- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 36,705
- Reaction score
- 17,867
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
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.
Because in many cases as in the OP stories they are not waiting until the person is dead to claim the money. They are snooping through bank accounts to look for accounts that have been idle for at least 3-5 years in order to steal the money.It is a bad precedent when the government is snooping through bank accounts to claim.
As for why charities it ensures that neither the bank or government are fraudulently claiming the accounts are idle in order to take the money.
As for choosing the randomness of the charities maybe the bank can pick random customers, maybe have kids enter a contest to donate the money to charities of their choice.It would be good publicity of the banks