Cypriot bank savers forced to pay towards Euro/IMF bailout

[_angel_]

I'd still get my money out in case they came back for more.

I wouldn't be too happy with my cash on deposit if I were in one of the PIIGS either

Exactly. This is a perfect way for the banks to fall.

 

[Blagsta]

Why are people defending this?

 

[coley]

Why are people defending this?

Because they can't see past the €100,000 figure, the rich are being hammered oh glee.

 

[two sheds]

False dichotomy, surely? I'm in no way in favour of benefits cuts, and the idea that the alternatives are either a regressive savings grab or cutting social services is part of the problem here. Your idea that, well, it's "just a tax" IS shoulder shrugging.

The fact that Europhobe/EUSSR ranters are hypocrites doesn't make this shit acceptable by any means

I don’t like these sorts of arguments where we probably actually agree on the causes and solutions of the problem, but ...

Sorry, I refuse to be outraged by Sas’ thread which was saying that the EU was showing its true evil nature by having a tax on savings (he must be loving this, uniting left and right wing in moral outrage).

I’ll say again that we should really be taxing the people who have gained from this crisis, but I still think that taxing savings (lets call them ... assets) is better than reducing benefits and services. I actually think a tax on assets is fairer than a tax on income because they get round tax on income by having clever accountants who turn it into bonuses and share options and ...

From this you accused me of shoulder shrugging (no provocation, mind , my name came up on your list right out of the blue). If you disagree with the analysis, no problem. You carry on thinking it’s shoulder shrugging and I’ll carry on thinking that you’re shoulder shrugging over the tories reducing benefits (it may be a false dichotomy but I note that you didn’t come up with a different solution).

I’d have gone further myself, and included other assets so that someone with ten £100,000 paintings would have to sell one of them to pay an asset tax, and someone with say ten houses would have to sell one to pay a tax on property type assets, too. And if that meant that the prices of houses dropped dramatically, then perhaps young people would be able to buy somewhere to live or afford their rents.

You're all probably right, though, it won’t get through. The solicitors and doctors and MPs and people with large amounts of cash at the bank are going to be against it and will argue the poor's case most persuasively. What is the government going to do instead? They’ll cut benefits and services instead like everywhere else, and so everyone will be happy.

 

[frogwoman]

what makes yoy think they won't make cuts in addition to doing this as well?

 

[butchersapron]

This is to make sure cuts happen. I do not know what two sheds thinks is going on here. That long post is crazy.

 

[gosub]

Because they can't see past the €100,000 figure, the rich are being hammered oh glee.

Quite the opposite: people put money in banks thinking up to 100,000EUro was covered, so if the bank went bust and you had less than 100,000EUro in there you lost nothing, you had more you still only get 100,000 back. So if you had a million EUro, you stood to lose 900,000.

Now, you lose 6,750 of your 100,000 to ensure that the millionaire only loses 99,000. Net gain to the millionaire of 801,000EUro, at the expense of the smaller saver

 

[Belushi]

I’ll say again that we should really be taxing the people who have gained from this crisis, but I still think that taxing savings (lets call them ... assets) is better than reducing benefits and services. I actually think a tax on assets is fairer than a tax on income because they get round tax on income by having clever accountants who turn it into bonuses and share options and ...

They're taking 6.75% out of everyones bank accounts (9.9% on anything over Euro 100,000) thats anything that anyone had in their bank accounts on Friday - wages, pension, savings the lot.

 

[two sheds]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions based on no facts whatsoever, I have no problem with people paying tax, however this is about the Cypriot govt stealing money as a result of pressure exerted by the EU in order to secure a bailout, I find it disturbing that ordinary people can have their savings sequestered in such a way. If you want to discuss the Torys high handed treatment of the poor there are threads dealing with that, this is about the ability of a government having the ability to steal from its citizens.

The assumption I'm making that you believe is based on:

I think appropriating people's money with out their permission equates to theft

when talking about tax. That's exactly the one used for not paying income tax. The government does not ask me whether I want to pay tax on my income, so by your definition that’s theft.

Now you’re backing down and saying that other taxes which are taken without permission are fine but this ‘levy’ is theft. I looked up ‘levy’ after BA used the word and the definitions basically said ‘1. Tax. 2. To confiscate property, especially in accordance with a legal judgment..

Not ‘theft’ note, but ‘tax’.

What’s the difference that makes a tax on income a righteous tax but a tax on savings evil and theft? If a tax on someone on benefits with £0 savings is £0, a tax on an ‘ordinary’ person’s (say) £30,000 savings raised £3,000 and a tax on a millionaire banker’s savings raised £300,000 then I’d say that was a better fucking way to pay off the deficit than taking it all from benefits and essential services as we do in this country.

Which is the only other option on the table – people seem to be thinking that the rich magically giving their money away is a realistic option. When this is repealed it’ll be back to cutting services and benefits.

