Thread

🛡️
For anyone confused about the insane rhetoric of the @EU deciding to confiscating personal savings "for investment." Understand, personal savings IS investment in the peoples' futures. What they are doing is bleeding the life out of your future so they can wage war. Your future will be harder, your pay will feel insignificant, quality food will be too expensive, and your trajectory for retirement will look bleak or impossible... and it'll be *precisely* because of this. They are sacrificing your prosperity at the alter of big govt, bigger corporations, & infinite war. image

Replies (33)

Deep research from ChatGPT: European Commission’s Savings and Investments Union: How Contributions Work The European Commission’s Savings and Investments Union (SIU) is a strategy to channel more household savings into productive investments. Crucially, it does not compel anyone to hand over their money or have banks automatically siphon funds from personal accounts. Instead, the SIU focuses on voluntary participation through new savings and investment products, supported by incentives and convenient options  . In other words, individuals won’t see their bank redirect deposits into an EU fund by default – you either choose to contribute or are enrolled with the option to opt out. Voluntary Contributions, Not Automatic Deductions • Opt-In Investment Products: The Commission’s plan is to “promote low-cost saving and investment products at EU level for retail investors” . This means creating easy, attractive ways for people to invest if they actively choose. For example, a person might open a new EU-wide savings/investment account or buy into a fund – but only if they opt in. There is no rule forcing you to transfer money; it’s about offering better opportunities and incentives for those who want to invest . • No Automatic Bank Redirects: Banks will not automatically divert your existing savings into an SIU fund without your consent. The initiative aims to “increase returns on savings” by giving citizens more investment options , but any movement of your money would require your involvement. In practice, contributions would happen via voluntary actions – for instance, setting up a recurring transfer into an investment fund or pension. Even industry proposals for the SIU emphasize “programmed monthly contributions” and default investment options as low-barrier solutions, but “without compromising” individuals’ freedom of choice . In short, nothing will be taken from your account or “redirected” by your bank unless you sign up for it. • Dedicated Funds Are Voluntary: If the SIU leads to creation of any “dedicated” EU savings or investment fund, contributing to it would be entirely voluntary. The Commission’s approach is to empower citizens to invest, not to mandate contributions. For example, stakeholders have floated ideas like a European Savings and Investment Account or an EU-wide retirement plan, but these would function like optional accounts individuals can deposit into (potentially with tax breaks or other incentives), not a government-imposed levy  . The goal is to encourage more people to invest by making it easy and beneficial, rather than to require automatic payments. Auto-Enrolment vs. Opt-In Participation While participation in SIU-related products is fundamentally opt-in, EU policymakers are considering auto-enrolment mechanisms in certain contexts – especially for retirement savings – as a way to boost participation. Auto-enrolment means you are signed up by default but can choose to opt out. Importantly, auto-enrolment is not the same as a compulsory deduction: • Auto-Enrolment in Pensions: The Commission has signaled support for automatic enrollment in workplace pension schemes (similar to the UK’s system) as a best practice to get more people saving for retirement  . In an auto-enrolment system, contributions (e.g. via payroll deduction) start automatically when you get a job, unless you actively opt out. This approach is “widely recognized as one of the most effective mechanisms to boost pension participation” and is “actively promoted by the European Union” . Even so, it remains voluntary in outcome – every individual retains the right to opt out or stop contributions at any time . The Commission plans to recommend auto-enrolment for pensions by Q3 2025 (along with improving personal pension products like the PEPP) to encourage saving, not to force anyone’s hand . • Freedom to Opt Out: In countries that use auto-enrolment, people can leave the scheme whenever they want. As one analysis notes, “in Member States with automatic enrollment schemes, individuals may opt out at will” . This principle would apply to any EU-endorsed auto-enrolment under the SIU. So if, for example, your employer enrolls you in a new EU-wide savings plan by default, you would have the clear ability to say “no thanks” and stop those contributions. The choice ultimately remains with the individual, ensuring participation is not truly automatic without consent. Bottom Line: Participation is Opt-In or Opt-Out, Not Mandatory Official EU communications and policy proposals confirm that the SIU will rely on voluntary participation, aided by smart defaults and incentives – never automatic confiscation of savings. The Commission’s own description highlights giving everyone “the right opportunity” to invest under the SIU, implying an enabling role rather than an obligatory one . There is no requirement for individuals to manually transfer money into a fund unless they decide to participate. Likewise, financial institutions won’t be automatically deducting money for an SIU fund without your agreement. In practice, if the SIU leads to new EU-backed savings products, you will likely see opt-in accounts or plans offered by banks, insurers, or employers. You might be invited or default-enrolled to contribute, but you will always have the option not to. Any contribution – whether a one-time transfer or a monthly deposit – will happen because you chose to join the scheme (or chose not to opt out). The overarching aim is to *“turn savers…into investors” by making it easier and more rewarding, not by any mandate . In summary, participation in the Savings and Investments Union initiative is voluntary and driven by individual choice. You won’t be enrolled in a dedicated fund unless you opt in (actively or by not opting out), and contributions will be made by you or on your behalf with your consent, not automatically taken by your bank. The SIU’s role is to set up the framework and incentives so that if you do want to invest some of your savings, it’s simple and beneficial to do so   – but the decision remains yours. Sources: • European Commission – Work