Economic Ideas Forum, Dublin Castle 2012. Day 1.

The Third Annual Economic Ideas Forum was organized by CES (Center for European Studies) and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung; it is hosted by Irish Taoiseach Mr Enda Kenny and Irish Minister for European Affairs Mrs Lucinda Creighton TD. The forum is taking place in the Irish Government buildings in the Dublin Castle between Thursday, April the 19th and Friday the 20th of April.

It has various high ranked Irish and European officials and politicians from many European countries participating in its panels, notably from Ireland, Spain, Holland, Finland, Germany, Italy and Britain. Its main focus is to discuss, debate and analyze the issues that created the current eurozone crisis, reach to conclusions and offer solutions for the future. Also, to address the challenges that Europe is facing now and during the next few decades, and the best potential ways to deal with them.

The Forum begun with the welcome speech by Mrs Creighton, during which she pointed out that Europe has many times dealt with other financial crisis in the past, but always emerged stronger. She mentioned that Europe is like a family and like every family it has its problems and disputes, but "we must work together, collectively, putting our best forward."

Then the President of EPP (European People's Party) and CES, Mr. Wilfried Martens  addressed the audience and he encouraged the European leaders to take stock of the impact of their decisions and think of ways to deal with them. Mr. Martens also stressed that the European Community must show its solidarity, that is time to take responsibility and focus in fiscal discipline, job creation and that the origins of the crisis are the high levels of debt. He also mentioned that Europe's monetary union needs to be implemented with economic union and that the completion of the single market is essential to promote recovery. Mr Martens closed his speech by quoting Germany's Chancellor Mrs Angela Merkel's statement that "my vision is a European political union," and that he hoped that the Irish citizens will make a European choice in the up-coming EU Fiscal Treaty Referendum.

Mr Martens was followed by Mr Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the European Commission. He stressed that Europe must put real economy in the center of its agenda and that "we need to be strong on political choices, we need a new industrial revolution." He added that Europe must invest in research, innovation and education and with a pan-European infrastructure we should be able to deal with similar crisis in the future. He compared Europe with China and America and how it lacks in investment when compared with its competitors, but also noted that those investments must be focused in enhancing technological leadership and devote more resources in research; a research that must be industry oriented. Mr Tajani also said that "trade should be free but also fair," and he closed his address by noting that Europe must have an economic governance with a stronger E.C.B. (European Central Bank).

Followed Mr Tajani's speech we had the first panel of discussion which was moderated by Mr Roland Freudenstein, (CES Deputy Director) and comprised by Mr Brian Hayes (Ireland's Minister of State in the Department of Finance), Mr Joachim Pfeiffer (CDU/CSU Speaker on Economic Policy of Germany), Mr Peter Nyberg (Commission of Investigation into the banking system of Ireland), Mr Colm McCarthy from the School of Economics in UCD (University College Dublin) and Mr Dan O'Brien economics editor in The Irish Times.

This panel focused in discussing the position of Europe in the world economy and how to win opportunities through stronger economic governance. Mr Pfeiffer addressed the issue from a German perspective and he added that consumption in his country was one of the pillars of growth. Mr Nyberg said that European authorities were not powerless in dealing with certain problems but some supervisors in the ECB did not see that anything bad was going to happen. Only a handful of people had an idea of what was coming "but they could do nothing about it."

Mr Nyberg suggested that to avoid future crisis, we need to educate a new generation of bankers, that will allow and prepare the banks in similar situations in the future to take the losses. Mr McCarthy agreed with the fact that Europe has just a currency but not a monetary union and that the eurozone design is "flawed." He suggested that the Maastricht Treaty must be revisited, that we need market discipline and better supervision as complimentary measures to a currency union.

Mr O'Brien stressed that "we do not know the magic formula for growth and what mix of policies with generate growth," bringing examples from the north and south Italy, as well the east and west Germany regions and the economic differences between them. The panel concluded that the Fiscal Treaty is not enough to deal with the crisis, that we need to revisit the ECB and its roles, we need a stronger EU Commission and above all that European politicians should not dismiss people and ignore them. The issue of a European Finance Minister was also discussed and if such move is a threat to European economic diversity.

