Oz Bank cash grab

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,887
Location
'Stralia
http://www.news.com.au/money/banking/cas...r-1226585867131

Previously, a bank account had to be stagnant for 7 years, and the Govt would go after it...other week they changed it to 3 years.

News tonight was that the first bank that they went through looking for change that had fallen down the back of the lounge netted over 10 times their estimates...and ASIC (Australian Securities and Investment Commission) have revised their estimate on the proceeds of their first shake down to over $600M.

It's all OK 'though, as if you can identify that your account has been emptied, you can apply to get it back.

On top of recent changes defining what is a "reasonable" retirement saving, and can be taxed heavily anything after.
 
So they want the money, they just want it quicker...
mad.gif


Years ago, my brother deposited ~$100 in the bank to start an account for his grandson, to teach him a lesson about thrift. They went back a year later to see how the money grew. When they asked about the amount in the account, they were told it was less than $100??? Due to inactivity, the bank had to "sweep" the account. The interest, minus the sweeping fee, came to less then $100. Grandson, there's your lesson.

My grandfather had a saying "You'll get robbed nine time with a pencil for every time you get robbed with a gun."
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow


On top of recent changes defining what is a "reasonable" retirement saving, and can be taxed heavily anything after.


The first part is not a big deal to me. Forget about an account for three years and do nothing in it? Seems silly.

But defining a reasonable retirement is just bad. I get why theyre doing it, but its just bad.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

On top of recent changes defining what is a "reasonable" retirement saving, and can be taxed heavily anything after.


That is coming to America soon.
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: Shannow

On top of recent changes defining what is a "reasonable" retirement saving, and can be taxed heavily anything after.


That is coming to America soon.


Not if we keep the 2nd Amendment.
 
There seems to be no limit on the government's appetite for money.

We keep hearing of the virtue of printing money. Seems like it would be easier to print it than to steal it.

Or maybe printing money is not what it's cracked up to be.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Shannow


On top of recent changes defining what is a "reasonable" retirement saving, and can be taxed heavily anything after.


The first part is not a big deal to me. Forget about an account for three years and do nothing in it? Seems silly.

But defining a reasonable retirement is just bad. I get why theyre doing it, but its just bad.


First part is a big deal to me, as it's not theirs. Superannuation accounts that are "lost", they try to find the owners, not just claim it...yet.

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.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Shannow


On top of recent changes defining what is a "reasonable" retirement saving, and can be taxed heavily anything after.


The first part is not a big deal to me. Forget about an account for three years and do nothing in it? Seems silly.

But defining a reasonable retirement is just bad. I get why theyre doing it, but its just bad.


First part is a big deal to me, as it's not theirs. Superannuation accounts that are "lost", they try to find the owners, not just claim it...yet.

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.


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

Sure, it seems wrong, but it also just seems plain stupid to have idle money sitting with no adjustments for that long.

I do have an issue with a LOT of wrongs that the baby boomers are putting onto me.
 
Stinkers like to dip their sticky little fingers into retirement funds. That story is as old as retirement funds themselves. Just another example, although "redefining reasonable" seems to be a new twist.
 
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?

Sure, it seems wrong, but it also just seems plain stupid to have idle money sitting with no adjustments for that long. ....


Irrelevant.

What business is it of the governments if I put my money in an account and leave it for three years? It's my money, I've already paid taxes on it, they've got their cut of the action. If that's my plan for it, that's my business, regardless of whether or not it looks stupid to them, or they think they have a better plan. My money, my plan.

I thought that was the whole point of a bank account - to be able to legally park money for an indeterminate time and it still be there when you want it. Escheat ( the legal term for unclaimed property passing to the state ) may have some validity in some limited circumstances, but not like as described in the subject article. That's just wrong.

What's next? Raid everybody's safety deposit boxes looking for cash if the owner hasn't visited in a long time?
 
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?

Sure, it seems wrong, but it also just seems plain stupid to have idle money sitting with no adjustments for that long.

I do have an issue with a LOT of wrongs that the baby boomers are putting onto me.


I don't need an excuse or a reason...it's my $$...and the purpose of a bank is to provide a safe place for me to keep it. I might have personal reasons that I want an account that sits dormant. It might just be a contingency....it might be for future use...whatever the reason, that's my personal business. Just because you don't have the same needs, perspective or circumstances that I do, doesn't mean that I lose the right to keep my $$ in that bank. I shouldn't have to justify why I want to keep my money in a bank and not touch it.

And the idea that the Gov't can decide to come take it, as was "floated" in Cyprus - OUTRAGEOUS. It's personal property. That's no different than the government coming into my house and deciding to take my other personal property...and we decided to go to war over that issue about 240 years ago...
 
The reason why the 2nd Amendment was created was to allow the FORCIBLE removal of tyrants from government.

These criminals are going to continue chipping away at our rights until folks start putting the 2nd Amendment into play. These criminals only will respond to force, not some rigged electon, nor some sappy "peaceful protest".

The definition of tyranny has already been met many times over over the past few decades or more. When you look at what they have done since the burning of the reichstag err...9/11, no free man can have any doubt.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
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?

Sure, it seems wrong, but it also just seems plain stupid to have idle money sitting with no adjustments for that long. ....


Irrelevant.

What business is it of the governments if I put my money in an account and leave it for three years? It's my money, I've already paid taxes on it, they've got their cut of the action. If that's my plan for it, that's my business, regardless of whether or not it looks stupid to them, or they think they have a better plan. My money, my plan.

I thought that was the whole point of a bank account - to be able to legally park money for an indeterminate time and it still be there when you want it. Escheat ( the legal term for unclaimed property passing to the state ) may have some validity in some limited circumstances, but not like as described in the subject article. That's just wrong.

What's next? Raid everybody's safety deposit boxes looking for cash if the owner hasn't visited in a long time?


No, its not irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there was a longevity clause that was in force before taking it from 7 to 3 years. If this was such an issue, it should have been taken up at seven years.

If it was a matter of one being enacted, sure, I agree 100%. But one was ON THE BOOKS. Big difference. Sure, its your money, you paid taxes on it, etc., etc. I agree. But the outrage was that there was a government recall on the funds at seven years, not three.

Shortening it doesnt effect the outrageous part, and so the question still remains, are the accounts dormant/abandoned or not? If so, who cares? If not, why wouldnt someone have a look at it once in a while and do something with it? And if one is doing that, does it really matter if it is seven or three years? I dont see a difference.

Youre griping about the wrong thing. A change in the rules on the books by some amount is miniscule in terms of practical difference, given that the damage was ALREADY done.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
The reason why the 2nd Amendment was created was to allow the FORCIBLE removal of tyrants from government.

These criminals are going to continue chipping away at our rights until folks start putting the 2nd Amendment into play. These criminals only will respond to force, not some rigged electon, nor some sappy "peaceful protest".



The elections are not rigged. There are lots of alternative parties that folks can vote for, but don't. There is no rigging: the two big money parties that rule over your people are doing exactly what everyone knows they're doing. There are no secret conspiracies, just a broken system operating in a broken way.

If it is time for "folks start putting the 2nd Amendment into play" then whining on the internet may not be what is needed (but might actually be the defining act of gutless, inert, accepting apathy). If "they" do not respond to "some rigged electon, nor some sappy peaceful protest" then clickety-clacking on your keyboard won't bring about the Great Sea Change of Truth, either; no matter how strongly you phrase your anonymous bravado.

I'll bet, antiqueshell, that if you more closely associated (in the real world) with those who felt like you do (which is obviously *strongly*) that you could surprise yourself by affecting some real change around you, non-violently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top