Programme 2025 (Competitiveness): Announcement of an SIU strategy to promote low-cost savings/investment products for citizens . • Deutsche Börse (industry proposal) – Emphasizes voluntary features (e.g. monthly contributions and auto-enrolment options as nudges) “without compromising…self-discretion” of savers . • Investment Company Institute (ICI) – Notes that in auto-enrolment schemes individuals retain the right to opt out at any time; auto-enroll is a nudge, not a mandate . • PensionsEurope – Highlights that auto-enrolment (with opt-outs) is encouraged by the EU to increase participation in pensions, whereas purely voluntary (opt-in) systems often see low uptake . This illustrates the opt-in/opt-out approach the SIU is expected to take, rather than any automatic deductions. Sources: • European Commission – Work Programme 2025 (Competitiveness): Announcement of an SIU strategy to promote low-cost savings/investment products for citizens . • Deutsche Börse (industry proposal) – Emphasizes voluntary features (e.g. monthly contributions and auto-enrolment options as nudges) “without compromising…self-discretion” of savers . • Investment Company Institute (ICI) – Notes that in auto-enrolment schemes individuals retain the right to opt out at any time; auto-enroll is a nudge, not a mandate . • PensionsEurope – Highlights that auto-enrolment (with opt-outs) is encouraged by the EU to increase participation in pensions, whereas purely voluntary (opt-in) systems often see low uptake . This illustrates the opt-in/opt-out approach the SIU is expected to take, rather than any automatic deductions.
🛡️
Appreciate it. I forget that I can get a bunch of sources by directly asking Ai. This is what I kind of suspected might be how they do it. And this is probably the best way for them to screw the poor and middle class quietly without anyone realizing it’s happening: “Auto-Enrolment in Pensions: The Commission has signaled support for automatic enrollment in workplace pension schemes (similar to the UK’s system) as a best practice to get more people saving for retirement . In an auto-enrolment system, contributions (e.g. via payroll deduction) start automatically when you get a job, unless you actively opt out. This approach is “widely recognized as one of the most effective mechanisms to boost pension participation” and is “actively promoted by the European Union” . Even so, it remains voluntary in outcome – every individual retains the right to opt out or stop contributions at any time.” They are forever chaining everything to peoples jobs, default insurance, default pensions, default investments, default everything And it all is built to filter capital away from citizens and to them without people realizing it.
Oh come on!!!!! In what world is the EU going to confiscating personal savings?!? This talk is classic attempts to try to increase engagement with false attention grabbing headlines. The proposal is to offer people simple and tax advantaged investments as an option for them to put their money. Targeted of course to areas that they deem warrant additional capital. Let’s get better at being factual.
🛡️
Happy to dig into details on this if you have them, but I bet it’s just a fancy cover for going deeply leveraged against customer balances, which is the same thing. Could be wrong, but any plan that acts like it’s conjuring money is probably just a scheme to use someone else’s without it looking that way. Would be pleased to be wrong though, a source with specifics would be welcomed.
This is such a dystopian take. I mean, why would you assume these people are always villains?? I don’t know the details, but given that these people are all boomers, they probably think primarily about the mentality that boomers uphold. Thus, it makes sense that they are probably thinking more about affluent people (boomers) and how to get them from a hoarding mentality to a ”investing in the future” mentality. Ie rearranging already existing fiscal, legal and financial systems to enable more unlocking of savings — this doesnt need to mean they will outright ”grab” the money from peoples savings.
While true that they are terrible capital allocators, you cannot deny the fact that they are presently in control of all tax, which includes everything from capital gains tax rates to deductions and property taxes etc. Wheather we like that or not is irrelevant, it is a fact. The ”personal property rights” you claim exist are already severely limited as it is. This is why it is quite a leap to call these moves dystopian — it is more an issue of working within already existing structures by re-evaluating tax rates and adapting incentives to nudge investments in other directions.
🛡️
I think the reality of this is far, far simpler and far more obviously self serving than “being helpful”: They live entirely in the bottom left corner of the give-a-shit matrix, they need more money for war and all their “grand plans,” they’ve already squandered everything they get, they need another way to siphon money from the people to them. Thats it, that’s all this is, and it’s naive and ignores the evidence to believe it’s anything but exactly that. They will have a plan (whether it ends up being this or not) to default allocate pensions and investment funds from employers or retirements or whatever else, into their pockets, which will get loaned against at interest rates good for *them,* not the saver, and then they will spend it all and IOUs who’s loss of value continues to accelerate will sit in the actually empty accounts of everyone hoping to retire one day. The entire thing is a scam, everything they do is the same, and this is more of the same. They take, they waste, they kill some people, we pay.
You may of course turn out to be right, time will tell. All I’m saying is that I know that most people in governmental positions genuinly believe in the system they run. Most people in Brussels and elsewhere truly believe in democracy, the political system and the value of having a government and so on. Of course they are self serving to some extent (as all people are), but typically they think their ”grand plans” are truly for the greater good. Is there some elements of corruption, or indirect corruption? Probably. Is the entire government corrupt? No. One could even ask if corruption in general truly is the issue here? Or is the issue more about the fact that the entire system itself is dysfunctional long term? Personally I don’t believe in the dystopian narrative, it appears less speculative to assume that we are witnessing a system that is slowly just tearing itself apart over time by its systemic inertia, rather than framing it as a case of villains vs people.