- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Hundreds of millions of dollars in inactive bank deposits are likely to flow to the Federal Government from May.
Legislation amended late last year means any account that has not seen activity within three years can be transferred into the Commonwealth's hands - previously the rule was seven years.
The money will be able to be reclaimed from the Government through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
The new law comes into effect at the end of May and banks are advising customers to make transactions as small as a dollar to ensure they are not transferred to ASIC.
Australian Bankers Association chief executive Steven Munchenburg says many accounts will be affected.
"If you've put some money away to save for the future and you're not adding any more deposits to that, and if you've got trust accounts where money is being held for some reason in the future, if you've got bond money for example where you're a landlord and the tenant's bond money is sitting in an account for more than three years, any of those sorts of those accounts, and the banks are obliged to move the money to the Government," he said.
The banking industry believes the Government's changes to inactive bank accounts legislation is just revenue raising.
Mr Munchenburg says the legislation was rushed through at the end of last year.
"A lot of suspicion at the time that the Government is rushing this through because they were more concerned about their own financial bottom line than they were about reuniting consumers with their accounts," he said.
"It was never clear to us why it had to be rushed through if it was only focused on reuniting consumers with accounts."
Mr Munchenburg says three years seems an arbitrary time limit as the Government failed to consult the industry on the change.
"I don't know why three years has been chosen over seven," he said.
"Certainly, if the Government believed that seven years was too long, we would have expected them to talk to us about what is an appropriate timeline or how to deal with accounts where people have deliberately left them alone, and then we'd avoid some of the problems that we are concerned will affect customers."
Of course it's a money grab! The Swayne needs cash to get at least close to Budget Surplus.
If the banks are so concerned about their customers' welfare, shouldn't it be easy enough for them to send out a letter after two years or 30 months, asking the account holder to either inject or withdraw a Dollar? They'd run the same query a few months BEFORE they run one for the Gov'mint, showing all accounts that have been untouched for 30 months instead of 36. And then they stick the result into a mailmerge that spits out letters to the account holders rather than cheques to Canberra.
Problem solved.
And that's entirely what it's about. This sort of slimy behaviour will just further dig Labor into their own burial.Of course it's a money grab! The Swayne needs cash to get at least close to Budget Surplus.
And that's entirely what it's about. This sort of slimy behaviour will just further dig Labor into their own burial.
Can you please explain how this would help get the government closer to budget, let alone balance the budget?Of course it's a money grab! The Swayne needs cash to get at least close to Budget Surplus.
Can you please explain how this would help get the government closer to budget, let alone balance the budget?
Are you suggesting that the government take this money and spend it and you can never retrieve it?For every $100 Million stolen from unsuspecting citizens, the Gov'mint doesn't have to steal $100 Million from others, who may be more watchful. It's $100 Million more than they've been ripping off (and wasting) before.
Are you suggesting that the government take this money and spend it and you can never retrieve it?
What actually happens to it?
Re unsuspecting citizens - the legislation requires the financial institution to contact the account holder by letter to explain that their account is inactive and if no action is taken the account will be sent to ASIC. Are you saying that these people would never know? You might be right - but not in the literal sense you mean - it is more to do with the piss-poor record keeping and their ignorant attitude of the account holder than the bank / government.
If a listed company was doing something like this wouldn't an informed individual just adjust the accounts to match reality?They do recognise lost superannuation as revenue. I'm going to assume they treat inactive bank money the same. The individual always has the ability to chase them for it and claim it. But as soon as it hits the books its definitly recorded as gov revenue. (in regards to balancing the books)
In general governments tend to look at the current financial year only.If a listed company was doing something like this wouldn't an informed individual just adjust the accounts to match reality?
It's not revenue - it's a liability.
Basically you are confirming what I am saying - it doesn't have any net effect on the budget at all over the long-term unless the person does not claim their money back. Whether it is 3 or 7 years these accounts will end up with the government, and if people want them, they will be claimed back. The government gets little to any benefit in holding it - if past form is true with other things, they'd probably spend more than they earn on administration.If your money is transferred to them this year then it's revenue. If you claim it back in 2016 then it's an expense in that year. That's what I'd expect them to do, since it's basically how governments work financially.
...What next - the government is holding millions in PAYG refunds because some people are too lazy to do their tax returns?
They already have been doing this - nothing seems to be changing but the time-frame. Who bought the original legislation in by the way?Now we have government deciding to take cash out of bank accounts belonging to private citizens. Another concept that many have pondered over the years.
That's not as I heard it discussed by Steve Munchenberg of the Australian Bankers' Assn. He suggested the government have made this decision entirely without discussing it with the ABA. He further suggested the banks should first be given the right to contact their clients before ASIC move in on the money. I'm a bit puzzled as to why he would say this (today) if what you say above is correct.Are you suggesting that the government take this money and spend it and you can never retrieve it?
What actually happens to it?
Re unsuspecting citizens - the legislation requires the financial institution to contact the account holder by letter to explain that their account is inactive and if no action is taken the account will be sent to ASIC. Are you saying that these people would never know? You might be right - but not in the literal sense you mean - it is more to do with the piss-poor record keeping and their ignorant attitude of the account holder than the bank / government.
Ves, I think you are perhaps rather missing the point. The arrangement is between the bank and the client. If mutually they are agreed that it's fine to have the a/c sit there unused for up to seven years, at which stage the bank will contact the client, why on earth should the government have the right to interfere in such a private arrangement?Basically you are confirming what I am saying - it doesn't have any net effect on the budget at all over the long-term unless the person does not claim their money back. Whether it is 3 or 7 years these accounts will end up with the government, and if people want them, they will be claimed back.
Why should the individual be obliged to engage in some lengthy bureaucratic process to get their own money?????the government is taking your money, but you can have it back (and it's not like you are going to miss it if you left it sitting idle for years, is it?).
No? I have just such an a/c Tyler. It has less than $10 in it, but I want it kept open (no fees are attached) in case I want to use it again and do not want to be obliged to go through the tedious process of re-opening, with all the paperwork that is involved in closing then re-opening for my SMSF.I can't imagine anyone on this forum having an inactive bank account
No? I have just such an a/c Tyler. It has less than $10 in it, but I want it kept open (no fees are attached) in case I want to use it again and do not want to be obliged to go through the tedious process of re-opening, with all the paperwork that is involved in closing then re-opening for my SMSF.
The bank is happy. I'm happy. It's absolutely nothing to do with the government.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?