A lunch break followed, before entering the room for the second panel of discussions that was opened by a key note speech by John Bruton, former Taoiseach of Ireland and Ambassador of the EU to the USA. Mr Bruton started his speech by reminding the audience about "the many discouraging moments" that Europe faced in the beginning of the Single Market. But as it took a period of time to create a relative functioning Single Market, "we should look back at our experiences from that and apply them in our problems with the single currency." He suggested that Europe needs also a single market for Banking and that we rely too much on the banks for credit, while there is no European bond market; the banks are far too big. "We need a Europe wide investor protection, but be careful not to drive business out of our continent," he said.

Mr Bruton also mentioned the case of certain groups of people that will lose out from the development of the Single Market and they know who they are, that is why they are quick to take action and stop any development; on the contrary people who will benefit from the Market, do not know or realize it until it is too late.

Then he joined the rest of the panel, the moderator Mr Peter Ehrlich (Financial Times Germany), Mr Raymond Gradus (Director of CDA Research Institute, the Netherlands), Mr Eric Loeb (Vice President, International External Affairs at AT&T), Mr Maurice Thompson (Vice Chairman CITI Europe, Middle East and Africa) and Anthony Foley (Senior Lecturer, Dublin City University Business School). This panel debated on the options of Europe to bounce back from the crisis and the role of the Single Market as a key to growth.

Mr Ehrlich started the discussion by stating that recovery can happen only if the Single Market is used in every EU state, but the problem is that member states do not really abide into what they agree. Mr Foley agreed but he added that this is a problem not only in Europe but international, bringing as example the Doha round negotiations. He also mentioned that another problem is protectionism, meaning that EU member states keep certain sectors out of the Market on purpose. Mr Gradus added to the debate the issue of taxation rules on European level, while Mr Bruton noted that if we create a single bond market, we will need a single deposit scheme across Europe.

Later Mr Foley argued that in 2012 we have yet a Europe wide solution and Mr Bruton noted that certain conflicts of interests are presented as conflicts between countries. Mr Ehrlich following that statement, questioned why things that are discussed during the EU Council meetings are not explained to the people. Mr Loeb said that Europe does not need any more policy statements by its leaders, "we have already so many on the self!" But Mr Bruton appeared more harsh with the ECB officials than Mr Nyberg earlier and suggested that people in the central bank did not read certain protocols,"they were given a task by EU policy officials, but they did not do their job!"

The panel also addressed issues like the inability of Governments to borrow in the current climate contrary to the multinational corporations. They discussed the taxation harmonization across Europe issue that is sensitive to Ireland; Mr Bruton and Foley stated that this will be bad for Ireland and that competition among states is good, while Mr Gradus that supported this suggestion clarified that he supports the harmonization of the basis of the taxes, not the tax rates. Other conclusions by the panel were that we need an integrated Europe to deal with the multinationals, European citizens must start voting as Europeans and make EU more democratic and that because of this crisis there has been far more European integration in the last two years than in the past fifteen!

After a short coffee break we returned to the debate and the third panel of discussions, moderated by Mr Christophe Leclercq (EurActiv founder and publisher) and its members; Mr Richard Bruton TD (Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation of Ireland), Mr Danny McCoy (Irish Business and Employers Confederation) Mr Ciaran O'Hagan ( Bond Strategist at Societe Generale) and Mr Kimmo Sasi ( Chairman of the Finance Committee in the Eduskunta, Finland).

The panel's discussion focus was on the dilemma of boosting competitiveness while enhancing social Europe. Mr McCoy noted the importance of the native multinational companies, but also the issue of Europe blocking accession to any potential; a situation that is visible by the scandal of high youth unemployment! Then Mr O'Hagan stressed the issue of rating agencies and how they rate countries; he suggested that new criteria for ratings must be introduced like social cohesion and demographics. Mr Sasi commented on the Finnish system of income and high value tax and how it resulted in good social services.

Then the debate moved into the labor flexibility issue and the permanence that leads to security of jobs and social security in general. Mr Bruton stressed that the diversity of the European economic models is actually Europe's strength. "With a few more billions of people entering the capitalist system from China, India and eastern Europe," he continued "innovation and labor flexibility is essential." He also pointed the need to encourage people in funding their own pensions, due to Europe's decreasing demographics. Mr McCoy supported that Europe's social model is unsustainable and "the younger generation will realize that we have to deal with it; labor flexibility is going to arrive!"

