L’UThe European Union has recently unveiled an ambitious initiative: unlocking over €10 trillion which, according to Brussels, is “sitting idle” in citizens’ bank accounts. The goal? To redirect this wealth to stimulate the economy and fund strategic sectors.
But behind this optimistic narrative lies a more complex reality—one filled with systemic risks, ethical concerns, and a questionable view of what savings truly represent in our economy and society.
Not idle cash, but the foundation of the real economy
Portraying those €10 trillion as inactive is misleading. These deposits are the very fuel that allows banks to perform their core mission: providing credit to families, businesses, and local communities.
Redirecting this liquidity away from the banking system into financial markets would weaken lending capacity, especially at a time when SMEs are already struggling with tight credit access and declining demand.
Moreover, with interest rates on loans far higher than those on deposits, this liquidity represents both profitability and financial stability for banks. Removing it would compress margins and slow down credit supply.
Is the Swedish model really a solution?
A key pillar of the EU’s plan draws inspiration from Sweden’s approach: a flat tax on invested assets, applied regardless of actual returns.
It may seem beneficial when markets perform well, but when markets decline, the tax remains due—even in loss. This makes it an unfair and punitive system.
On top of that, applying such a model in a Union where financial taxation varies significantly from country to country risks benefiting some jurisdictions while penalizing others, undermining tax equity and harmonization.
The real risks of “mobilizing” savings
The intention to channel savings into financial instruments may sound virtuous. But what kind of products are we talking about?
We’re not referring to safe government bonds or savings accounts, but rather funds, ETFs, corporate bonds, and stocks—complex, volatile, and often opaque tools.
The average citizen could find themselves exposed to risks they don’t fully understand or control. And if advisors are incentivized to promote the most profitable products for themselves, the conflict of interest is clear.
In this context, the push for “financial education” might become a convenient excuse. It simply cannot fill the deep knowledge gap between the system and retail investors.
Where will the money actually go?
There’s an even more delicate issue: the strategic use of the funds redirected from citizens’ savings.
The European Commission has stated that this capital will support sectors vital to European “sovereignty.” But among these are dual-use technologies—projects that can serve both civilian and military purposes.
These include artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, robotics, and satellite technologies. While these fields drive innovation, they also form the core of modern technological warfare.
In other words, people’s savings could end up—without their knowledge—financing defense-related or military research projects.
A legitimate question
Should ordinary citizens see their personal savings used—indirectly—to support rearmament or military-tech development?
This isn’t just a technical or economic issue. It’s a matter of ethics. Without transparency or explicit consent, savings lose their neutrality and become instruments of industrial and geopolitical agendas, often misaligned with the values of the individuals who saved that money.
Saving is a right not a political tool
Savings are not a reservoir to be drained to cover strategic gaps. They are a form of individual freedom, a safeguard for uncertain times, a symbol of trust in the system.
To tap into this capital without full transparency and protection is to violate a social contract and betray the citizen’s rights.
If the European Union truly wants to act in the people’s interest, it must treat their savings as a common good, not a resource to exploit at any cost.
