Silver Stackers logo

Silver Stackers

Discussion forum for those
who love to stack precious metals

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Forum registration is closed. It will open again next Wednesday.

#51 2014-06-14 21:09:56

Old Codger
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2011-05-13
Posts: 5,128

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

I am afraid I have no answer.

OC


"The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields."   -  ALP Constitution.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: bordsilver

#52 2014-06-14 21:42:28

bordsilver
Silver Stacker
From: The rocks
Registered: 2012-05-23
Posts: 9,501
Trades :   36 

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

Old Codger wrote:

I am afraid I have no answer.

OC

I was dumbfounded by the stupidity of the bureaucracy following their rules rather than employing common sense. I only hope that the Fed. Government process of getting money back isn't anyway near as ridiculous.


The only good tax is a repealed tax.

Offline

#53 2014-06-14 22:23:08

Big A.D.
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2009-10-29
Posts: 6,381
Trades :   51 

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

boyracer wrote:
Big A.D. wrote:
col0016 wrote:

So if I stole your car and left a note saying I was just looking after it so that you could be reunited with it in 6 weeks that'd be sweet yeah?


If my car had been sitting unused in a side-street for three years, with long expired rego and covered in leaves and spiderwebs...uh, yeah, feel free.

Worth remembering of course that local councils typically collect abandoned vehicles within a few weeks of them being reported and they attempt to contact the owner. If the vehicle is impounded, you'll have 28 days to claim it before it's sold and then 12 months to claim the sale proceeds before they permanently revert to the council.

False analogy. What if my car was in my garage, covered to keep it free from dust but I just decided to leave it there unused for 3 years simply cause I felt like it (or I was travelling overseas or whatever). Is it still acceptable for someone to come along and appropriate it on the condition they will return it in 6 weeks if I ask for it back (and after proving my title to the car)? Comparing it to a car left on a side street covered in cobwebs is an unfair comparison.

Well, double false analogy: you're not leaving your car in your garage, you're leaving it in someone else's garage. When you put money into a bank account, it becomes the bank's money and you receive an IOU in return. The terms and conditions of the IOU are that the bank (or garage owner) can deduct fees for storage.

This law simply caps the length of time that fees can be charged before it is assumed that you've forgotten about the money (or car) and that, if you remembered you still owned it (or where it was parked), there is a reasonable chance that you would use it and stop paying the applicable fees, rather than letting the custodian devalue it by racking up a big bill.

Big A.D I think you are a generally reasonable voice on this forum but I don't understand your ambivalence about this issue. It is theft, plain and simple, notwithstanding the fact the govt may have made it "legal".

I once had bank account that used to have zero bank fees which I forgot about when I moved.

One day, the bank decided to implement a $10/month account keeping fee (because they could). They took $270 in fees before I found an old statement and went to track it down.

Under the new 3 year rule, my loss would have been capped at $360 before the remaining balance gets sent to ASIC for safekeeping (with interest pegged to CPI). Under the old 7 year rule, they could have taken $840. And upped the fee if they felt like taking more.

Put simply, I trust the corporate regulator to look after my interests a fraction more than I trust the banks to. Not that like dealing with either of them a great deal.


I am the Leafy Sea Dragon.

Offline

#54 2014-06-14 23:34:09

bordsilver
Silver Stacker
From: The rocks
Registered: 2012-05-23
Posts: 9,501
Trades :   36 

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

^ I propose a new charity business where instead of the Government going around to unclaimed bank accounts every three years, I'll go around every 2 years 364 days and take the money and leave an IOU. I'll even guarantee to pay 0.01% more interest than the Government in the event that someone redeems the IOU.

This is a win for consumers and will not benefit me at all because I (and the charity) am only concerned about the interests of others.


The only good tax is a repealed tax.

Offline

#55 2014-06-14 23:49:02

Old Codger
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2011-05-13
Posts: 5,128

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

Like I said, it is easy to deposit $50 one year,  and take it out the next. Repeat!

Drive the petty little bureaucrats MAD!


OC


"The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields."   -  ALP Constitution.

