SOME candidates in the imminent parliamentary elections have much to say

about Finlands growing income inequality. This is a terrible thing, voters are told,
and it must be xed. But if one looks closely, it becomes clear that our growing
income equality is proof that we are doing things right.
INCOME inequality is growing. That much is certain. One of the most popular
measures is the Gini coefcient, where 0 is perfectly equal and 1 is perfectly
unequal. In the mid-1970s Finlands Gini coefcient was 0.23 and now it is 0.27,
so here is proof that there is more inequality in Finnish society.
ONE MUST be careful in interpreting the change. This growing discrepancy is not
because more people are falling into poverty. In fact, just the opposite is
occurring. We have less people in poverty today than when income was more
fairly distributed. The OECD denes the poverty rate as 60% or less of a
countrys median income. In the mid-1970s Finland had a 15.8% poverty rate by
this measure, but today it is only 14.8%. In one survey, only 3% of Finns say they
have great difculties making ends meet, while the average in the EU-27 is 10%.
WHAT is happening is that the nancially successful are becoming more
nancially successful. The rich are getting richer, but not at the expense of the
poor. Congratulations, Finland! Here is proof that the Nordic welfare state works
in todays competitive, global world. We have less people in poverty and more
people nancially successful.
WORRYINGLY, some politicians are focusing their rhetoric on the increasing
income inequality and not on the decreasing poverty. It is quite possible that
their call for greater tax progressivity and the return of the wealth tax has more
to do with punishing success than relieving poverty. Class warfare is still alive
and well in Finland.
WE MUST be careful not to take away the reward for success. There still must be
a nancial incentive for risk-taking. We want people to start their own business,
buy new equipment and hire more workers in the hope that they will get a big
monetary pay-off. We are much more likely to create more jobs through small
businesses than established multinationals. If we take away the potential for that
pay-off, why should entrepreneurs take the risk?
ALREADY Finland loses many of those who become fabulously successful.
Everyone knows that people like Kimi Rikknen become tax exiles, but there are
many other examples that arent in the daily news. These are modestly
successful persons who have done the math and come to the conclusion that
they are better off without Finland. Are we better off without them?
PEOPLE in Finland shouldnt be ashamed that our income inequality is increasing.
We should be proud that our poverty rate is decreasing while our top-earners are
becoming more successful. If this is a problem, many other nations around the
world would love to have a similar difculty
The kinds of fairness he talks about make sense only if open to all. Finland good
here, but doesnt happen by accident.

Hard-working shop seller, disproportionate.

If class war is being wages, poor neither the aggressors, not the victors.