My advice: keep your apartment. Don't do anything drastic until you get a better grip on things. Also ask yourself if you are doing the basics of staying mentally healthy: exercise, socializing, novelty.
I jimmied up my own personal financial system called the No Budget Budget: https://leanpub.com/nobudgetbudget (it's the only system that I've been able to stick to because its not really budgeting).
What it does for me is rather than tracking every expense I track how much money is left in my account. So I can be pretty disorganized but still stick to a budget.
Many people wouldn't want to hire a distant foreigner to do their coding. Many wouldn't know how to anyway. What you will provide is face-to-face assurance, fast response time, speak their language and most important of all have an ongoing relationship with them.
By relationship, I'm not suggesting you make love to them and have their babies. Its not that kind of relationship. I'm suggesting that you support the project long after its finished. That's what most of your clients will want, so be prepared for that. Good luck.
But for some who dearly counted on those savings to pay rent or medicine, to be taken without their consent or knowledge, it is theft, plain and simple. No matter what opinionated armchair economists like you have to say.
But for some who dearly counted on those savings to pay rent or medicine, to be taken without their consent or knowledge, it is theft, plain and simple.
Again, what's the alternative? Without the bail-out, government employees will lose their jobs, foreign assets are frozen, they'll be removed from the Eurozone, the economy will collapse, and they cannot buy medicines either. Sure they could increase taxes, freeze or decrease wages, etc. But the net effect will be the same - people will lose money.
No matter what opinionated armchair economists like you have to say.
This has little to do with armchair criticism. My pension fund has been downgrading as well, there is a lot of uncertainty on what will be left when my generation retires. The thing is, we have to blame ourselves as well: in electing populist leaders rather than visionaries, for our unbounded consumerism, and for participating in corruption. E.g. in my country:
- People are obsessed with this populist right-wing politician (Geert Wilders) who dominates every discussion, always shifting the attention to muslims, Eastern Europeans, and how we are wasting money on Greece. In the meanwhile we have a mortgage bubble that is almost bursting and a healthcare system that becomes unaffordable. Moderate politicians, that get relatively little attention, have been warning the electorate for years.
- People buy expensive gadgets and phone subscriptions, without really having the money.
- Although there is relatively little government corruption, lots of people try to evade taxes at every possible occasion (e.g. through unreported employment of painters, construction workers, etc.).
- We dislike the banks and bonuses, but refuse to transfer our money to more ethical banks.
No, and the reason is very simple. The whole discussion shows, that you can have zero trust in national governments. It is therefore save to assume, that you can not count the slightest bit on any retirement plans that have some form of government involvement. Even if you only get some modest apartment in a European metro area as you personal retirement plan, you are way beyond the 100k. Do you really want to steal the money from people who saved money all life just to have some decent retirement? (The "bank account" argument doesn't really count, as the BCG report outlines how they are gunning for real estate owners next).
Do you really want to steal the money from people who saved money all life
You seem to be arguing they should not have taken any money at all, which I of course agree with.
My point was that if they take money (which they did) then they should at least have spared the <100k accounts. I was trying to give the simple answer to the rhetorical question "what's the alternative?".
They overstepped two red lines here. Applying a sudden-tax to their citizens is the first, and taking it from the people who can least spare it is the second. My response was only concerned with the second line, because that is the really explosive one (civil unrest, bank run).
I personally find it great that they didn't spare the <100k accounts. It would have been much easier to do otherwise, as the "let's just take it from the rich" perspective is easy to sell nowadays in Europe. But taking it from those with under 100k accounts takes the fight to the streets and let politicians "feel" the backslash.
It's not really the first time this has happened, it's just the scale that's different. Pension funds in Ireland have been reduced in a similar fashion.
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=6830
It's also probably worth noting that in these bailout situations the smaller countries typically do what they are told since the option of not being bailed out are thought to be worse. Where it stings is when the interests of large international financial institutions seem to be placed above those of the citizens of the country involved
http://www.notourdebt.ie/
But when you join the EU this is what can happen when things go wrong.
There's a vast difference between a "we'll be taking 25% of your income each year" tax and a "we're taking 6% of your already taxed savings with immediate effect" tax. Taxes you know about in advance are more just than those enacted over a weekend with no time to prepare your household budget.
I'm not big into the "taxation is theft" rhetoric but I empathise with those who see certain forms of taxation that way.
Get back to what you love. Find out where your interests are. Try this, it worked for me: http://zerotosuperhero.com/mindhack/find-your-lifes-last-kno...
Asking for help was smart IMO. Good for you.