Offline

#56 2014-06-15 00:31:42

bron suchecki
Silver Stacker
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: 2009-07-09
Posts: 1,311
Website

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

FYI, unclaimed gold with Perth Mint stays with us:

a) gold does not fall under these laws as it is not money
b) Perth Mint isn't a bank so our Depository accounts aren't deemed bank accounts
c) this is a Federal laws which only apply to entities incorporated under Company Act (the states passed their power in this matter over to the Federal govt) and as Perth Mint is a state statutory authority, such Federal laws don't apply to us.


Disclosure: I work for the Perth Mint. What I say is done in a personal capacity and is not endorsed by the Mint.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: alor

#57 2014-06-15 06:39:15

boyracer
Member
Registered: 2012-03-13
Posts: 487
Trades :   18 

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

Big A.D. wrote:
boyracer wrote:
Big A.D. wrote:


If my car had been sitting unused in a side-street for three years, with long expired rego and covered in leaves and spiderwebs...uh, yeah, feel free.

Worth remembering of course that local councils typically collect abandoned vehicles within a few weeks of them being reported and they attempt to contact the owner. If the vehicle is impounded, you'll have 28 days to claim it before it's sold and then 12 months to claim the sale proceeds before they permanently revert to the council.

False analogy. What if my car was in my garage, covered to keep it free from dust but I just decided to leave it there unused for 3 years simply cause I felt like it (or I was travelling overseas or whatever). Is it still acceptable for someone to come along and appropriate it on the condition they will return it in 6 weeks if I ask for it back (and after proving my title to the car)? Comparing it to a car left on a side street covered in cobwebs is an unfair comparison.

Well, double false analogy: you're not leaving your car in your garage, you're leaving it in someone else's garage. When you put money into a bank account, it becomes the bank's money and you receive an IOU in return. The terms and conditions of the IOU are that the bank (or garage owner) can deduct fees for storage.

This law simply caps the length of time that fees can be charged before it is assumed that you've forgotten about the money (or car) and that, if you remembered you still owned it (or where it was parked), there is a reasonable chance that you would use it and stop paying the applicable fees, rather than letting the custodian devalue it by racking up a big bill.

Big A.D I think you are a generally reasonable voice on this forum but I don't understand your ambivalence about this issue. It is theft, plain and simple, notwithstanding the fact the govt may have made it "legal".

I once had bank account that used to have zero bank fees which I forgot about when I moved.

One day, the bank decided to implement a $10/month account keeping fee (because they could). They took $270 in fees before I found an old statement and went to track it down.

Under the new 3 year rule, my loss would have been capped at $360 before the remaining balance gets sent to ASIC for safekeeping (with interest pegged to CPI). Under the old 7 year rule, they could have taken $840. And upped the fee if they felt like taking more.

Put simply, I trust the corporate regulator to look after my interests a fraction more than I trust the banks to. Not that like dealing with either of them a great deal.

I disagree it was a false analogy. It is my garage, in my name, on someone else property (I did not specify its location, you assumed I did), where they have given me the right to store my car. Same as it is my bank account that I hold with the bank.  Obviously the bank cannot return the actual money I deposited so it becomes an IOU as you say and which is where your car analogy fails unfortunately. Does not change the fact I had an agreement with the bank to hold my money and the govt has no right to come in and take it on the assumption I have forgotten about it.

Your original analogy was flawed as is easily demonstrated so I think you need to come up with a stronger argument.

You may trust the regulator more than the banks. I trust neither of them. Does not change the fact the govt did this simply as a way to generate revenue not to try and save customers from excess bank fees and I think to dress it up as such is disingenuous on your part. If this was not about sneaking extra revenue then they should allow me to opt out of their mandatory seizure surely?

I agree that it is easy to avoid. My argument and the argument of many on this thread is we should not have to.

Offline

#58 2014-06-15 07:33:14

JulieW
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2010-10-14
Posts: 10,988

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

I see it as 'theft by finding'.

Offline

#59 2014-06-15 07:56:01

willrocks
Silver Stacker
From: Yesterday
Registered: 2012-05-10
Posts: 7,596
Trades :   29 

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

Old Codger wrote:

Like I said, it is easy to deposit $50 one year,  and take it out the next. Repeat!

Drive the petty little bureaucrats MAD!


OC

I've got a chain of automatic $5 monthly transactions. e.g.  $5 to Account A --> Account B --> Account C --> Account A

Every time my wife or I get a new bank account I include it in the chain. It doesn't cost anything, and it should stop the bureaucrats from ever pinching anything.


