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

[jamesrage]

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.

 

[molten_dragon]

The only situation I'm kind of okay with this happening in, is if the person who held the account died, and the state was unable to find a next of kin after putting in a reasonable amount of effort searching for one. And even then I think it would be better to donate it to charity.

Outside of that, it's not okay.

 

[voyager1]

OP is a straw man. The California State Controller even stated it was wrong what elected officials of California did, and it appears they are settling the claims.

I didn't read the Australia and Italy articles since I don't live in either country and really don't care about what they do.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Whenever they say it isn't about the money, it is ALWAYS about the money.

 

[radcen]

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.

I voted 'no', but I could possibly... possibly... see some instance where, as molten_dragon said, someone dies and an heir cannot be found after x-years. Realistically, it needs to go somewhere. I would favor it being surrendered to the institution, and that be written into the agreement documents with serious safeguards, rather than the government getting it.

Whenever they say it isn't about the money, it is ALWAYS about the money.

Quote for Truth.

 

[MaggieD]

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.

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.

 

[Henrin]

Don't you guys know that economist say saving your money is bad? :lol: With that logic in mind it would only make sense if government made it a habit of stealing peoples money from their bank account and put that money back into the economy. You know, ignoring that money in a bank is not just sitting there doing nothing, but apparently most economists aren't aware of this.

 

[longview]

I would wonder why some state or local government would have any more claim to
abandoned funds, than say the average citizen?

 

[radcen]

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.

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.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for both of you here...

James: Why not the government? 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?

Maggie: Why the government? They've done zero with it up to this point, why should they get it?

 

[sangha]

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.

Of course not

If the govt does it, then the banks can't steal the money

 

[MaggieD]

Maggie: Why the government? They've done zero with it up to this point, why should they get it?

"They" is "we." The question is, "Why should we get it?"

Let's look at a couple of places where we have these so-called abandoned funds:

Insurance companies: Unclaimed death benefits, supposedly being unable to find an annuity recipient, premium refunds, etc. The insurance companies were paid to provide a service or benefit. Letting them keep supposedly unclaimed money creates a conflict of interest. Let them benefit, and they would most certainly be benefiting from NOT finding the person.

Private enterprise: stock dividends, stock splits, brokerage funds, stock holdings, etc. Again, letting them keep supposedly unclaimed money creates a conflict of interest. Let them benefit, and they would most certainly be benefiting from NOT finding the person.

Banks and other financial institutions: bank accounts and safe deposit boxes. Same reasoning.

By requiring entities to turn over unclaimed funds to "us," it assures that "we" can access government data bases to find these people: the Social Security Administration, the Medicaid data base, state unemployment records, the U.S. postal service, etc., etc. It allows the state (us) to create one database for all of these unclaimed funds which can then be searched by individuals -- for their OWN unclaimed assets and assets left unclaimed by a dead relative.

Illinois has an easily searchable database: https://icash.illinois.gov/

I search it every year. It's fairly well publicized. Tom has gotten back over $600 from the State of Illinois on two or three separate claims. His family has been able to claim assets they were unaware of that their mother had before she died. I search for myself and just about everyone I know once a year. When I was a Realtor, I helped people claim, probably, close to $5,000 from the state, informed my clients of the database existence, had my dinner bought by grateful clients, etc. (Great PR.)

IMO, after five years in the state's control, that money should revert to the state's general fund. To "us."

Here's what you get when you search:
.

	Property#	Name	Co Owner	Address	City	State	Zip	Amount
	99915066580	SMITH GEORGE JOHN	WROBLEWSKI NEOMI	10300 TRIPP	OAK LAWN	IL	60453-4852	Unknown
	Description: SC12 - Underlying Shares​
	Reported By: TERADATA CORPORATION​

Just for disclaimer purposes, this is not me; and it is public record.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

As I understand it, it costs money to maintain idle accounts.

As I understand it, idle funds provide the reserves for banks to loan money, which doesn't cost but makes them money.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

and it appears they are settling the claims.

No settlement can match this woman's loss of family heirlooms:

"Her great-grandmother's precious natural pearls and other jewelry had been auctioned off. They were sold for just $1,800, even though they were appraised for $82,500.

"These things were things that she gave to me," Ruff said. "I valued them because I loved her."

Bank of America told ABC News it deeply regrets the situation and appreciates the difficulty of what Mrs. Ruff was going through. The bank has reached a settlement with Ruff and continues to update its unclaimed property procedures as laws change."

They're not just taking so called "idle accounts" but also things people have kept in safety deposit boxes for safe storage. Note: This was in San Francisco.

I don't live in either country and really don't care about what they do.

How heartless...

"They" is "we." The question is, "Why should we get it?"

Because some old ladies heirlooms are HERS they DON'T BELONG TO US.

 

[radcen]

As I understand it, idle funds provide the reserves for banks to loan money, which doesn't cost but makes them money.

Depends on who at the bank is spinning at the moment.

 

[radcen]

"They" is "we." The question is, "Why should we get it?"

