Kirkon vai valtion kirjat? : Uskontokuntasidonnaisuuden ongelma Suomen väestökirjanpidossa 1839-1904

The Population Register – run by the Church or the state? The problem posed by the obligation to belong to a religious community in the registration of births and deaths in Finland between 1839 and 1904 The Lutheran Church of Finland is the nation’s largest church; approximately 82 per cent of Finns were members in 2007. The Church ran an official register of its members until 1999, when the state then undertook this task. The registration of births and deaths by the Church has a long history dating back to the 17th century, when Bishop Johannes Gezelius Sr. decreed that all parish members would have to be recorded in parish registers. These registers were used to control how well parish members knew the Christian doctrine and, gradually, also if they were literate. Additionally, the Church attempted to ensure by means of the parish registers that parish members went to Holy Communion annually. Since everyone was a member of the Lutheran Church, the state also took advantage of the parish registers and used them for the purposes of tax collection and conscription. The main research theme of “The Population Register – run by the Church or the state?” goes back to these times. The actual research period covers the years of 1839–1904. At that time Finland was under Russian rule, although autonomous. In the late 19th century the press and different associations in Finland began to engage in public debate, and the country started moving from a submissive society to a civic one. The identity of the Lutheran Church also became more prominent when the Church Act and the General Synod were realised in 1869. A few years earlier, municipal and parish administrations had been separated, but the general registration of births and deaths was left to the Church to see to. In compliance with the constitution of the country, all the inhabitants in principle still had to be Lutheran. In practice, the situation was different. The religious and ideological realms diversified, and the Lutheran concept of religion was no longer acceptable to everyone. The conflict was reflected in the registration of births and deaths, which was linked to the Lutheran Church and its parish registers. Nobody was allowed to leave the Church, there was no civil register, and the Lutheran Church did not consent to record unbaptized children in the parish registers. Therefore such children were left without civil rights. Thus the obligation to belong to a religious community had become a problem in the registration of births and deaths. The Lutheran clergy also appealed to the 1723 privileges, according to which they had been exempted from the drawing up of additional population registers. In 1889 Finland passed the Dissenters Act. By virtue of this act the Baptists and the Methodists left the state Church, but this was not the case with the members of the free churches. The freethinkers had to retain their church membership, as the law did not apply to them. This meant that the unbaptized children of the members of the free churches or those of freethinkers were still not entered in any registers. The children were not able to go to school, work for the state or legally marry. Neither were they able to inherit property, as they did not legally exist. The system of parish registers was created when everyone was required to be a member of the Lutheran Church, but it did not work when liberal attitudes eventually penetrated the sphere of religion, too. The government´s measures to solve the problem were slow and cautious, partly because Finland was part of Russia, partly because there were only about 100 unbaptized children. As the problem group was small and the state´s resources were limited, no general civil register was established. The state accepted the fact that in spite of the problems, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the congregations of dissenters were the only official establishments to run populations registers in the country, and for social purposes, too. In 1900 the Diet of Finland finally approved a limited civil register, which unbaptized children and unregistered foreigners would be recorded in. Due to political reasons the civil register did not come into existence until 1917, after the actual research period.

Tax Reform and Payout Policy:Do Shareholder Clienteles or Payout Policy Adjust?

Changes in taxation of corporate dividends offer excellent opportunities to study dividend clientele effects. We explore payout policies and ownership structures around a major tax reform that took place in Finland in 2004. Consistent with dividend clienteles affecting firms’ dividend policy decisions, we find that Finnish firms altered their dividend policies based on the changed tax incentives of their largest shareholders. While firms adjust their payout policies, our results also indicate that ownership structures of Finnish firms also changed around the 2004 reform, consistent with shareholder clienteles adjusting to the new tax system.

Tax havens and their impacts on the non-haven countries

Tax havens have attracted increasing attention from the authorities of non-haven countries. The financial crisis exacerbates the negative attitude to tax havens. Offshore zones are now under strong pressure from the international, both financial and political institutions. Thus, the thesis will focus on the current problem of the modern economy, namely tax havens and their impact on the non-haven countries. This thesis will be based on the several articles, in particular “Tax Competition With Parasitic Tax Havens” by Joel Slemrod and John D. Wilson (University of Michigan, 2009) and “Do Havens Divert Economic Activity” by James R. Hines Jr., C. Fritz Foley and Mihir A. Desai (Ross School of Business, 2005). This paper provides two completely different and contradictory viewpoints on the problem of coexisting tax havens and non-haven countries. There are two models, examined in this work, present two important researches. The first one will be concentrated on the positive effect from tax havens whereas the last model will be focused on the completely negative effect from offshore jurisdictions. The first model gives us a good explanation and proof of its statement why tax havens can positively influence on nearby high-tax countries. It describes that the existence of offshore jurisdictions can stimulate the growth of operations and facilitates economic activity in non-haven countries. In contrast to above mentioned, the model with quite opposite view was presented. This economic model and its analysis confirms the undesirability of the existence of offshore areas. Taking into consideration, that the jurisdictions choose their optimal policy, the elimination of offshores will have positive impact on the rest of countries. The model proofs the statement that full or partial elimination of tax havens raises the equilibrium level of the public good and increases country welfare. According to the following study, it can be concluded that both of the models provide telling arguments to prove their assertions. Thereby both of these points of view have their right to exist. Nevertheless, the ongoing debate concerning this issue still will raise a lot of questions.