[microtonal]

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.

[moe]

Again, what's the alternative?

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

[1337biz]

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).

[moe]

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).

[1337biz]

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.

[microtonal]

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).