 

[coley]

when talking about tax. That's exactly the one used for not paying income tax. The government does not ask me whether I want to pay tax on my income, so by your definition that’s theft

Tax is a clearly defined obligation on people with income or other taxable wealth, coming along out of the blue and grabbing somebody's money without agreement or even warning is theft, why do you have difficulty in comprehending this.?

 

[coley]

Which is the only other option on the table – people seem to be thinking that the rich magically giving their money away is a realistic option.
Taxing the rich is something have absolutely no objection to, closing tax avoidance loopholes? Aye, as soon as possible, taking money from people's private accounts without reason or warning equates to theft, something a dictatorship would get up to.

 

[two sheds]

Tax is a clearly defined obligation on people with income or other taxable wealth, coming along out of the blue and grabbing somebody's money without agreement or even warning is theft, why do you have difficulty in comprehending this.?

Yes I agree as you say it's 'a clearly defined obligation on people with ... taxable wealth'. That's exactly what this was. Of course they didn't give warning. People would have taken all their money out and crashed the banks . If you give rich people warning on what you're going to do, they're going to avoid it. That's what they've got accountants for.

If someone takes money out of your bank account for their own use, it is theft not tax. If the government takes the money and the money goes to pay for services and benefits, it's tax not theft, why do you have difficulty in comprehending this?

 

[two sheds]

Taxing the rich is something have absolutely no objection to, closing tax avoidance loopholes? Aye, as soon as possible,

Agree with you completely.

 

[treelover]

A lot of ordinary Anglo-Cypriots, Anglo-Turks here etc invested there because of the higher rates on savings compared to what's been offered by UK savings institutions for the last 5 years, same in Germany with their Turkish minority, so that's a lot of ordinary working class and petit bourgeois people who're going to find their retirement funds lighter. Some of these banks do enough business here and in Germany to have branches beyond the usual single "financial district" branch in The City. There's going to be a lot of pissed-off people.

This is incredible and whatever the guarantees will worry people here about UK savings, etc. I do feel for the people above, not everyone is rich, another example of the weaknesses now glaringly transparent with the current economic model...

 

[treelover]

Think artist, think taxi driver think:

only 300 views, I though the ATD was much more popular than that...

 

[treelover]

btw, he started off well, does he always shout/

 

[Combustible]

Why are people defending this?

People seem to have a kneejerk reaction to defend the EU just because a lot of prominent 'Eurosceptics' are rabid right wingers.

 

[FNG]

If the government takes the money and the money goes to pay for services and benefits, it's tax not theft, why do you have difficulty in comprehending this?

Its not going to pay for services and benefits though it is going back to the EU as part one of a series of austerity measures.What is more They are taking it out of peoples already taxed incomes,the people who provide the services you are rightly cheerleading.

Sorry to be blunt about this.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/opinions/our-view-rescue-package-designed-destroy-economy/20130317

 

[junglevip]

btw, he started off well, does he always shout/

Always

I thought this was funny

http://maxkeiser.com/2013/03/17/give-us-all-your-money-this-is-a-stick-up/

 

[Lo Siento.]

I don’t like these sorts of arguments where we probably actually agree on the causes and solutions of the problem, but ...

Sorry, I refuse to be outraged by Sas’ thread which was saying that the EU was showing its true evil nature by having a tax on savings (he must be loving this, uniting left and right wing in moral outrage).

You should be outraged for the people affected, not by Sas' thread. I've no issue whatsoever with agreeing with a right-winger when they're right.

I’ll say again that we should really be taxing the people who have gained from this crisis, but I still think that taxing savings (lets call them ... assets) is better than reducing benefits and services. I actually think a tax on assets is fairer than a tax on income because they get round tax on income by having clever accountants who turn it into bonuses and share options and ...

Again, I'm against both. Neither of them is good, and they'll inevitably both be part of the package.

From this you accused me of shoulder shrugging (no provocation, mind , my name came up on your list right out of the blue). If you disagree with the analysis, no problem. You carry on thinking it’s shoulder shrugging and I’ll carry on thinking that you’re shoulder shrugging over the tories reducing benefits (it may be a false dichotomy but I note that you didn’t come up with a different solution).

(a) You're the one who's comfortable with one of the two measures mentioned, I'm opposed to both measures and (b) why should we be the ones to offer a different solution, we aren't in the business of managing capitalism's debts. Abolish the debt, make the rich pay it off, default, refuse payment, whatever, our job is to resist it coming at the expense of the working class.

I’d have gone further myself, and included other assets so that someone with ten £100,000 paintings would have to sell one of them to pay an asset tax, and someone with say ten houses would have to sell one to pay a tax on property type assets, too. And if that meant that the prices of houses dropped dramatically, then perhaps young people would be able to buy somewhere to live or afford their rents.

You're all probably right, though, it won’t get through. The solicitors and doctors and MPs and people with large amounts of cash at the bank are going to be against it and will argue the poor's case most persuasively. What is the government going to do instead? They’ll cut benefits and services instead like everywhere else, and so everyone will be happy.

