Joe King

"HOUSEHOLDS face losing up to $109 million from their family savings as the Federal government moves to seize cash from inactive bank accounts.

After legislation was rushed through parliament, the government will from May 31 be able to transfer all money from accounts that have not been used for three years into their own revenues."

http://www.news.com.au/money/banking...-1226585867131

Daylight robbery Aussie style!

Warn friends and family about this because it could affect a lot of people.

ozzieeagle

Lol. U can claim it back at any time. All theyve done is change the timescale from 7 to 3 years, of when the agency holds the money from the banks.

Joe King

Glad you find it funny. Claiming it back can take months - which can cause all sorts of difficulties.

And what gives the government the right to do this anyway?

ozzieeagle

It's a non story... They've always done it, albeit after 7 years previously, not many people will have inactive accounts after 3 years, especially now after the wide publicity in the media here. Make a 1 dollar transaction during that period and it wont happen.

I'd be more worried about the UK government printing money and devaluing any funds that I had, especially when you combine that with low interest rates..... Thats effectively taking your money as well.... Only you can't get that back.

JAJ

This doesn't just occur in Australia.

In most other western countries, including the United Kingdom, the government can (and does) take money from dormant accounts to fund itself. However, the rightful owner can always claim back the money, although it does take a lot more documentation.

moneypenny20

If the account has been inactive, I fail to see how you can have difficulties in claiming it back over a period of months. There's no sensible reason to have a reasonable amount of money in an account untouched for 3+ years.

Pollyana

I'd like to have enough cash to be able to leave some untouched in a bank account for that long

arkon

What does un touched mean tho? I have a savings account that just builds up interest, I never add funds in nor take them out. Does this mean it would get classed as inactive?

moneypenny20

Depends if you (they) consider interest going in to be a deposit I'd stick $5 in every year or so just so it's 'active'.

OzTennis

Just on a wider note, savers are treated with contempt everywhere!! Savers rank last behind - bankers who caused the crisis getting their bonuses, governments not wanting the banking system to collapse so using taxpayers and savers money to bail them out and borrowers (who pay higher interest).

What is their first reaction in Cyprus? Tax the savers.

In the UK the government bails out the banks, the Bank of England prints billions to give to the banks so they don't need depositors money anymore, Mervyn King is supplying them.

Interest rates on savings are derisory; government thinks this will make people spend rather than save. There are only 2 savings accounts in the UK from the many thousands which offer net interest above the inflation rate. The governor of the Bank of England wants to drive the pound down by flooding the system with money so exports are cheaper and this will drive the recovery. What is the main UK export, ah financial services, the world wants these of course, British financial institutions had nothing to do with the GFC!

Rant over, it's a joke how savers how are treated.

The Bloke

I think the difficulties, if they exist, would be the red-tape and hoops that you would have to go through to reclaim the money.
Mmmm, sounds much like anytime that you have to deal with government.

ABCD......

The good news is that they will pay interest on it in the future

But, all you need to do is make sure your bank has your address, so they can contact you when the time is getting close. I got a letter for mine

OLD LAW
Amounts held by ADIs (other than in RSAs or FHSAs) become unclaimed moneys seven years after the last deposit or withdrawal (other than fees or interest).

NEW LAW
Amounts held by ADIs (other than in RSAs or FHSAs) will become unclaimed moneys three years after the last deposit or withdrawal (other than fees or interest).


OLD LAW
Allows setting a minimum threshold of $100 or a prescribed higher amount to be transferred to ASIC.
The figure chosen to be used was $500

NEW LAW
Allows setting a minimum threshold for unclaimed moneys to be transferred to ASIC at any amount. (This could in theory be lower than the old $100 figure)
No specified limit has yet been released. But it must be economical to take account of charges for all the paperwork etc.


OLD LAW
Claimants are able to seek the return of unclaimed moneys at any time through an appropriation by Parliament. No interest is payable

NEW LAW
Claimants are able to see the return of unclaimed moneys at any time through an appropriation by Parliament. This would include an interest component.

Source: parlinfo .aph. gov.au
TREASURY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (UNCLAIMED MONEY AND
OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2012

brissybee

I think there's something going on with inactive superannuation accounts from May too.

I don't care what happens in other countries, I just think the Government (and anyone else for that matter) should keep its hands off other people's money.

I don't see why anyone should have to justify why they ignore their own funds.

ozzieeagle

What about actual total forgotten/abandoned accounts, would you rather the banks got that money or the People .... via the Government of course.

Plus when does an account become a abandoned account ?

OverRun

Interest going into an account does NOT make it active. I got one of the "3 year" warning letters on a savings account that was quietly sitting there for a rainy day. It had interest going in but no withdrawals/deposits. So I took $1 out, and it became re-activated.

I think the current Government is trying to scrape every last cent together from every corner and crack.