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.
Take it from the >100k bank accounts. Only from the >100k bank accounts.
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).
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.
Do you consider taxation to be theft?
I'm not big into the "taxation is theft" rhetoric but I empathise with those who see certain forms of taxation that way.
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.