The panel also questioned the age of retirement limit while all speakers agreed that there can be no more luxurious social security, with only "effective but not excessive benefits" as Mr Sasi said. They discussed about the need to be daring in reforming social policies, as they holding back growth. The role of the unions was also taken into consideration while Mr Bruton stated that "European welfare state is doomed," but the reforms must be done gradually and in a humane way. The panel concluded that we need different types of social contract, we need to develop new models and to promote creativity and entrepreneurship within the education system.

The third panel closed the first day of the Economic Ideas Forum, with the much anticipated second day that includes a speech by the Taoiseach of Ireland Mr Enda Kenny, already being in the participants' minds.

What will China's rise mean for Europe?

For the past few decades we are witnessing a transformation on the global politics and a slow shift of power towards the East. With western economies declining and being in recession, opportunities arose for new economic powerhouses on the planet, one of them being China; the most populous country of the world, a land with an ancient history and culture and of course with a lot of potential.

One would think why so far China was not already a global superpower; well there are many reasons for that, mainly internal. But now the Chinese are embracing capitalism, they are playing the westerners' game, and they are good at that. So inevitably America and Europe are afraid of China challenging their hegemony.

China has larger population than Europe and America combined and a massive landmass with lots of resources. It is a serious contestant in foreign policy in Asia, but they also infiltrating Africa, a region that was traditionally under European control. Is this going to bring Europe and China in a headlock? Well potentially yes, but it does not have to be as dramatic as the media appear it to be. We are supposed to be allies with America but we are also their competitors. Does that stop us from closely cooperate with them?

Europeans have invested heavily in China all those years, and recently the Chinese are doing the same in Europe. They bought the Piraeus port in Greece, they are building car factories in Bulgaria and they are investing in Ireland too, as well as in many other EU countries.

I support foreign investments, but I am also wary of them. Our leaders tend to rely solely on them and they are becoming lazy. Yes it is great to attract foreign investments from other countries and multinational companies, but you must use the income of funds to invest and create a sustainable growth and economy; for when the time comes for those companies to relocate elsewhere, somewhere more profitable. Because that is what those companies do; they are searching for the best and most profitable destination and as competition out there is fierce, investments can flow for some years and then relocate in another country with cheaper workforce.

So what do you do? Once you better the living conditions of your population and their salaries go higher, those investors will possibly leave your country. But if you have used their money wisely all those years that they have been investing in your state, then you can establish home grown industries and technologies. And in some cases you maybe become investor in other poorer countries; the trouble is that some leader's are so corrupt that instead of doing this, they are absorbing those funds for personal use, or to perpetuate their rule in their countries.

The other side-effect I fear, is that once you allow others to invest in your country then inevitably you are allowing them to influence your internal and external affairs and policies. In order for someone to invest huge amount of money in you, you got in return to play by their rules in some key areas that interests them. So if the Chinese are investing in many EU countries, and with no real unity in most policy areas among them (as we have seen many times) can the Chinese "play one against each other" later on? In other words, can China, as America was doing all those years, influence European politics indirectly?

Of course they can, and they will. We have been doing it in Europe and other regions of the world for our benefit. The key issue though here is, that if Europe is truly united, there is little we have to fear from this development and we can use it for our benefit. Besides, China has a great interest in Europe, and we have asked their assistance to deal with the eurozone crisis recently: so we are already close partners in a way. We need them as much as they need us and they know it.

I personally welcome China’s rise, but of course we in Europe need to stand united when dealing with them. They are after all (still) the most populous country in the world, and individual European countries of around 10 or 20 million each-never mind the smaller ones, have a clear disadvantage. With a Europe of half a billion though, things are different. Besides, isn't that the main reason of European integration; to counterpart the rising challenges from the continuous changes that are taking place, with the emergence of new markets and economic powerhouses on the planet.

We are seeing countries like China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, the so called BRICS entering the economic landscape of our world. I welcome the rise of these new economies, to break the monopoly of the West notably America. Europe has been their lap dog since WW2, and we barely have foreign policies of our own, if America says otherwise. Their influence over Europe is economic, cultural, political and social. They have influenced our lives and public opinion through their movies, products, press, TV channels and programs, but also dragged us in many wars for their benefit only. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mainly based on America's foreign policy and interests with almost all of Europe involved, with exchange of money, investments from America and other "favors" which I dread to imagine what they are!

