Perhaps the people who don't see it as a storm in a tea cup don't know the full story, as represented above??? Do you expect a business to hold your account forever? It seems perfectly reasonable to close accounts that haven't been accessed as long as every means is exhausted in finding the owners of those accounts and reparation is given. Could you explain why that is not reasonable and what that has to do with gun rights which I'm for by the way.?

There are many things to get upset about without making stuff seem worse than it is, which is what this article does. The time limit, as I've stated is reprehensible but nowhere did you say anything about the efforts made to find the account holder or about reparations. This comes down to either bad reporting or worse... scare mothering. It also means ill be looking at your articles with a more critical eye in the future, as we all shoud anyway.

Reply from The Daily Bell

You might wish to direct your comments to the Australian journos who wrote the article we commented on and the many Oz feedbackers that voiced their displeasure with the policy.

And this has been going on for years.the only difference is they've changed the time from 7 to 3 years. I had my account taken over after I moved overseas but numerous letters and notifications were sent to my last address. I have since been told by a good friend who works for Westpac that even then you can apply and the money is returned so it seems the daily bell either hasn't done its job properly or is making a storm in a tea cup.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Congratulations on your rationality. The people leaving feedbacks below the Australian article that we referenced at the beginning of our piece certainly don't see it as a "storm in a teacup." They're mostly incandescent. Not you, though. Perhaps episode that led to Australia's aggressive gun ban. This is brought to you by the same people.

Wells Fargo bank in Reno, NV appropriated my deceased Father-in-Laws savings account because they could after the account was inactive for one(1)year. We did recover the monies in about two months.

The logic behind this is flawed at best. As children we are taught that one typically does one thing or another with their money; we either spend it or save it. This distinction should suggest to the reasonable man that placing one's money in a bank for the purpose of saving it means that the account is by definition "active" simply by virtue of the fact that he is "saving" it.

If some do not see this as an acceptable and completely reasonable definition then that disagreement should call into question very nature, purpose and the need for banks.

If a man cannot actively save his money in a bank or other institution what does he need them for? He might just as well stick it in his mattress or coffee jar at home then - some might even suggest that would be more secure as it would make it harder for government to decide they are better stewards of his resources and just arbitrarily confiscate them. This is of course a very important property rights issue as well as one involving basic definitions.

Lets get ALL the facts straight shall we instead of scaremongering.
The bank is required to notify and search for the account holders in question, In fact there is a whole department dedicated to this so it's not just a case of not using your account for 3 years and then the state takes over. Do you expect the bank to carry your account until eternity? Having said that 3 years is way to short IMO.

I think there is HUGE difference between custodial cancellation of obviously abandoned accounts, and tyrannical confiscation of accounts obviously not forgotten.

Human life, being about 100 year max, imposes the timelines useful in this comparison. 25 years or more is a very, very long time. It is a quarter of maximum lifespan, roughly, it is a half or realistic lifespan, and for many people, 25 years is the maximum time they would hope to spend in this world. It is very unlikely that the owner is in coma or in US SuperMax for the time being, but will return later to cash out. Interestingly, in these cases, if he does return, the reinstation of account balance is instantaneous.

However, 3 years is nothing, it is not a time at all, even for a prison sentence (where people generally put far more importance on time passed). 3 years is not a quarter of a maximum lifespan, not even close to being one fifth of that!

Because of this, I think the common sense would dictate that the DB was right in pointing out the astonishing difference.

I don't know how to search comments, but I seem to remember warning about this, in conversation with someone about reasons to own gold, some time ago.
Bet it sounded way of the chart back then.

ol' Grey Ghost,

"The surest prescription for tyranny is for the people to allow such an institution like involuntary government to exist in the first place. Follow-up medications will lead to disarmanent and later to democide."

I am fully with you on that!

The US has had a 6 month inactive seizure policy for several years. Typically US financial institutions will create activity in the form of an inactivity fee to move the money to them rather than the state. Rapidly put a stop to minor savings accounts that get a once or twice a year deposit. The justification for this reulation was that the "evil" financial institutions were sitting on billions of dollars of dead people's money and not giving it to the heirs. Therefore it rightfully should go to the state. Only a bureaucrat could write this crap to regulation. Since most Americans do not have idle savings accounts, most are unaware of the issue.

"... for the government's own financial circumstances rather than customer needs... "

There is no way that this could possibly benefit any customers. And not much chance of anyone thinking that it would either. But the rules as they were before, were not for the benefit of customers either.

It is ham-handed and foolish, and seems to actively court the actual hatred of the Australian public. More taxes cannot be far behind.

This is NEWS??? Not to me. The Swiss have confiscated dormant accounts after 7 years at least since before 1974. That's the year the Swiss stole my deceased dad's account. (Swiss bank Corporation was the bank, Bahnhofstrasse 44, Zurich.)

Falling tax recepts and expanding government are a feedback loop manifesting itself as an economic death spiral. Private endeavours, when they experience decreasing revenues, may cut production to decrease expenses. Governments, always highly unionised, do the opposite. Private concerns may increase sales by increasing the sales force; governments merely add clerks and enforcers. Private concerns may increase value to the customer, or expand their market, or buy out their competition. None of these options are available to government, which already has a monopoly in their market. Is it any wonder government either kicks the can down the road by borrowing against a tax on future generations or prints money? Usually both.

