Not sure I'm reading you right, but here are my two cents.

Also living in Scandinavia and I would disagree with this advice. To be dependent on the welfare system is not exactly being free and have security.

Like the Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson said: "One who is in debt is not free".

And living off of the welfare system is in my view to be indebted to society. I would not be able to shake that feeling if I was, at least not if it was voluntarily. Add to that the social stigma, even from close friends and family. This would limit your freedom of having an agency in social interactions.

Also I would not consider it secure, since the rules of the welfare system changes quite a lot over time. Which you have no way of impacting, meaning you are dependent and not free.

EDIT: Just realized the question was about "security+free time". I guess you would have free time, which is not exactly the same as being free in any meaningful sense.

EDIT: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. But for clarification I can add that I think this applies if you voluntarily would live off of the welfare system, thus leeching from the ones who really needs it. It's of course a totally different story if you are involuntarily need to get welfare to survive and live a decent life.

While those are valid points, I don't think the idea is "plan to live off the welfare system" but rather "take the risks and try something new", because if you fail you have a safety net to catch you and help you get back up again.

Totally agree and I would argue that there even is financial gain for society in letting people take such risks. Maybe I was kicking at an open door, but my point was that there, in my opinion, does not exist a huge incentive to misuse the welfare system voluntarily.

This has a flipside though. If you do manage to find success (and say, own a profitable business or have an exit), you'll be taxed into oblivion.

It might not be the popular opinion on HN, but I would hate that. Make sure to structure things properly from the beginning so that you can leave when appropriate.

Sorry, but this has to be the dumbest comment in HN.

The parent post was saying how living in a country with a generous welfare system can make a lot easier to have more free time and easier to take risks, and you're worried that if you take advantage of that, you might need to help pay that off if you're successful?

The fact of the matter is that, in countries where the state gives you a lot, they generally take a lot as well. The money needs to come from somewhere.

Most decent entrepreneurs manage to sustain themselves and find a way to build out something regardless of whether the state is handing out money. If I manage to get a win, I want to keep most of my winnings.

I'm European but wouldn't want to live in a country with high income taxes, high capital gains taxes, various hidden levies (luxury cars costing hundreds of thousands, gas being super expensive), high corporate and dividend taxes, and to top it off a nice annual wealth tax. Why even bother trying to achieve more than your fellow citizen in that kind of setting?

> The fact of the matter is that, in countries where the state gives you a lot, they generally take a lot as well. The money needs to come from somewhere.

The state gives a lot to you, when you're poor, and it takes a lot from you, later on after you're not poor anymore. Why do you think you should get to live in a nice place full of nice things paid for by other people, and not pay your own share? How is that morally different from spending the night in a hotel and then skipping out on the bill?

Spending a night in a hotel and then skipping out on the bill will land you jail (or at least it will get the police involved). Avoiding tax is legal and does not.

> Why do you think you should get to live in a nice place full of nice things paid for by other people, and not pay your own share?

By definition, if you pay everything you owe, aren't you paying your share?

I said "morally different".

edit:

> By definition, if you pay everything you owe, aren't you paying your share?

The line between tax avoidance and freeloading is debatable. Maybe you use less tax-funded things than most people. Maybe you refuse to drive on streets, cross rivers in a rowboat instead of walking on bridges, and resolutely close your eyes when walking by a beautiful piece of taxpayer-funded art. But morally, if you're enjoying nice things that other people paid for, you're freeloading (which is emphatically not a political stance, or an "unpopular opinion").

> This has a flipside though. If you do manage to find success (and say, own a profitable business or have an exit), you'll be taxed into oblivion.

Ok, but if I'm already living the life I want to live... who cares?

Then it doesn't matter. But what if you're halfway there, and would be there if you could legally avoid the tax?

Some people care about this, others don't.

Can you provide examples? I can only think of a counter-example: Ingvar Kamprad, the (Swedish) founder of Ikea, and by some accounts at times the richest man on earth.

Literally every businessman who lives in Monaco. Most aren't very well known, however.

If you make sure, for example, your intellectual rights (if we're talking a software company) aren't held in a country with a super high corporate tax rate, that would be a good start.

I guess it might slow you down from getting surpr super rich, but in the end it's surely worth it.

No. It slows you down just getting rich as well. If I want to make €5 or €10m and retire, it's inefficient to pay a lot of tax if you can legally get around it.

It's one thing to pay on gains you make after you've gotten rich, i.e. if you're making 5% a year on €10m, than on the initial capital you're building up.

But if the tax goes into something like education, it also has an accelerating effect.

I think this is an issue that just isn't that black and white as you want to portray it.

And you'll still be driving a Tesla.