Europe is in a way obliged to support America in almost everything and in the case of China, America fears their potential challenge on military supremacy. Their interests in the Pacific that they had monopoly since WW2 are important to them, as well as supporting their vessel states of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Especially over the last one, there is a real concern for a future conflict. So Europe weakens China's military development, or at least is postponing in with its arms embargo. I personally do not see why Europe must get at odds with other countries or regions to safeguard America's favoritism and influence. Why do we have to get in odds with China, in order to favor America? We have been doing the same with Russia and our relations are on a roller-coaster. It could have been different if we had a more independent foreign policy.

Allegedly America is "protecting" us from the threat of Russia, China, Iran and the Islamic one. But if Europe was allowed to develop its own military defense that would not be necessary. Besides there are many in America that do not want to "protect" Europe at "their expense" and as for Russia I do not think they are a real threat anymore, as long as we do not get in their nostrils and side always with America.  Like China they have a great interest in us as we are their primary oil and gas consumer. Why destroy us? We could still be allies with USA but that should not mean being their lap dog.

I wish to see a multi-polar world and break the monopoly of the Americans and the three main European powers (Germany-France-Britain).  Then the world will be more equal and fair in my opinion. But only if Europe unites in some sort. If not, then we are going to be just a play-field and chess-mat for the big players of the future, like China, Russia, America. We are going to be a profitable market for them so they can trade, sell their goods and become richer. But we will have no real influence in the world or towards those superpowers! How can you safeguard your interests like that?

If we have more countries, or block of countries competing with America and Europe, not in an ideological field like we used to have with the USSR and communism, but rather in innovation, development, finances, military and politics, we will have more voices in this world. America and the rich European elite countries won't have the monopoly in this world and its resources, thus we will have more democracy and equality in our planet. If Brazil in South America, China and India in Asia, South Africa in Africa, together with other economic blocks like ASEAN, MERCOSUR, AU and so on get more say, then the established western powers can not behave irresponsibly, arrogantly or like bullies as they have been doing for some time now. They will have strong opposition and this can be for our benefit too. Because small European countries also suffer from the monopolies of America, Britain, France and Germany.

The emergence of China, might be good for the smaller European states; because if the big powers of Europe wish to compete with them, they might be forced to form an ever closer union between us, and speak with one voice to the world. In other words, include all the smaller states in the effort to start being more competitive, taking initiatives and having a voice in the world scene. That could mean that Europe can become like America, a kind of federation that living standards can be of the same level everywhere with the same opportunities for prosperity all over the continent.

Or it could be for the worse, if the European elites wish to replace the cheap production of the Chinese workforce by creating a two tier Europe; the rich north and the poor south, with lower wages and weaker economies. The poorer states will do what the Chinese were doing until now, work to produce cheap goods for the rich states. There are many that fear this, especially in the hardest hit by the current crisis states in EU like Greece and Spain and other southern European countries. Is that what the current economic crisis will lead to? Not necessarily, not if the smaller states start taking a united stand against the three European powers and take initiatives within EU.

There are those who claim that salaries will be cut all over Europe, so that Europe can start producing again and attract investors with lower salaries for its citizens, to compete with China. What started in Greece they say, will spread all over Europe; Greece is just the "guinea pig" and the beginning. All European countries will follow sooner or later. Nevertheless it is obvious that these are certainly indications that life for a worker in Europe will be very different in the future because of the competition rising from China. Perhaps it was about time for us to get a kick up the back-side and stop relying on bubble economies and the markets and re-industrialize our countries.

There is of course the threat and possibility of war between all of the current and emerging powers. But haven't we been in a constant war anyway? Especially America and its European allies. Over a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a brewing conflict with Iran just to safeguard America's interests. Perhaps if there were more military powers to threaten America, they would not go to war as easily in the first place.

To conclude, the rise of China certainly brings many challenges for Europe in the future, but one thing is certain: we can not keep blocking other regions from prospering and developing. We can not afford the effort and we can not keep dragging the development of the human kind all on our own; we need to bring others on board. Besides, it is only ethical to do so. There will be certain challenges that will come with this, but we can definitely  get over them if we accept the fact that we have to face the future in some form of union or federation. Europe must start speaking with one voice in the world. Keep holding on to old imperial and nationalist complexes, is not the way forward; learn to still be a national of an ethnic group while belonging in a international political entity I believe is the way forward. We do not want to lose our identity, nobody wishes so. But democracy can exist in a European or international level if only you allow it, believe it, support it and work for it.

Will the Irish pay the new household charge?