As to this bit - why can't we resist both?

 

[ymu]

Yes I agree as you say it's 'a clearly defined obligation on people with ... taxable wealth'. That's exactly what this was. Of course they didn't give warning. People would have taken all their money out and crashed the banks . If you give rich people warning on what you're going to do, they're going to avoid it. That's what they've got accountants for.

If someone takes money out of your bank account for their own use, it is theft not tax. If the government takes the money and the money goes to pay for services and benefits, it's tax not theft, why do you have difficulty in comprehending this?

1. Taxation may be progressive or regressive. Income tax tends to be progressive because of tax-free allowances and higher tax bands. VAT is highly regressive because the poorer you are, the more of your income is spend on VATable goods (and the less on buying stocks and shares and pumping up financial bubbles).

2. This will hit everyone with money still left in their current account since payday. Those who just got paid will pay a lot more than those who are about to get paid. The money thieved will be used to make sure the truly rich do not have to suffer the losses they risked when they made dodgy investments and put cash into obviously over-inflated bubbles.

It is not being applied to wealth, only cash, something that affects you more the poorer you are because the rich keep a far lower proportion of their savings in cash than the poor.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Bank runs across the PIIGS tomorrow?

 

[butchersapron]

For anyone still confused, this is it laid out plain and simple with no guff about a "financial solidarity tax":

Cyprus needs €17bn in funds to cover the losses its wildly over-extended banks have made on all the loans they made to property developers on the island – and most important, to Russian oligarchs and Greek shipping magnates that have now turned sour. The Cypriot government had been bailing them out up to now but has now exhausted that capability. But the EU-IMF Troika was worried that a straightforward bailout to the Cypriot government would mean a total support to Russian mafia depositors that have been using Cypriot banks as money launderers and it would also double the public sector debt ratio for Cyprus to 145% of GDP by end-2013, with every likelihood that it could never be paid back.

So the EU leaders took the unprecedented step in taking the ‘insured deposits’ of Cypriots as part payment for the funding. The one-off levy will raise about €6bn of the €17bn needed.

...

So here we have Cypriot banks who have been laundering money for Russian oligarchs, lending to all and sundry in speculative ventures, Icelandic style. Now they are bust and who is to pay? Not the Russian oligarchs. If it had been them, all their deposits could have been forfeited or the bank levy could just have been applied to those with over €100,000 on deposit. And it’s not the owners of Cypriot sovereign bonds who bet on the government continuing to allow the banking spree. No, the Greek and Russian banks that own Cypriot debt, or the hedge funds that bet on a bailout,will be laughing all the way to the banks. No the main payers are the poorer Cypriot deposit holders and Cypriot taxpayers. If you have €30,000 in the bank as your only savings, you will be losing €2000 forever. And that €2000 is much more important to the small saver than the rich Russian oligarch.

And the taxpayers still get hit with a large increase in debt payments to make down the road and increased taxes now. Also the government now plans to privatise the utilities to meet part of the bailout bill. Cyprus also the potential for offshore gas supplies. No doubt revenues from those will end up in the hands of creditors rather than as better incomes for average Cypriots. Already, as a sweetener, Anastasiades has hinted that he would offer depositors equity returns, guaranteed by future natural gas revenues. “Half of the value of the haircut will be guaranteed by natural gas proceeds”. So Russian oligarchs will get some energy revenues.

 

[junglevip]

Bank runs across the PIIGS tomorrow?

Possibly:

Bank run stirs fears in eurozone after Cyprus bailout

http://www.telegram.com/article/20130317/NEWS/103179817/1052

 

[not-bono-ever]

.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

.

I think the authorities are on to you. Your post has been 'disappeared'.

 

[gosub]

I think the authorities are on to you. Your post has been 'disappeared'.

His point stands though, if a bank is looking shaky, as they were, why leave more money in there than is guaranteed (100,000EUro)

 

[coley]

Oops a,daisy

The move — a first in the three-year-old European financial crisis — raised questions over whether bank runs could be set off elsewhere in the eurozone. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the president of the group of euro area ministers, early Saturday declined to rule out taxes on depositors in countries beyond Cyprus, although he said such a measure was not currently being considered.

Get your money out now! I suspect it will be chaos tommorrow in the Bailout countries

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

This is some seriously incompetent shit from the EU officials that thought up the idea.

 

[FNG]

Angela Merkal weighs in with some remarkable Doublespeak

“anyone having their money in Cypriot banks must contribute in the Cypriot bailout. That way those responsible will contribute in it,"
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_17/03/2013_488307

because the average investor has any say in how a bank is run,ask your average RBS,HSBC,Barclays customer.http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/...ce/2012/jul/17/hsbc-money-laundering-barclays

What i find slightly worrying is that the German Security Services are being used as a political tool to smear the Cypriot Banking System,it feels reminiscent of Hutton to me.