No idea if No12 is right or not as haven't looked into it, but it's funny how all the forum lefties immediately band together and character assassinate the deliverer rather than disproving it factually. Says a lot about the way the left conducts itself. Always the man, never the ball.

Also;



If you have an account dormant for three years and the value is about to be taken by ASIC your bank will notify you.

If you still do nothing and the money is used by ASIC, it takes filling out a form to get it back (plus interest).

If people are stupid enough to have an account lay dormant for that long and not even transfer in $1 in three years and have it wither away with fees really says volumes of how little people manage their finances.

Took me all of 5 seconds to Google this shit and find decent comments on it;

http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/198nt3/inactive_bank_accounts_to_be_seized_after_3_years/

Maybe you, No12, shouldn't believe all the shit your read :roll:

-PB

God bless 60 Minutes and Today Tonight!

Where on Earth would be without such cutting edge journalism?

-PB

Amazing how you did not mention the ABC.

I find the 7:30 Report and Four Corners to be of a higher standard.

But yeah you can lump them in together if you like.

All media has vested interests.

-PB

I find the 7:30 Report and Four Corners to be of a higher standard.

But yeah you can lump them in together if you like.

All media has vested interests.

-PB

So what is the conclusion Sherlock is there such legislation or did I make it up?

There was a law in place and the time limit was 7 years, I stated cash strapped Labor government changed it to three years, think about it there are people that are unable to always reach their money sick in hospitals, nursing homes and so on, bottom of the bird cage policy, why should anyone have their money taken from them, only to later ask for their money back. Gillard/Swann did not introduce this legislation to help anyone else but their own purse.

I never denied the existence of such legislation, that's not what I'm challenging nor am I supporting what Labor have done.

I'm challenging your over the top rhetoric and general bullshit.

If they couldn't access the money before to do something with it why is it an issue?

If they ended up being sick for 7 years why would it be an issue?

The fact is, the money is going nowhere.

Would you be singing the praises of a Coalition Government if they did this? In my opinion, yes, yes you would.

Take the Abbott tinted glasses off for a second and look at things subjectively.

-PB

Does it make any mention of actual rates?

Can only assume it'd be quite small (<2%)

-PB

Edited by paulbagzFC: 3/5/2013 10:45:09 AM

Determined by ASIC - assuming it would be standard rate?

So it is true... Who's gullible now?

Determined by ASIC - assuming it would be standard rate?

THE Federal Government's economic credentials have received a timely boost from Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who suggested Labor may be best placed to take the country forward.
Professor Stiglitz, a former World Bank chief economist and economic adviser to the US Government, said Federal Labor did a fantastic job of saving Australia from the global economic crisis.
At the same time Professor Stiglitz criticised right-wing politicians for being the "architects" of the downturn.
"One of the reasons why the debate about...Australia's stimulus...is so important is not because we're historians and we're trying to grade but because we're trying to make a judgement about going forward who is likely to do a better job," Professor Stgilitz said.
"What are the economic theories, advisers they are likely to draw upon? Labor's done a good job."
Professor Stiglitz said economic advisers who had been praised by "the other side" of politics were the ones who had designed America's "economic mess."
"To praise the people who were the architects of the global financial crisis suggests that your economic ideas might lead this country into difficulty," he added.
"Whereas the others (Labor) actually did a fantastic job of saving your country from problems."
Professor Stiglitz said he supported the objectives of the Government's mining tax but was not surprised resource firms objected.
"The clear objective is one that I supported when I was in the Clinton Administration and our attempt to do a very similar kind of thing," he added.
"Having watched what happened in the US I'm not surprised at all what's happened here; the mining companies do not want to pay their fair share."
But he said he was surprised at the resonance the resource firms' arguments have had.

Umm, OK Notor.

In further news, black is white, up is down and there are porcine flyers all over town.

Pretty simple thing to say when you don't understand economics.

Sure, it might be a slight Appeal To Authority logical fallacy, but I'd trust two international economic authorities over a supposed "leader" that is so desperate for the Prime Ministership that he once said the only thing he wouldn't do to get power is "sell my arse, but even then I would consider it".

In further news just in, Labor inherited a deficit and will be leaving behind a massive surplus.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

@Hoff; blacka is calling you a pos economist, umad bro?

-PB

Spin it all you like, righties, history is showing that this government is the far superior economic model to the profligate LNP.

deficits don't matter.

Spin it all you like, righties, history is showing that this government is the far superior economic model to the profligate LNP.