 cents. And here, too, it’s likely the capital gain specifically, from which capital losses are not deducted. Just a hunch (mutu).
What now then? With the same 3 workdays/month, the net income/month is suddenly only €750/month, and every euro of profit (or dividend) withdrawn from savings reduces the support even further. Options? Go to “real” work—preferably not. Liquidate some of the profitable investments in the coming months, take the tax consequences, and reinvest in some easy bond fund from which to draw for living expenses as needed (worth doing, for example, in connection with a month of summer work, as you won’t get benefits for that month anyway). Do absolutely nothing at all (except books and PlayStation), i.e., quit work and become a “Gentleman of Leisure” (oloneuvos), greetings to That Thread. Or fulfill one dream: sell the flat and head to the warmth for ten years, at least for the winter.
That’s the gist of it, apologies for the length of the message. And yes, I’ve wondered sometimes if all this time and effort should be used for something useful. But! He’s not much of a man who doesn’t see a lot of trouble to take it easy.. =) And the apartment was indeed paid for with work back in the day, so I haven’t always been lazy.
P.S. I’m interested to know if it’s a fact that dividends paid to an Equity Savings Account (osakesäästötili, OST) are also taken into account in Kela benefits? It would sound strange, since they are “hidden” in there.
From the Kela website:
Your capital income and other income may reduce the amount of labor market subsidy. They are therefore income taken into account in the means-testing. Capital income includes, for example, rental, forestry, interest, and dividend income (including dividend income paid into an equity savings account).
Thanks. It has been added since my last visit a while ago. A couple of months ago, a Kela phone representative couldn’t immediately give a position on the matter on the spot. For me, it has no financial significance, as we are talking about rather small dividend incomes. I mostly hoped to be spared the trouble of reporting them a couple of times a year. But points to Kela, loopholes have been plugged. 
I wonder how they are visible from the outside, since there is no taxable income there. That is, if someone were to be dishonest and didn’t report them…
edit. I still question this a bit. It would mean that you take the hit first at the dividend payment stage and then again when the OST (Equity Savings Account) is eventually closed and any profits are taxed. Well, maybe it will be clarified at some point… for each respective institution. Though those benefits are hardly intended for ‘investors’ anyway…
What about the impact of capital gains from an equity savings account (OST) on labor market subsidy?
I read a while ago that a married person can earn €1,044/month gross in dividends and still receive the full labor market subsidy. If a larger lump sum comes in, the capital income is nevertheless spread over the entire year. Not certain information, just an assumption that other capital income is also counted in this pot.
For those living alone, that allowable amount was considerably smaller.
If we assume one earns the maximum dividends and gets the labor market subsidy on top, you’d be left with about €1,400+ in hand, so at least in my case, I wouldn’t even need to work anymore since my expenses are low.
Since this is an unfamiliar topic, let me ask: why is it that a married person specifically can earn more dividend income than a single person?
This was discussed earlier in the thread. No definite answer; perhaps a relic of some earlier regulations, and/or maybe it relates to supporting family life. Or having children. Social benefits are, after all, a collection of bits and pieces glued together, forming a very abstract work of art.
Personally, I’m not married, unfortunately, and I wouldn’t necessarily bother just for that..
Labor market subsidy and OST income:
I just called Kela regarding other matters, so I asked about this at the same time. An extremely nice official looked into it and the answer was roughly this:
All OST (Equity Savings Account) income (dividends, capital gains) should/must be reported monthly; a self-declaration in the relevant section of the form is sufficient. For someone living alone, you can have about 311e(?) of non-wage income per month without it affecting the labor market subsidy. That’s in principle, at least. However, the labor market subsidy is so-called discretionary, so ultimately the handler decides (using professional overall judgment) and will ask for more info/evidence if they deem it necessary. Then, when it comes to taxation, the bells will toll! (The song is playing from the speakers right now.. =))
And now for a swim!
Did it come up what if it’s an investment insurance (sijoitusvakuutus) instead of an ESA?