As the deadline for registering and paying the new household charge approaches on the 31^st of March, the majority of the citizens still have yet to pay. There are many scenarios on what the failure to pay will result in. But is the introduction of the charge timed right and why is there so much controversy over it when such charges exist all over Europe?

The “Household Charge” of €100 has been introduced in order to fund local services like emergency services, maintenance and cleaning of streets, public parks, street lighting, libraries, etc. It is an interim measure and will be replaced in future by a valuation-based property tax that already exists in other EU countries.

Ireland is one of the last countries in Europe that does not fund local services through local property-based charges. The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland commits the Government to the introduction of a property tax for 2012.  

The Household Charge is an annual charge introduced by the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 which is payable by owners of residential property. It is a matter for owners of residential properties to register and pay the Household Charge on or after the 1st of January 2012.

A property tax, requiring a comprehensive property valuation system, would take time to introduce and accordingly, to meet the requirements in the EU/IMF Programme, the Government has decided to introduce a Household Charge in 2012.

The new charge is separate from and in addition to the Non-Principal Private Residence (NPPR) charge. If you own a residential property in Ireland, you are obliged to declare your liability for the Household Charge and pay it by the due date, unless you are not liable.

If your house is rented you are liable for the charge and not your tenant. Virtually all private residential properties, including apartments and bedsits, are liable for the charge. There are a few exemptions that are not though; properties owned by an approved charity, government departments or by local authorities and under their schemes and mobile homes, are some of them.

A late payment fee of 10 per cent will be added if the charge is paid within six months of March 31st. This will increase to 20 per cent after six months and to 30 per cent after a year. Late payment interest of 1 per cent per month from the due date will also apply until the charge has been paid.

Since this new measure has been announced by the government, many political and social groups have been promoting their campaign opposing it, on social media, the internet and public demonstrations.

The Irish government and all of the main political parties support the new charge, apart from Sinn Fein. The party’s leader Gerry Adams TD has called on the Taoiseach to axe the Household Charge following the publication of figures which show that less than 7% of households have paid until the end of February.
The Louth TD also called on the government to put in place a plan B to ensure that local councils are adequately funded.

With only days to go before the March 31st deadline the government’s plan to generate €160 million for local councils appears to be in real danger of collapse, according to the Sinn Fein TD.
He called the government to accept that the Household Charge is an unfair tax which should never have been introduced. It is a flat tax that hits the poorest hardest and people on low and middle incomes are bearing the brunt of austerity.

 Mr Adams believes that, the Household Charge should be axed and the government should introduce a cap on wages in the public sector at €100,000, as proposed by Sinn Féin. This would raise €265 million “more than envisaged by the Household Charge.”

Another Sinn Fein politician, Senator Katherine Reilly, also believes that the government got it wrong. “The tax scheme should be progressive, regulated to the ability to pay” she notes. This charge is in line with the EU/IMF austerity programme, as an interim measure to property tax, she explains.

The charge is completely unjust, according to the Senator. “People have massive mortgages repayments and the charge is not looking to the ability of a house owner to pay; it is completely unfair,” she says. “People are in the breadline, the households are squeezed with high levels of unemployment, while more and more charges are being introduced,” she continues.

But there are speculations that if house holders fail or decline to register and pay for the new charge, the government will eventually collect it directly from the existing utility bills of the household.  At the moment there is an enquiry on the legality of such measure with the Data Protection Commission.

“If such thing happens, Sinn Fein will organize some sort of protest about it-like marching and campaigning against it outside the government buildings,” Senator Reilly said. “The government must take a serious look to that, it is not going to work; people are financially squeezed.”

Gerry O’Donnell from Virginia Co. Cavan suggested that the public should know how these funds raised by the new charge will be used by the government; “I think that our government should publish a list to out-line exactly what we will get in return for this payment; do we get a service? Will they replace and ensure that the roads to our homes are maintained for example,” he pointed out.

Many groups that are campaigning against the new charge are warning that once this charge is introduced, the amount will keep rising and it will also lead to water charges. In most other European countries, water and household tax is a reality for many decades now.

In France the municipal taxes are on average about € 1,800 per household, while in Norway around € 1,448 per annum. In Germany the average water bill is around € 750 per annum. Of course there are many differences between the Irish public services and those of our European counterparts. In many cases the services in other European countries are of higher level.

