“My bank account's got robbed by European Commission. Over 700k is lost.”

By the by, doesn't that bank logo look kind of familiar? Engadget's logo was inspired by the RSS logo, but this one doesn't even try to be original.

http://i.imgur.com/WKZEMiQ.png

EC should have treated Cyprus in same manner they treat other countries which are part of Euro Zone. If they can bail out Greece without a haircut which actually caused crisis in Cyprus, why do this against Cyprus? Also it might be a tax haven for others , but for Cypriots its their country. And this haircut is applied to everybody who has deposits in the Cypriot branches of Laikie bank but Same bank has branches in Greece and people with deposits in Greek branches won't suffer.

When you deposit money in a bank you become a protected senior creditor, but creditor nonetheleas, to the bank. The government insures the first €100 000 or $250 000 against losses, but that guarantee is only as good as the government.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the eurogroup, told the FT as the bailout was announced:

“If we want to have a healthy, sound financial sector, the only way is to say: ‘Look, where you take the risks, you must deal with them, and if you can’t deal with them you shouldn’t have taken them on and the consequence might be that it is end of story.' That’s an approach that I think we, now that we are out of the heat of the crisis, should consequently take." [1]

If you want a dollar asset as close to risk free as possible, buy Treasuries. If you are afraid of inflation buy inflation-protected Treasuries, TIPS.

Not Bitcoins? No, not Bitcoins. The purchasing power of your savings has a higher probability of being retained when backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government than a cryptocurrency. This may very well change, but it is not the case today, particularly if you pay your bills and buy your food in dollars. Speculate in Bitcoins, use them to transact if you must, and perhaps participate them as a form of activism, but do not convince yourself that you are George Sorosing the global financial system.

[1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/68c9c18e-955e-11e2-a151-00144...

Background and summary (forgive me if some details need correcting):

Cyprus is a tiny country with a GDP not much higher than Tim Hortons. Yet, it had something like 150 billion in private funds stored in two of its banks: the Bank of Cyprus and Lakie. Why? Because the majority of the funds (I am generalizing) belongs/belonged to Russians who took advantage of the people on the conversion out of communism (dirty money). As North Americans have Swiss bank accounts, the Russians have Cyprus. Obviously, other people have their money in here too.

Greek's insolvency impacted Cyprus greatly, because a large portion of the Cyprus population are of Greek descent. Thus, when the banks were figuring out where to invest, a large portion of the funds went to Greece. As a result, the banks lost a ton of money, and are on the verge of making the country insolvent. The IMF said the government needed to come up with a large amount of money.

At first they tried to pass a bill that would skim 10% off all Cyprus bank accounts that had over 10k Euros. There was unimaginable outrage, because as you can guess, that affects a good portion of the population. In response, they changed the bill to only affect those with over 100k Euros. Interestingly, this time, mostly the Russian dirty money was affected, and there was not as much public outrage (stealing stolen money). As a result, now 30% of all bank accounts over 100k Euros are being seized.

All the North Americans probably don't realize why this is such a big deal. In North America, we have money in companies, hedge funds, etc. In Europe, from what I've been told, banks are the major (almost exclusive) depository. Thus, you can imagine that this is a much bigger deal.

I don't know what country OP lives in specifically, but what you quoted is wrong for the majority of European countries, who are neither tyrannical nor are they run by 'political and family dynasties'.

Perhaps whoever you quoted was making a good case for not cooperating (taxes or otherwise) with tyrannical governments, but the situation in most European countries is that the government is democratic, progressive, and operates in the interests of it's citizens more than it does in the interests of the politicians themselves.

The OP, unfortunately, doesn't get a choice of operating within a system where he benefits greatly from other people's effort and also paying taxes OR doing neither, he only gets to choose whether to contribute to a system that profits him massively or not. While choosing not to contribute, which is what OP did, is not technically stealing, it's ethically equivalent - I present as rationale the Kantian argument - if nobody paid taxes it is obvious that (within European countries) everybody would be worse off than if everybody paid taxes, therefore it is unethical for a single person to not pay taxes.