As to why Australians and indeed nearly all citizens of any country you can name go along with incremental slavery: Stockholm syndrome. By bonding with government they hope to at least ameliorate the psychological trauma resulting from their perceived and quite probably real helplessness. This, I believe, is why so many people do their best to ingratiate themselves with authority figures, expecially cops and those from government.

Check your own state. Many if not most states have laws that at least take money in dormant accounts and items in lock boxes putting them into escrow. Conservatives have pushed through laws in most of these states they must make an "Attempt" to find the owner and to publish the list of people last listed as owners of record.

Some people make a living finding the owners of published accounts. Often it is a distant relative of someone who passed away not telling anyone of an account he/she had. These "people finders" charge 10 to 50%.

Kansas (my state) has an honest Treasurer who really works hard to return money. See the KS state Web site to access the list. Unlike states like CA and NY (essentially all "blue" states) do nothing to try to find heirs or the owners.

Supposedly states and the feds "hold" $83 billion in funds from such accounts at the end of 2012. They are permitted to "borrow" these funds which almost all do within milliseconds. But most will refund if an owner appears years later.

So what Australia is doing is already done in most states. Check the Treasurer's page on your own state Web site. Most include lists of people they are "holding" money for.

I always check new Kansas lists but have never seen anyone I know. CA last year was so bad the list even had the governor as a person "we can't find". A number of TV and movie stars etc. A media article made them look like real crooks. Couldn't find the governor??

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks. The Australian legislation is a kind of "off the charts" episode that punctuates what's going on in Oz - an increasing federal over-reach. It's an obvious, deliberate escalation that turns what might be (to some) a justifiable enterprise in a fairly naked revenue-raising exercise.

Inactive bank accounts have been seized in almost every state in the USA for over 25 years now. Once a year, these states publish the names of those accounts being taken and you can make application based on your relationship to the account holder and I gather you can receive what is due you. Some maintain a data base for the come latelys looking for what relatives may have fogotten. New York is one of those states.

I know that many of you are seizing on every action done by givernments to keep your columns intriguing but you should check what we have done in the USA before castigating those who are late in following our direction.

Reply from The Daily Bell

The article was not about US state confiscation but about a powerful Western federal government deliberately changing a policy from seven to three years to confiscate "unused" assets. The US federal government has no such policy that we know of, though that is not a defense of US tactics - as states are said to be getting more aggressive about collections.

Hi DB,

The majority of Australians - who live in the cities - are sheep and are still under the delusion that people in government are there to help the cirizens of the country (instead of the majority being there to enrich themselves). There are a percentage of citizens that resist and think for themselves but I think essentially Australians are the same as people anywhere else. Also we're no longer just descendants of petty criminals (more the pity) - we are 'multicultural' with a massive range of nationalities and people who weren't born and didn't grow up here, so the sense of community and so on has been largely broken down (as was the aim I'm sure).

The trouble is, like the US and the UK, we have a 'two party preferred' system which, for some reason I don't understand (maybe the mainstream media is to blame), people seem to think they have to vote for rather than an independent who would truly represent their local electorate. There are a few e.g. Ann Bressington (see her talk of the UN's Agenda 21: Click to view link)

We still have fluoride in most of our water supplies - since that's meant to make people docile and lower their IQ, maybe that's also part of the cause.

DB said:

"Mass protests? Judicious civil disobedience? These are time-honored approaches ... "

To which Darby Jie responded:

"But isn't that the surest prescription for tyranny, the guarantee that the victims will NOT defend themselves?"

Speaking out is a form of self-defense. Think of what the rattlesnake does before you "tread on" it. But it's fear of the bite that causes others to change their course.

The surest prescription for tyranny is for the people to allow such an institution like involuntary government to exist in the first place. Follow-up medications will lead to disarmanent and later to democide. Tyranny sits at the bottom while government slides down the side of the hill following the course of gravity just like a certain dark brown substance...

It shows that Australian politicians are world leaders in having no brains. They do not represent the people of the electorate. Democracy in Australia is dead, and has been for several decades.

"Mass protests? Judicious civil disobedience? These are time-honored approaches ... " - The Daily Bell

But isn't that the surest prescription for tyranny, the guarantee that the victims will NOT defend themselves?

Reply from The Daily Bell

We are not speaking about self-defense. And one begins as one must.

DB said:

"Mass protests? Judicious civil disobedience? These are time-honored approaches ... "

Indeed they are and let them try them, but if the dog has no teeth, then all his barking is just an annoying noise. Those who get annoyed might just throw an old boot at him as much as they would throw him a bone...

"Here's hoping Aussies show their disdain for this kind of government maneuvering in a vociferous manner - and not just at the ballot box. Take it to the streets."

And when the police start shooting at them, they should shoot back. Oh, wait, they can't. I think they've painted themselves into a corner on that one.

Yes, I know the Daily Bell is against the aggressive use of violence to settle matters, but I'm sure the most pacifistic of the elves would agree to meeting violent force with an equal and repellant amount of force.

Maybe they could use knives. "That ain't a knife; this is a kNIfe!" Here in the Republic, though, we have an old saying: "You don't bring a knife to a gunfight... unless you are expecting to run out of ammunition."

Reply from The Daily Bell

Mass protests? Judicious civil disobedience? These are time-honored approaches ...