Oz Bank cash grab

[Mr_Incredible]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
What good excuse exactly is there to allow a bank account to sit with no action or activity for three or seven years exactly?


Tell me why it's any of your business where I put my money and how I maintain that account. Why should it be stolen by the gov't? If anything, there should be an effort to contact the owner and then put in the unclaimed moneys section of the state treasury. But to simply STEAL it by gov't fiat. No freedom loving individual could stomach something like that.

Who said the money was forgotten about.

Did I mention yet that it's nobody's business what I do with my bank accounts?

Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. What I think you said is so outrageous that I may be missing the sarcasm icon.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
The elections are not rigged. .....


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/...intcmp=trending


Oh. No.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
The elections are not rigged. .....


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/...intcmp=trending


And that jury came back with a guilty verdict FAST! Looks bad for sure, but it's biz as usual...

 

[mechanicx]

I see both sides of the argument. People didn't make a stand when the statute was 7 years. That's how they do it, they start out with something somewhat tolerable, then increase it to intolerable levels. How to boil a live frog in pot. That's why people should resist anything even if its presented as reasonable and tolerable.

That said, it should never be too late to resist something changing or even getting rid of a statute all together. I reject that once policy is put in place it can never be changed or repealed.

On the other hand, people are collectively getting what they deserve in the US and Australia. People accept the wrong things and oppose the wrong things. Sure there is a lot of influencing and manipulating, but no one is forced to pick one or the other of two bad candidates in a primary for instances.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
On the other hand, people are collectively getting what they deserve in the US and Australia. People accept the wrong things and oppose the wrong things. Sure there is a lot of influencing and manipulating, but no one is forced to pick one or the other of two bad candidates in a primary for instances.


That being said, the last Oz election was an overwhelming demonstration that people didn't want the two party system, neither of the majors had a majority, and over 10% of voters defaced their ballot papers in protest.

Minority parties were engaged to give labor the seat, and rather than what we hoped for, the minor parties demonstrating how mature they could be, they hijacked the country.

By and large, people coming into the next election are going to use their votes as punishment, which will only perpetuate the two party system.

 

[Mr_Incredible]

It's almost impossible for a third party to reach critical mass and challenge the status quo. It usually only winds up giving the party that remains the most coherent the election.

This was true at Clinton's first election. The conservatives that split off for Ross Perot gave the election away while they tried to make a difference. I know, as I was one of them. Short sighted, it was.

The base of the party must be roused. It's the only way. You need good candidates that truly believe in the base principles of the party, and rouse the spirit smouldering in the hearts of those that have been ignored by the party leadership.

IMO, anyway...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
What good excuse exactly is there to allow a bank account to sit with no action or activity for three or seven years exactly?


Tell me why it's any of your business where I put my money and how I maintain that account. Why should it be stolen by the gov't?


Apparently since making it three years, they've marched on in the resumption of funds...

As to the "allowing" an account, 93 year old lady on the idjit box this morning who put money aside for her own funeral...built it up to an amount she thought would cover it, then left it there.

Then it was gone, and took 3 months to get back.

Not a good mental process for an elderly lady to go through, and completely un-necessary.

 

[daves87rs]

You guys crack me up with this "safe place to put your money" nonsense...they haven't been a safe place to put it for decades now...


Now I'm not going to go off the deep end here, but let's say it would be a good idea to have a good safe and maybe some gold....

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I see both sides of the argument. People didn't make a stand when the statute was 7 years. That's how they do it, they start out with something somewhat tolerable, then increase it to intolerable levels. How to boil a live frog in pot. That's why people should resist anything even if its presented as reasonable and tolerable.

That said, it should never be too late to resist something changing or even getting rid of a statute all together. I reject that once policy is put in place it can never be changed or repealed.

On the other hand, people are collectively getting what they deserve in the US and Australia. People accept the wrong things and oppose the wrong things. Sure there is a lot of influencing and manipulating, but no one is forced to pick one or the other of two bad candidates in a primary for instances.


+1

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


As to the latter, Self funded retirement is something that the Baby Boomers are foisting on those that came after...and it's a rapidly growing pool of money, exceeding Oz' GDP, and only growing...makes it pretty hard for everyone to "win" 6-7% and outstrip inflation when it will end up two funds betting on a fly crawling up a wall.


Once super hit the euqivalent volume to GDP, I knew that it was going to be a problem, having all that money tied up in real investments rather than spinning the money go-round.

Quote:
The Turnbull government won't say if it backs a call for it to assume control of billions of dollars in workers' compulsory superannuation contributions now being managed by banks and industry funds.

Former treasurer Peter Costello is critical of the way default funds are being run and wants a new government agency to instead invest the money.

About $2.3 trillion in workers' super is sitting in private accounts as part of the former Keating government's compulsory superannuation system and is expected to earn $23 billion in fees.

'There is a fair argument that these compulsory payments should be allocated to a national safety-net administrator -- let's call it the Super Guarantee Agency,' Mr Costello said in a speech in Melbourne, The Australian reported on Friday.


http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/10/13/peter-costello-calls-for-super-overhaul.html

He used to be the treasurer, not the chairman of the "future fund"

http://www.futurefund.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/board-of-guardians

A set-up designed to fund future infrastructure projects...guess they need the money.

 

[Silk]

Plus all the money the Kiwi's pay in...but can't get back, a good racket that one. Back in the early '70's we had a contributing super scheme, then a new PM came along and said ''no one will see the benefit of that for 50 years!'', so scrapped it. We sure need it now, the young people are going to have to pay for us, because we paid nothing in.