[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.