|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Dear readers! If you are a recipient of citizen's income, you can safely ignore this article. This is because the authorities have already determined that you do not possess any significant valuables. However, if you are blessed with assets such as real estate, then all the red lights should be flashing brightly for you. This is because Brussels apparently wants to establish a central asset register in which the property of all 450 million EU citizens is to be registered.
What is so bad about citizens' assets being recorded centrally?
„One does not discuss money.“ warns a well-known German proverb. It is considered inappropriate to discuss financial matters such as income, debts or personal assets. In Germany, for example, it is frowned upon to talk openly about one's own finances or those of others. Money is a private matter, modesty is valued and boasting is despised. Even among friends and within families, salaries and assets are rarely disclosed. Restraint and discretion in financial matters must be seen in a historical context.
Is it „typically German“ not to talk about money? Not at all! There are several countries with similar expressions and a common sentiment that the topic of money should be treated with the utmost discretion:
- The proverbs „We don't discuss money.“ (Spanish) and „We don't discuss money.“ (Italian) correspond in their translation and interpretation of content to the German „One does not discuss money.“
- In English, there is a saying „Money talks, but wealth whispers.“ (Money talks, but wealth whispers.) It emphasises that true wealth and „old money“ are usually handled very discreetly and not flaunted, unlike, for example, „new money“ such as lottery winners.
- The French turn of phrase „Money has no smell.“ (Money has no smell.) is interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, it means that it does not matter, how On the one hand, that money is important, the only thing that matters is having it. On the other hand, that having money is neither good nor bad, but neutral.
In summary, it can be said that there are perfectly understandable reasons for a certain degree of discretion in financial matters. If someone is against disclosing their assets, this does not necessarily mean that they come from obscure sources. Privacy is a valuable asset that must be respected. Opposition to a central asset register may also be motivated by fears that such a database could be hacked sooner or later. The motivation for the world's most skilled hackers to crack such a database could hardly be greater.
The EU Commission has now commissioned external service providers to examine whether a central asset register would be legally and logistically feasible. Such an examination will certainly cost a lot of money. So there must be plans to introduce this register, otherwise there would be no need for a feasibility study. Officially, assets worth more than €200,000 are to be recorded centrally. This criterion is likely to be met by a great many properties, for example, or even private yachts. However, if one takes a closer look at the Brussels project, one finds that bank accounts, securities accounts, works of art, vehicles, cryptocurrencies and precious metals are also to be recorded, at least according to the tender for the feasibility study.
As has often been the case since 11 September 2001, money laundering and terrorist financing are cited as reasons for such an asset register. Currently, the obligatory fight against right-wing extremism and possible connections to Russia or China are certainly also factors. Why „Granny's little house“ should be included remains a mystery to the architects of the Brussels asset register. The central asset database will certainly be structured in such a way that it will be virtually impossible to circumvent, especially within the EU. Even transferring assets to Switzerland no longer offers any security, as the Swiss are already cooperating closely with the EU and even want to set up their own asset register.
Perhaps you, dear readers, now think that you have nothing to hide. Or that none of this will affect you personally. Perhaps you are right in your assessment. But what if you are not? Critics of such a register fear that in times of crisis it could be misused to use citizens„ assets to pay off debts. German MEP Markus Ferber (CSU) – himself a member of the European Parliament for 30 years – is opposed to a central register, for example. He calls it a “mistake we should not make in the first place„ and argues that it would be another step towards “financially transparent citizens". After three decades in the European Parliament, Ferber knows exactly how Brussels ticks.
This concern is not unfounded, as historical examples show that private assets can be used for government intervention in times of crisis. Consider the Burden Equalisation Act of 1952, when property owners were subject to a compulsory mortgage of 50 per cent of the value of their properties. Or Cyprus in 2013, when all account holders with balances over €100,000 were partially expropriated overnight, allegedly to target Russian oligarchs. However, most of them managed to get their money out in time because they had been tipped off about what was coming. We do not wish to deny that, due to the above-average interest rates, illicit funds may also have been parked in Cyprus. Nor do we wish to condone this! Quite the contrary! For us as a political foundation, the rule of law and tax justice are non-negotiable! However, these examples serve to show that known assets can, in principle, arouse the covetousness of national or supranational authorities.
Who actually knows today what you own?
Of course, Schufa knows a lot. Your bank is aware of your account balances. And the example of Cyprus has shown that these are not safe above certain limits. The same applies to securities accounts. Real estate is at least known to the land registries. But these are managed decentrally. The land registry for the flat you use yourself does not know about your holiday property on Rügen or Mallorca. And ideally, your bank also knows nothing about your other accounts or share portfolios. The Picasso hangs at home above the designer sofa, the Rembrandt is stored in an air-conditioned safe. You manage your bitcoins in your wallet. The Porsche 911 is in your garage, but the leasing company already knows you have it. You may or may not have cash at home. Many people don't even have £100 in cash. Card and mobile phone payments are so easy – but they depend on electricity and the ability of banks and clearing houses to function. And gold? Few people have any, and the restrictions on trading it anonymously have recently become increasingly restrictive. At the very least, when you sell gold, your ID is recorded, and for larger sales, proof of origin is even required. „I got it from Grandma.“ will hardly be sufficient.
Any remaining freedoms to own assets discreetly and trade anonymously will vanish into thin air with the introduction of a central EU asset register. Even if you were to illegally conceal something when registering your assets, it would be virtually impossible to sell such items legally. However, setting up such a bureaucratic monster only makes sense if, once established, it remains permanently up to date. This means that all disposals or inflows of assets will inevitably also be registered, even if the means to do so do not yet exist today.
When will the EU asset register be introduced?
The feasibility studies on the EU asset register are nearing completion. According to its own statements, the EU will soon publish a roadmap for its introduction. The European Parliament will then have to debate it. If it is approved there, the member states will have to transpose it into national law. However, once the project has passed through the EU authorities, it will be difficult to stop. Former European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker kindly revealed to us how the EU works: „We decide on something, then put it out there and wait a while to see what happens. If there is no major outcry and no riots, because most people don't even understand what has been decided, then we continue – step by step, until there is no turning back.“ (from Die Brüsseler Republik, Der Spiegel, 27 December 1999)
Further sources:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/press-room/20240115IPR16801/deal-on-new-eu-measures-against-money-laundering (in English)