"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." - Ayn Rand

Offline

#60 2014-06-15 11:43:35

JulieW
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2010-10-14
Posts: 10,988

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

willrocks wrote:
Old Codger wrote:

Like I said, it is easy to deposit $50 one year,  and take it out the next. Repeat!

Drive the petty little bureaucrats MAD!


OC

I've got a chain of automatic $5 monthly transactions. e.g.  $5 to Account A --> Account B --> Account C --> Account A

Every time my wife or I get a new bank account I include it in the chain. It doesn't cost anything, and it should stop the bureaucrats from ever pinching anything.

Until they introduce the transaction charge that is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax

Between 1982 and 2002 Australia charged a bank account debits tax on customer withdrawals from bank accounts with a cheque facility.

Offline

#61 2014-06-15 20:53:09

Big A.D.
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2009-10-29
Posts: 6,381
Trades :   51 

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

boyracer wrote:

I disagree it was a false analogy. It is my garage, in my name, on someone else property (I did not specify its location, you assumed I did), where they have given me the right to store my car. Same as it is my bank account that I hold with the bank.  Obviously the bank cannot return the actual money I deposited so it becomes an IOU as you say and which is where your car analogy fails unfortunately. Does not change the fact I had an agreement with the bank to hold my money and the govt has no right to come in and take it on the assumption I have forgotten about it.

Your original analogy was flawed as is easily demonstrated so I think you need to come up with a stronger argument.

You may trust the regulator more than the banks. I trust neither of them. Does not change the fact the govt did this simply as a way to generate revenue not to try and save customers from excess bank fees and I think to dress it up as such is disingenuous on your part. If this was not about sneaking extra revenue then they should allow me to opt out of their mandatory seizure surely?

I agree that it is easy to avoid. My argument and the argument of many on this thread is we should not have to.

Well, it wasn't my analogy to begin with. Someone asked if I'd be fine with having my car "borrowed" subject to it being returned later and I said yes, if I left it sitting around unused for long enough I'd be fine with that.

And I don't deny that appropriating the unclaimed money in unused bank accounts is being used to prop up government revenues. That's the whole point. At the very least, the money isn't being used and in many cases it has been completely forgotten about so putting it to work on behalf of the taxpayer - to my mind anyway - isn't a bad way of utilizing a scarce resource.

And people can get it back later, with interest.

And if the government didn't receive $520 million in (refundable) revenue from unclaimed money, they'd get $520 million from (non-refundable) taxes on hard working individuals and productive businesses instead.


I am the Leafy Sea Dragon.

Offline

#62 2014-06-15 21:01:41

Old Codger
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2011-05-13
Posts: 5,128

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

Just a passing comment,  but much of this dead money is from those long since deceased.  The family do not know of it,  and the estate has been wound up years ago.

Same with shares and dividends and Powerball tickets.

I am not certain about the details,  but many years ago the account ceased earning interest after being untouched/unclaimed for about 5 years.  After that it became an interest free loan to the bank.

Can't have the banksters getting a free loan can we?


OC


"The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields."   -  ALP Constitution.

Offline

#63 2014-06-15 22:40:15

boyracer
Member
Registered: 2012-03-13
Posts: 487
Trades :   18 

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

Big A.D. wrote:
boyracer wrote:

I disagree it was a false analogy. It is my garage, in my name, on someone else property (I did not specify its location, you assumed I did), where they have given me the right to store my car. Same as it is my bank account that I hold with the bank.  Obviously the bank cannot return the actual money I deposited so it becomes an IOU as you say and which is where your car analogy fails unfortunately. Does not change the fact I had an agreement with the bank to hold my money and the govt has no right to come in and take it on the assumption I have forgotten about it.

Your original analogy was flawed as is easily demonstrated so I think you need to come up with a stronger argument.

You may trust the regulator more than the banks. I trust neither of them. Does not change the fact the govt did this simply as a way to generate revenue not to try and save customers from excess bank fees and I think to dress it up as such is disingenuous on your part. If this was not about sneaking extra revenue then they should allow me to opt out of their mandatory seizure surely?

I agree that it is easy to avoid. My argument and the argument of many on this thread is we should not have to.

Well, it wasn't my analogy to begin with. Someone asked if I'd be fine with having my car "borrowed" subject to it being returned later and I said yes, if I left it sitting around unused for long enough I'd be fine with that.

