• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should governments be allowed to steal money from "idle" bank accounts?

Should governments be allowed to steal money from "idle" bank accounts?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    37
Maggie, she didn't, read the link. There is no reason to suggest that she did, in fact:



You are absolutely wrong here.

"She had receipts [for other stuff] showing she was the kind of person who paid her ..." So she didn't have receipts (and therefore proof) for her box rental.
 
"She had receipts [for other stuff] showing she was the kind of person who paid her ..." So she didn't have receipts (and therefore proof) for her box rental.

Just how do you make this determination? Baselessly?
 
The government should be able to confiscate abandoned funds. After! it's made every attempt to locate the owner. I'd say five-years-idle might be a general rule. Anything less than five years, in my opinion, is inappropriate.

1.Why should the government be allowed to look for money to steal?

2.You are aware that many people save their money? Savings accounts usually pay interest if you leave a certain amount of money in that account without touching it.
 
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for both of you here...

James: Why not the government?

It is not theirs.

It's not practical to have money sitting around forever. As I understand it, it costs money to maintain idle accounts. Should businesses be forced to absorb that cost forever?

Actually it is practical.Bank accounts usually pay interest. Its why people save money.

This basically provides a simple easy to understand explanation.
TheMint.org - Tips For Teens - How Banks Work
 
Last edited:
1.Why should the government be allowed to look for money to steal?

2.You are aware that many people save their money? Savings accounts usually pay interest if you leave a certain amount of money in that account without touching it.

What's your suggestion? An account has been dormant with $50 in it for 20 years. What should happen to it? Should we trust that the bank will make a good faith effort to locate the person or his heirs? Or should the bank give it to the state for safe-keeping where the state can maintain a website where people like me can search occasionally for any accounts they've lost track of?

And....after 5 years, what do YOU suggest the state then do with that money?
 
The question related to the bank having money sitting around forever, say in the event a person dies.

My response was to that.The government should not be snooping for "idle" accounts to steal money from. In the event they got actual proof the account holder died or if it has been about 70-90 years after the account opened the account then it should go to the account holder's next of kin or if the account hold specified a charity then it should go that charity of if the account holder specified in individual then it should go that individual or specified individual's next of kin. In the case of the account holder being dead or 70-90 years has passed or no charity or individuals specified it should to a randomly selected charity.This ensures no one is fishing to steal money.
 
What's your suggestion? An account has been dormant with $50 in it for 20 years. What should happen to it?

It should be left alone in the bank account.Besides if you put 50 dollars in a bank account 20 years ago there would be more money in it due to the fact banks pay interest.

Should we trust that the bank will make a good faith effort to locate the person or his heirs? Or should the bank give it to the state for safe-keeping where the state can maintain a website where people like me can search occasionally for any accounts they've lost track of?

The state is more untrustworthy than the bank.

And....after 5 years, what do YOU suggest the state then do with that money?

Nothing, it should be left in the bank account.The state shouldn't even be snooping for money to steal in the first place.
 
My response was to that.The government should not be snooping for "idle" accounts to steal money from. In the event they got actual proof the account holder died or if it has been about 70-90 years after the account opened the account then it should go to the account holder's next of kin or if the account hold specified a charity then it should go that charity of if the account holder specified in individual then it should go that individual or specified individual's next of kin. In the case of the account holder being dead or 70-90 years has passed or no charity or individuals specified it should to a randomly selected charity.This ensures no one is fishing to steal money.

And if there is no next of kin? It does happen on occasion.
 
Should governments be allowed to steal money from "idle" bank accounts? I used the word theft instead of confiscate because this is flat out theft.
Yes
No
maybe after a specific amount of time(please specify)




Government's $360m bank account grab | Money Saver HQ (MSHQ)

Not-So-Safe-Deposit Boxes: States Seize Citizens' Property to Balance Their Budgets - ABC News

Introducing the newest tactic for governments to raise cash







I voted no. Governments have no business stealing your money, I could care less if you haven't deposited anything in your account or touched your account in six months, 60 years or 600 years.

Absolutely not. As I tell my kids.... If it's not yours don't touch it. The institution holding the funds should have a policy in place regarding heirs for each account.
 
And if there is no next of kin? It does happen on occasion.

After a person's lifetime has passed and no next of kid has been found then it should go a charity or person the account holder specified. In the event the account holder does not have next of kin,did not specify a charity or person to give the money to then it should go to a random charity. This makes sure the government doesn't steal other people's money and this makes sure banks are not declaring banks idle for the sake of stealing money.
 
After a person's lifetime has passed and no next of kid has been found then it should go a charity or person the account holder specified. In the event the account holder does not have next of kin,did not specify a charity or person to give the money to then it should go to a random charity. This makes sure the government doesn't steal other people's money and this makes sure banks are not declaring banks idle for the sake of stealing money.
If a person has no kin, and is indeed dead, I'm not so sure that would qualify as "stealing someone's money", as that "someone" doesn't even exist (anymore), but I am on board with the designating a charity thing.
 
If a person has no kin, and is indeed dead, I'm not so sure that would qualify as "stealing someone's money", as that "someone" doesn't even exist (anymore), but I am on board with the designating a charity thing.

What would you call "Oh look this account "idle" for 3 or 5 years lets take this money" if it is not stealing? Many of the accounts in the OP story are not even that old.
 
If a person has no kin, and is indeed dead, I'm not so sure that would qualify as "stealing someone's money", as that "someone" doesn't even exist (anymore), but I am on board with the designating a charity thing.

How long before someone sets up the Underpriviliged Bankers Fund?
 
Just how do you make this determination? Baselessly?

From the statement. If she had the receipts, then the blather about "being the kind of person who would have them" is redundant.
 
The government is the best recipient of lost money should a person die without heirs with property or money in the bank. It goes toward keeping our taxes down. In the UK, I believe it's a year and a day from their passing. There's a whole industry of genealogists who find heirs (assuming there are any) for a percentage. The government issues lists, and the "heirs" if found, have often as not never even heard of or met their distant relative.

Heir Hunters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
What would you call "Oh look this account "idle" for 3 or 5 years lets take this money" if it is not stealing? Many of the accounts in the OP story are not even that old.
You're dodging. If someone is known to be dead, and there is no next of kin, whose money is it?
 
You're dodging. If someone is known to be dead, and there is no next of kin, whose money is it?

I am not dodging. I already answered in post #37.It is not the government's.
 
I am not dodging. I already answered in post #37.It is not the government's.
That wasn't the question. The question regards who it belongs to, not which random direction it should be sent.

Try again: If someone is known to be dead, and there is no next of kin, whose money is it?
 
That wasn't the question. The question regards who it belongs to, not which random direction it should be sent.

Try again: If someone is known to be dead, and there is no next of kin, whose money is it?

It is no one's money.
 
It should go to a random charity.The government shouldn't be snooping for money to steal or confiscate.
If it belongs to no one, it's not stealing.

And if it's not stealing, why is a random charity any more worthy than the government? What makes them so special? In most cases *I* might pick a random charity over the government, but there's some I would not... I'd pick the government first.

And even if we did go with a random charity, who chooses? I don't know about you, but I can certainly envision lots of charges of favoritism and possible lawsuits over said randomness.
 
Back
Top Bottom