The plundering of trust – how the idea of using private savings to save state is destroyed by the core of democracy

When politicians and economic officials start talking about the “mobilization of private assets” or the “solidarity of citizens in the reconstruction of state finances”, there is rarely a call for voluntary participation. It is the euphemistic language of a system that has reached its own limits and is looking for new sources to make its chronicto hide wrong decisions. The idea of attacking private savings as a supposedly slumbering treasure does not arise from strategic foresight, but from fiscal despair. And he shows how deep the political class denies its own responsibility – because the problem is not in the lack of money, but in the abuse of priorities, structures and responsibility.

Money as boots instead of basis

Private property is not a state parking lot, no potential that would be available on call, and certainly not a emergency reserve for political failure. It is the result of work, deprivation and distrust of a bureaucracy that has long been considered unpredictable. Those who touch it breaks the silent social contract between citizen and state. Because saving is an act of trust:The saver believes that his money remains safe, that property is protected, that the state does not gaze at its stability with greed. If this trust is betrayed, all forms of economic predictability end. A state that sees its own population as a source of crisis financing resembles an addict who sells his organs to continue.

The problem is not in the shortcoming, but in the waste

The biggest lie in the debate is the claim that the state has too little money. Year after year, billions of taxes are flowing into a device that is getting bigger, more bureaucratic and inefficient. Bottlenecks arise because political priorities are morally disguised and economically missed. Billions for symbolic policy, for consultants, for overwhelming administration and for programs whose benefits areNever checked, show that money is available, but flows incorrectly. The hole in the household is not an economic law of nature, but the result of political comfort. And instead of renovating the household by reforming structures, you look for a light loot – for what is tangible: the money of the citizens.

The illusion of the quick cure

The idea that private assets can end the state crisis sounds like a panacea – simple, convenient, morally charged. But she is economically absurd. One-time income can never cover permanent deficits. They only shorten the symptoms for a short time without curing the disease. Any amount of money, no matter how large, would be used up within a very short time if the statecontinue the same course. New debt, new budget holes and new demands would be the inevitable consequence. A state that believes that it can save its structures with foreign money does not work on its recovery, but on its dependence.

The political temptation of light money

An additional factor makes this idea particularly dangerous: political psychology. As new funds become available, the temptation to use them not for consolidation but for popularity is growing. History shows that suddenly emerging masses of wealth are almost never used for long-term renovations, but in short-term gifts and symbolic projectsflow. Every euro that was supposed to be used to relieve the burden is packed into new election gifts, in programs without planning, in bureaucracies that reproduce themselves. The system does not keep itself alive with reason, but with constant consumption of money that does not belong to it.

Moral extortion as an argumentation strategy

The most perfidious thing about the entire debate is the moral pressure with which she is accompanied. Anyone who protects their property is declared a selfish, who refuses access should be unsolidarity. This means that the population is played off against each other, while the state stages itself as a moral judge. But solidarity ends where coercion begins. A government thatThe willingness of society to make sacrifices appeals after vaguely for decades of vaining the society’s intelligence. It was not the people who lived above their means, but those who decided over their heads.

The legal and social explosive power

State access to private assets is not only economically devastating, but socially toxic. Ownership is the last retreat of personal responsibility. If it is questioned, the company loses its backbone. Anyone who no longer knows their savings with certainty will flee into consumption, tangible assets or foreign capital. The trust in banks breaks, the tax systemCollapsed because no one is willing to contribute fairly if the state itself knows no bounds. Such access would destroy the basis of the social market economy: the freedom to build wealth and manage it independently.

The moral risk of state comfort

A state that makes citizens liable for their own wrong decisions is released from responsibility. A moral risk arises, in which inefficiency is rewarded and virtue is punished. Those who take precautions and households are expropriated, while those who benefit politically get away with it. This perversion of responsibility not only destroys economic logic,It also undermines democratic morality. The idea that individual thrift is supposed to finance collective waste is contradicted by any concept of justice.

Bureaucracy as a black hole

Even if the hypothetical redistribution took place, the funds were seeping into the densest swamp in the republic: in bureaucracy. No institution is better at burning resources without delivering noticeable results. With each new program, the state creates new administrative arms, every reform produces new committees, every review of new advisors. It’s a system thatfeeds himself while forgetting his original task. Money that is taken from citizens disappears into forms, meetings and concept papers. Only one other office remains of any supposed renovation of the household.

Trust as a national resource

Every modern economy is not based on money first, but on trust. Whoever destroys this trust destroys capital that cannot be printed. The idea of tackling private savings destroys the psychological basis of a society that still believes in ownership and personal contribution. It drives split, distrust and withdrawal. and while citizens are desperately trying toSaving savings, the state can only watch its moral credibility melt. Because trust is not a household post – it is the invisible putty that holds everything together.

The wrong question that is clouding everything

The crucial question is not where more money should come from, but why the existing one is used so badly. Healthy household management does not need new income, but clear priorities, limited expenditure and transparent control. The state has no revenue problem, but a structural problem. As long as taxes, subsidies and funding programs according to politicalOpportunity instead of being awarded, no euro will be enough for the world. Only with real reforms, with controlled administration and with a tax policy that combines performance and fairness can a budget be managed in a stable manner.

The grip in the pockets is the grip in the heart

The call for access to private assets is not simply financial madness – it is a moral oath of disclosure. He documents the point where politics no longer recognizes its own limits and begins to conquer the property of those who swore to protect it. This idea destroys more than money, it does not destroy the principle that the state serves the citizenvice versa.

A country that sacrifices its savings to obtain a dysfunctional apparatus is not a state of the future, but one that squanders its presence. The only renovation that is really necessary is that of political minds. Because as long as greed is confused with lust for reform with solidarity and irresponsibility, every new account that the state empties remains, only thePreview the next – until nothing remains that you could take from the citizens, except your belief in justice.