Australian government can and will seize bank accounts if they are inactive for three years

As the thread title suggests, the Australian government now has the authority (apparently) to seize bank accounts that have been inactive for thee years (no deposits and no withdrawals).

How is this legal? Apparently the victims can appeal to try and get their money back but the process can take months.

Link to article:
www.heraldsun.com.au...

The Australian Federal Government has overstepped the mark on this one, surely?

the simple solution to that would be set up a small direct debit charity fund to feed the starving in africa and such 1$ a month or so

it is to detour time travelers from setting up an account with a buck and zapping to the future to reap the interest.

lol wasn't excessive saving why the US Government confiscated all the gold back in the day? Now we have totally fiat paper money which was supposed to solve the problem and provide more "liquidity", yet they still feel the need to hamper our ability to save wealth (even if it's value is quickly deprecating due to inflation). lol and people wonder why bitcoin is becoming so popular...

reply to post by pointr97


lol that was my first thought too. I guess ill have to stick to sports betting once i get my time machine up and running.

DC

Why did I know Wayne Swan would be involved? Worlds best fiscal leader! I almost choked when he was given that award. Mr. Magoo, who has no clue stumbles into the position at the right time to claim success that wasn't his at all.
Wayne Swan... Mining Tax, that worked out well didn't it you plinkett!! He practically let the mining companies re-write his tax, and sat there like an idiot wondering why it didn't work! Now, he want's his hands on my savings? What a frightening thought.

Well, I dunno..

3yrs is a long time for a bank account to never be touched.

I imagine there wouldn't be many, especially any with any real amounts of money in it.

Maybe someone like Mokbel or Skase.. cause they fled and left everything here..

Question, my mate had a bank account with a direct debit occurring every month. When the debit went to occur, no money he got charged the fee.. this went on for over 12 months until he had a massive negative balance.

Will the banks claim accounts with a negative balance?

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Will the banks claim accounts with a negative balance?

lol good question... I doubt they will. Even if they do they'll still make a profit from the majority of positive balance accounts anyway.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Well, I dunno..

3yrs is a long time for a bank account to never be touched.

I imagine there wouldn't be many, especially any with any real amounts of money in it.

That shouldn`t matter,its not their money to take in the first place.

If say for in the instances of death,the money should go to any beneficiaries/family members.

This is theft.

I don't understand the rationality of this action. You can't just put money in the bank in Australia and watch it grow for retirement purposes without the government seizing it. I thought saving was supposed to be easy, why is the government making it complicated? Maybe everyone needs to be as broke as the governments so the governments don't feel bad

Originally posted by MX44K
the simple solution to that would be set up a small direct debit charity fund to feed the starving in africa and such 1$ a month or so

edit on 25-2-2013 by MX44K because: .

No.

Even more simple is to keep the bare minimum in a bank if you need to. The rest? Physical Gold and silver buried in the mountains/fields/back yards... somewhere.

Keep all your funds hidden and out of reach from the banking criminals.

Peace

Back in the day, banks were robbed at gun point. Now they’re being robbed by a bunch of lawyers sitting in an office. I’ve always thought the Governments (Federal and State, particularly my state Victoria) of Australia are the next greediest on Earth, behind the US of course. This is a pretty low move. I suppose, it’s all fair, if government housing lay abandoned for three years then can I seize that property? Not really any difference - taking something which does not and never has belonged to you. I’m betting they’d be a lot of properties laid unused for any period of time.

They can dress it however they like, but this is just blatant theft. I’ve no idea how this was passed. Government should not be allowed to pass new laws without a public and independent referendum. Oh well, these crooks won’t be in for much longer. It’d take a miracle for them or voting fraud/rigging to stay in power come September. Clueless, stubborn thieves.

Now someone told me that Ned Kelly rode a horse when he robbed people.:lol
He didn't walk on two feet.1%

The government is broke and now wants your idle bank accounts.

Isn't there a way to stop this? why would they put this in the news if they didn't want us to appeal this.

Are they just rubbing the salt in our wounds slowly.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by gps777


It should be noted that they already took money from inactive accounts after 7 years.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by gps777

 

It should be noted that they already took money from inactive accounts after 7 years.

Most probably wouldn't know , on a resent thread here someone did not know we had a constitution

Last month it was " unclaimed " super , this month we get moving up the cut off .

Bet the hock and pony show won't have much to say , this will save them doing the same after the next election as well as raising the credit limit another $50B and increasing the covered bond cap.

I wonder what will happen when they move on active accounts and super funds .. and hands up those who think it won't happen.

LMFAO

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Well, I dunno..

3yrs is a long time for a bank account to never be touched.

Knowing the way they work, it won't stay that way.

Now that this is in place, they could change it to 3 weeks if they wanted to...

Originally posted by amraks
The government is broke and now wants your idle bank accounts.

Isn't there a way to stop this? why would they put this in the news if they didn't want us to appeal this.

Are they just rubbing the salt in our wounds slowly.

Ah yes. It would seem they want folks to get used to the idea of "confiscation". In an area once considered safe from the all seeing eye....er hand, yea, all grabing hand.

Plus that word..."seize"...it just awful. It gives theft a new spin, an offical sounding word.

Notice the banks are not steping in on your behalf and saying no way you can do this to our customers. "Faster than the fed cash the company checks.....Mic check".

Originally posted by Chadwickus
It should be noted that they already took money from inactive accounts after 7 years.

So the next step would be to make it 18 months, then 9 months etc...