Let's look at a couple of places where we have these so-called abandoned funds:

Insurance companies: Unclaimed death benefits, supposedly being unable to find an annuity recipient, premium refunds, etc. The insurance companies were paid to provide a service or benefit. Letting them keep supposedly unclaimed money creates a conflict of interest. Let them benefit, and they would most certainly be benefiting from NOT finding the person.

Private enterprise: stock dividends, stock splits, brokerage funds, stock holdings, etc. Again, letting them keep supposedly unclaimed money creates a conflict of interest. Let them benefit, and they would most certainly be benefiting from NOT finding the person.

Banks and other financial institutions: bank accounts and safe deposit boxes. Same reasoning.

By requiring entities to turn over unclaimed funds to "us," it assures that "we" can access government data bases to find these people: the Social Security Administration, the Medicaid data base, state unemployment records, the U.S. postal service, etc., etc. It allows the state (us) to create one database for all of these unclaimed funds which can then be searched by individuals -- for their OWN unclaimed assets and assets left unclaimed by a dead relative.

Illinois has an easily searchable database: https://icash.illinois.gov/

I search it every year. It's fairly well publicized. Tom has gotten back over $600 from the State of Illinois on two or three separate claims. His family has been able to claim assets they were unaware of that their mother had before she died. I search for myself and just about everyone I know once a year. When I was a Realtor, I helped people claim, probably, close to $5,000 from the state, informed my clients of the database existence, had my dinner bought by grateful clients, etc. (Great PR.)

IMO, after five years in the state's control, that money should revert to the state's general fund. To "us."

Here's what you get when you search:
.

	Property#	Name	Co Owner	Address	City	State	Zip	Amount
	99915066580	SMITH GEORGE JOHN	WROBLEWSKI NEOMI	10300 TRIPP	OAK LAWN	IL	60453-4852	Unknown
	Description: SC12 - Underlying Shares​
	Reported By: TERADATA CORPORATION​

Just for disclaimer purposes, this is not me; and it is public record.

Excellent post. Thank you.

My only quibble, and it's minor, is that I would make it 10 years instead of 5.

 

[MaggieD]

Because some old ladies heirlooms are HERS they DON'T BELONG TO US.

And that is exactly the reason unclaimed property should be turned over to the state. I don't know the particulars. Didn't read the link. But if she failed to pay her safe deposit rental, the bank had no obligation to store her things ad infinitum. And that is why they should be turned into the state for processing and eventual reversion to the state treasury.

 

[voyager1]

No settlement can match this woman's loss of family heirlooms:


They're not just taking so called "idle accounts" but also things people have kept in safety deposit boxes for safe storage. Note: This was in San Francisco.



How heartless...



Because some old ladies heirlooms are HERS they DON'T BELONG TO US.

Why did you take my comments out of context?

 

[voyager1]

And that is exactly the reason unclaimed property should be turned over to the state. I don't know the particulars. Didn't read the link. But if she failed to pay her safe deposit rental, the bank had no obligation to store her things ad infinitum. And that is why they should be turned into the state for processing and eventual reversion to the state treasury.

Exactly my first thoughts too, was the rent being paid. No different then a storage place selling the contents of a unit who didn't pay.

 

[radcen]

And that is exactly the reason unclaimed property should be turned over to the state. I don't know the particulars. Didn't read the link. But if she failed to pay her safe deposit rental, the bank had no obligation to store her things ad infinitum. And that is why they should be turned into the state for processing and eventual reversion to the state treasury.

How is a safe deposit box different from a storage unit? With a storage unit if you don't pay the bill they auction off the contents. There are legal safeguards and procedures, but the state doesn't get the stuff.

 

[MaggieD]

How is a safe deposit box different from a storage unit? With a storage unit if you don't pay the bill they auction off the contents. There are legal safeguards and procedures, but the state doesn't get the stuff.

*shrug* How do you auction off cash?

 

[radcen]

*shrug* How do you auction off cash?

Highest bidder? :lol:

Another consideration might be items that are in a person's name that must be legally transferred, etc. How would that be handled?

Then again, the same kind of stuff could be in a basic storage unit, as well.

 

[MaggieD]

Highest bidder? :lol:

Another consideration might be items that are in a person's name that must be legally transferred, etc. How would that be handled?

Then again, the same kind of stuff could be in a basic storage unit, as well.

It's very simple on Illinois' website. The forms one fills out allow for heirs and next of kin to take possession. I'm not going to address the storage unit analogy. It's not the same thing. Money someone owes you or money you've entrusted to a financial institution is not the same as an old dresser.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Why did you take my comments out of context?

It was the only part I wanted to address.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

And that is exactly the reason unclaimed property should be turned over to the state. I don't know the particulars. Didn't read the link. But if she failed to pay her safe deposit rental, the bank had no obligation to store her things ad infinitum. And that is why they should be turned into the state for processing and eventual reversion to the state treasury.

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

Carla had a checking account at the bank, too -- still does -- and receives regular statements. Plus, she has receipts showing she's the kind of person who paid her box rental fee.

You are absolutely wrong here.

 

[voyager1]

It was the only part I wanted to address.

It changes the context of what I wrote.