And I don't deny that appropriating the unclaimed money in unused bank accounts is being used to prop up government revenues. That's the whole point. At the very least, the money isn't being used and in many cases it has been completely forgotten about so putting it to work on behalf of the taxpayer - to my mind anyway - isn't a bad way of utilizing a scarce resource.

And people can get it back later, with interest.

And if the government didn't receive $520 million in (refundable) revenue from unclaimed money, they'd get $520 million from (non-refundable) taxes on hard working individuals and productive businesses instead.

Fair enough - as I said it was not a particularly good analogy anyway. I agree in the case of someone dying with no beneficiaries, will etc it gets tricky but I'm still not convinced the govt has any more claim to such funds than anyone else. My main issue is the govt taking money from people who are still alive and have a legitimate claim to it. If the govt had a rigorous system in place to ensure this did not happen then I would be less hostile but this blanket "3 years and we take it no matter what" I have a real issue with.

Maybe if the govt tried to obtain $520m in less underhanded means (say a deficit levy) then more people would oppose it and the govt would have to live more within its means (yeah I know, laughable). It is not very transparent as it stands and we have no idea how much will be claimed back. I do not think it follows automatically that the govt would or could be able to go out and get $520m another way without at least serious opposition. You've made similar points before in terms of govt revenue having to come from somewhere without I think much acknowledgement from posters on this forum - I do agree with you it is a valid point to raise and not one too many think about.

Out of curiosity is there a timeframe (instead of the current 3 years) where you would have a problem with govt claiming the funds in such a fashion? 2 years? 1 year? 6 months?

Offline

#64 2014-06-16 00:19:46

col0016
Member
From: Australia, Melbourne
Registered: 2011-01-04
Posts: 2,632
Trades :   20 

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

boyracer wrote:

Out of curiosity is there a timeframe (instead of the current 3 years) where you would have a problem with govt claiming the funds in such a fashion? 2 years? 1 year? 6 months?

If people don't use the money in their account at least once a week then obviously they don't really need it and have other accounts for shopping, bills etc. If that's the case then the government would be able to put it to better use than them.

You're welcome Big A.D. smile

Offline

#65 2014-06-16 11:49:15

AngloSaxon
Member
From: Sydney
Registered: 2012-10-26
Posts: 1,980
Trades :   

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

Under Basel II and III aren't the banks supposed to have a certain amount of deposits to demonstrate their stability.

Seems counter-productive for the government to steal the deposits the banks are required to have.


Age Res Proprias Tuas

Now reading: Coming Apart - The State of America by Charles Murray.

Offline

#66 2014-06-16 20:00:58

Big A.D.
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2009-10-29
Posts: 6,381
Trades :   51 

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

AngloSaxon wrote:

Under Basel II and III aren't the banks supposed to have a certain amount of deposits to demonstrate their stability.

Seems counter-productive for the government to steal the deposits the banks are required to have.

They are, but having a pot of forgotten funds isn't really indicative of the bank's lending practices.

A bank that has been established for 100 years would have a much larger pile of forgotten funds compared to a bank that's only been around for 10 years, even though they might have identical lending standards. The newer bank may even have more conservative lending standards, but the old bank would theoretically be "more stable" simply because it's fortunate enough to have been around long enough to have had a lot of customers die and leave their money behind over the years.

On the face of it, the capitalization argument makes some sense but the effect on competition in the banking sector would be terrible. Like other businesses, banks really should have to compete on even terms rather than simply relying on incumbency and caches of old cash to see them through.


I am the Leafy Sea Dragon.

Offline

#67 2014-09-14 04:45:06

Eruaran
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2012-08-12
Posts: 717
Trades :   

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

Hello everyone, I haven't posted much in the last few months due to my own health issues (I have also had open heart surgery). Honestly I didn't know anything about this until I heard about this tonight watching (or rather listening) an STGreport video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAl9IcvTHK8

One open heart operation is a rough enough ride but two operations... I'm hoping to avoid a second one. And then the government takes your money... SMH.


"So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1st Corinthians 13:13)

Offline

#68 2017-01-10 14:10:34

southerncross
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 3,364

Re: "Unclaimed" money (in Bank)

Oh Tracey marry me now please smile

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB