Well, it didn’t show up. But the water was warm. And wet. Among other things. I would suggest contacting those who are better informed about these matters.. %
1 Like
Off the top of my head, I’d say it has no impact because with investment insurance, you don’t own any of those investment instruments; instead, the company where you have the insurance wrapper owns them. So, these investment instruments don’t show up anywhere in taxation (at least that’s my understanding) because they aren’t in your name.
I had reliable information that in Sweden you can claim unemployment benefits even if you have dividend income. Now I can’t find the link at all.
Thanks for the information, does this same rule then apply to rental income? And earnings-related unemployment benefit?
1 Like
The Kela website’s labor market subsidy calculator mentions “own capital income or other income than wage and work income.”
Under the heading, you can tick the following: rental income, forest income, interest income, dividend income, informal caregiver’s support, family caregiver’s fee, partial certified old-age pension, other income.
In my opinion, capital income is not considered with earnings-related allowance.
Regarding the labor market subsidy, it can be said that a single investor living alone is not nearly on the same footing as their investor colleague living in a relationship and earning capital income.
(I even made an Excel chart on my PC, but I can’t attach it here on my phone, so let’s proceed in writing.)
An unemployed single person receives the full labor market subsidy of €800.01/month even with capital income of €312/month. When capital income is €1353/month or more, the single person does not receive any labor market subsidy.
A person living in a relationship receives the full labor market subsidy of €800.01/month if their capital income is less than €1045/month, and correspondingly, they no longer receive any labor market subsidy if their capital income is €2607/month or more.
These are with earned income of €0/month and no dependent children.
I will not comment on the moral aspect of the matter, nor on what euro level it is advisable to stop receiving the labor market subsidy, as it also involves obligations and tedious bureaucracy.
8 Likes
Furthermore, it’s good to keep in mind that Kela’s understanding of capital income may be slightly different from, for example, the tax authority’s.
5 Likes
Purra has shaken things up; now, being on unemployment benefits and investing at the same time will end.
The Labour Market Subsidy (Työmarkkinatuki) and Basic Unemployment Allowance (Peruspäiväraha) will change into a General Benefit (Yleistuki) starting from 1 February 2026, which will follow the current means-testing of Social Assistance (Toimeentulotuki).
If an unemployed person owns a car worth over €5000, they must sell it and use the money for living expenses before receiving unemployment benefits. Similarly, a summer cottage must be sold first if they have one, etc. Investments and capital income, without a protected amount, will cut off the General Benefit, and everything must be sold and spent before receiving any support. Also, all money in the account must be spent before receiving support. Protection is only available during the earnings-related allowance period, and after that, the cut-off takes effect immediately, and no unemployment benefits will be received until all money and convertible assets (excluding permanent residence) have been converted into money and spent on living expenses first.
13 Likes
Significant changes are coming; it’s now advisable for those who are working to join an unemployment fund if they are not yet members.
And a negative outcome for the unemployed ‘massikeisari’ (those perceived as wealthy) who have been enjoying basic unemployment allowance.
2 Likes
And was there any source for this information?
It’s good that benefits are being clarified, although this might somewhat increase the need for income support among the unemployed.
1 Like
General Support (Yleistuki), Government Proposal to Parliament. On needs assessment, p. 36, which refers to the current basic income support (Toimeentulotuki) principles to be followed in General Support (Yleistuki) (which are described elsewhere in the actual legislation concerning it).
yleistuki.pdf (2.2 MB)
4 Likes
I didn’t notice a reference to the grounds for income support on page 36, but a reference to labor market support
The conditions for receiving general support would largely correspond to the key characteristics of the current labor market support
It is, however, to be expected that the 311€/month protected amount for capital income (and more generally, income other than wages) will be removed. This equalizes the treatment of income.
Edit. According to the draft law, the 311€/month protected amount remains, and the current 1044€/month for couples and guardians of children drops to the same 311€/month level.
2 Likes
Could you get a quote from the document regarding means-testing and income support? I’ve read through it so many times and can’t find it.
1 Like
It will be interesting to see how, for example, the requirement to sell one’s own apartment is practically implemented in areas with high unemployment and where apartments are difficult to sell at all, when housing companies don’t always even get loans. That could give a lot to think about, especially for someone in their sixties.
4 Likes
I glanced at the document, and I didn’t directly see any mention of assets in connection with means-testing either. Mainly, the change would be that means-testing would start immediately, i.e., for the current basic daily allowance part, and then various changes, e.g., how parents’ income affects it. Of course, the stated goal after this first phase would be to combine income support and housing allowance into the same general benefit, and the logical outcome for this would be a unified set of assessment criteria.
1 Like
Well, so that kind of decision is coming. This is how the average Finn’s wealth will really grow 
. Of course, I haven’t read the decision itself, only the previous messages on the forum, so the following part might quickly become outdated. Well, even if such a decision isn’t being made now, the next left-wing government will probably be very interested in taking assets into account, so this is a preemptive comment anyway 
As much as I am a supporter of right-wing politics, they simply forgot to take one small fact into account when making decisions: no matter how much one wants to, it’s literally impossible to get ANY work ANYWHERE right now… greetings from a university student in a niche field at the end of their studies, who already has work experience in one general field, but even that is currently useless for getting jobs in that field, as there are a hundred times more applicants than positions. And if that decision comes into force, the number of applicants will only grow. There should definitely be an asset limit of at least 10,000e (and so that loans/debts are first subtracted from assets) for receiving unemployment benefit (or some sufficient living support); it’s a different matter if someone has hundreds of thousands in stocks, then they should support themselves if they can’t or don’t want to work. It’s already becoming too American if you don’t get any support if you’ve saved even a little bit of assets and are unemployed simply because there are no suitable jobs available for your skills.
It’s pointless to even try applying for cashier/salesperson jobs if you’re introverted enough that constant talking or customer service just won’t work 
. So, besides my own field, what’s left are cleaning and other physical odd jobs, for which there are an illegally high number of applicants right now 
This is completely off-topic now, but having acquired a work safety card, I can promise that I will not be getting any more similar general-level money-grab/fluff cards, also known as a hygiene passport
3 Likes
4.1. Key proposals
In addition, receiving general support would require a need for financial support, meaning general support would be a means-tested benefit for unemployed job seekers.
Means-testing refers to income, not all existing assets.
On page 36:
Reductions in unemployment benefits would target individuals who have other income.
@Enovene could point out where to find the section; I haven’t come across it yet.
4 Likes
Oh really 
Työpaikat
3 Likes
I was browsing through that brochure, and you’d have to be quite a fakir to master all these sections and clauses. Probably, with time, if you pore over it, you might make some sense of it. Every now and then, it refers to some other section, and when you go to see what that contains, there’s another reference to a different clause. After a while, you’re completely disoriented as to what you were even looking for – that’s how it is in the promised land of these statutory jungles.
4 Likes
And here’s this term ‘means-testing’:
3 Likes
Read the government’s proposal if you want to know the background of each point and what it is intended to achieve. I haven’t read it myself, as I’m not that interested in it…
1 Like