But how does the household charge is implemented in other EU countries and how does it affect their people? Thanos Kalamidas, an artist and free lance journalist in Helsinki, explains how the Finnish system works:  “there is property tax in Finland and it is painful,” he says. “In Finland the idea is that the land belongs to the state and you just have the right to use it, however surreal this might sound in a capitalist world.”

Thanos explains that if you buy and sell property in Finland, your capital gains will be taxed at 28%. There is a separate real estate tax, levied by the municipality as well. Non-resident investors are not exempted from paying this. The property tax rate is based on the value of the real estate, but it generally ranges from 0.3% to 1% of this value. The rate is different for permanent residents, who pay only 0.15% to 0.50%.

Marianne Ranke-Cormier, a Parisian and editor of the on-line Newropeans Magazine, explains how the tax works in France; “in France this charge is called ‘Taxe foncière’ (Land value tax) and also ‘Taxe d'habitation’ (local residence tax) existing since the French revolution, which corresponds to the spirit of equality,” she explains. The rich landowners must also pay and it applies to all real property, built or non-built. However, the tax is levied by municipalities, so the richer the city then the tax is lower.

This is the case for Paris where the taxes are lower than in the suburbs, “which is unequal, as properties in Paris are more expensive, so the rich Parisian owners pay less taxes when compared with the owners of the suburbs,” she says. “It is time for owners of property of Greece and Ireland to contribute to the community for the services they exploit. The land belongs to nobody, it is a common good and I find it normal to pay back to the society for the right to ‘own’ a large or small part of it,” Marianne adds.

 Ildiko Gonda, and artist from Budapest explains how this charge affects them, in one of the newest EU states. “In Hungary the tax differs, depending if it is a holiday home, family house or apartment, business premises, building site, etc. It also depends on whether the owner occupies the property, or it is a second real-estate property,” she says.

It varies in the different districts of Budapest and there are wavers, depending on the number of dependants living in the property. There is a penalty tax for sites, because the local government wants to force the owners to fill the gaps and build in the empty site.

In Hungary people live in their majority in their own property like in Ireland. For this reason there are social elements built into the taxation system. “But people are finding tricks to avoid taxation,” Ildiko comments. “From this year, there is such tax everywhere in Budapest, but it works similarly as in France.”

Last year the charge has been also implemented in Greece, as a condition of the EU/IMF bail-out agreement for the debt ridden country. But unlike the Irish, the Greeks were not “asked” to register for it in order to pay; the government there made sure that the charge will be collected as soon as possible.

The house hold tax is being collected through the property’s electricity bill and DEH (Public Corporation of Electricity). DEH is obliged to charge the home owners the new tax in four yearly instalments. The charge is not just € 100, but as in Finland or Hungary it is calculated according the size, value, age, use and location of the property and there are many different levies or wavers for single people, couples with kids, one parent families, etc.

If the home owners fail or decline to pay the tax, then DEH has the right to suspend the electricity provision to the property until the owner settles the bill. The owner has not the right to switch to another electricity provider until he/she has settled the fees. In the case that the owner does not apply for the electricity service reconnection and does not pay the charge, then DEH will inform the relative state authorities to proceed with further persecution of the owner.

Of course the reaction from the Greek public was strong and in many cases violent. According to many, these measures are being implemented the wrong time, when the people are losing their jobs and their salaries are being cut. Others view this as totally unfair, as they feel that they have to pay this tax to save the banks and the mistakes of the corrupt political elite. Water charges already existed in Greece, but the new house hold charge was something that many saw as another way for the government and the EU to rip them off their hard earned money.

Zoe Karasoultani, a journalist from Thessaloniki, Greece commented; “no Greek has agreed to this charge. Nevertheless it has been implemented, but some are still refusing to pay; others like my family have paid it, but with heavy heart. The ones who refused to do so now simply owe the amount to the revenue.” It seems that they will be dealing with them from now on.

If the EU and our governments are trying to harmonize the property taxes in all EU states, or provide the state with more resources to fund public services, it seems that they are doing so during the worse time possible. By using the current crisis in order to push for the desired reforms, they are only turning the public opinion against the new charge.

Introducing this charge maybe a step to the right direction as Marianne has put it, but in a climate of unemployment, austerity and a serious economic crisis, it is a recipe for protests; cutting jobs and salaries while raising taxes and even worse introducing new ones, is never going to go down easily with the public.