Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's theft from your family, plain and simple.

I feel very sorry for the parent poster. But, no, it's not that simple. We as Europeans have been spending too much, we have added countries to the Eurozone that were not healthy enough financially so that France's finances would seem relatively ok. For years we the ignored tax evasion and corruption. We as voters and citizens were all part of the problem, and now everyone is going to pay.

If the EU didn't bail out Cyprus, his/her savings would be worthless, since their economy would've collapsed. If Cyprus' population is not going to pay heavily, the next bail-out may not be possible, because the populations of the countries lending the money might revolt. I live in The Netherlands, and there's not much solidarity left (which I think is stupid, but anyway).

Obviously, it is not a very good manner to seize funds, because the citizens of the next country that needs to be bailed out, will withdraw their savings beforehand.

But for some who dearly counted on those savings to pay rent or medicine, to be taken without their consent or knowledge, it is theft, plain and simple. No matter what opinionated armchair economists like you have to say.

But for some who dearly counted on those savings to pay rent or medicine, to be taken without their consent or knowledge, it is theft, plain and simple.

Again, what's the alternative? Without the bail-out, government employees will lose their jobs, foreign assets are frozen, they'll be removed from the Eurozone, the economy will collapse, and they cannot buy medicines either. Sure they could increase taxes, freeze or decrease wages, etc. But the net effect will be the same - people will lose money.

No matter what opinionated armchair economists like you have to say.

This has little to do with armchair criticism. My pension fund has been downgrading as well, there is a lot of uncertainty on what will be left when my generation retires. The thing is, we have to blame ourselves as well: in electing populist leaders rather than visionaries, for our unbounded consumerism, and for participating in corruption. E.g. in my country:

- People are obsessed with this populist right-wing politician (Geert Wilders) who dominates every discussion, always shifting the attention to muslims, Eastern Europeans, and how we are wasting money on Greece. In the meanwhile we have a mortgage bubble that is almost bursting and a healthcare system that becomes unaffordable. Moderate politicians, that get relatively little attention, have been warning the electorate for years.

- People buy expensive gadgets and phone subscriptions, without really having the money.

- Although there is relatively little government corruption, lots of people try to evade taxes at every possible occasion (e.g. through unreported employment of painters, construction workers, etc.).

- We dislike the banks and bonuses, but refuse to transfer our money to more ethical banks.

Again, what's the alternative?

Take it from the >100k bank accounts. Only from the >100k bank accounts.

No, and the reason is very simple. The whole discussion shows, that you can have zero trust in national governments. It is therefore save to assume, that you can not count the slightest bit on any retirement plans that have some form of government involvement. Even if you only get some modest apartment in a European metro area as you personal retirement plan, you are way beyond the 100k. Do you really want to steal the money from people who saved money all life just to have some decent retirement? (The "bank account" argument doesn't really count, as the BCG report outlines how they are gunning for real estate owners next).

Do you really want to steal the money from people who saved money all life

You seem to be arguing they should not have taken any money at all, which I of course agree with.

My point was that if they take money (which they did) then they should at least have spared the <100k accounts. I was trying to give the simple answer to the rhetorical question "what's the alternative?".

They overstepped two red lines here. Applying a sudden-tax to their citizens is the first, and taking it from the people who can least spare it is the second. My response was only concerned with the second line, because that is the really explosive one (civil unrest, bank run).

I personally find it great that they didn't spare the <100k accounts. It would have been much easier to do otherwise, as the "let's just take it from the rich" perspective is easy to sell nowadays in Europe. But taking it from those with under 100k accounts takes the fight to the streets and let politicians "feel" the backslash.

I don't know why you were downvoted, because it is an idea that should at least be considered (and I suppose that they did).

It's not really the first time this has happened, it's just the scale that's different. Pension funds in Ireland have been reduced in a similar fashion. http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6830

It's also probably worth noting that in these bailout situations the smaller countries typically do what they are told since the option of not being bailed out are thought to be worse. Where it stings is when the interests of large international financial institutions seem to be placed above those of the citizens of the country involved http://www.notourdebt.ie/ But when you join the EU this is what can happen when things go wrong.

And of course you are neither opinionated nor an armchair economist?

Do you consider taxation to be theft?

There's a vast difference between a "we'll be taking 25% of your income each year" tax and a "we're taking 6% of your already taxed savings with immediate effect" tax. Taxes you know about in advance are more just than those enacted over a weekend with no time to prepare your household budget.

I'm not big into the "taxation is theft" rhetoric but I empathise with those who see certain forms of taxation that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com