NJ not giving up on gift card seizure law

[The Northerner]

New Jersey isn't giving up its effort to seize unused money on gift cards and traveler's checks.

Lawmakers voted last year to allow the seizure of cards after two to three years as a way to raise about $80 million and help balance the state's budget.

But in November, a federal judge temporarily struck down the law.

The Record of Bergen County reports the state isn't giving up though. State treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff has told a judge that the state will appeal the earlier ruling.

New Jersey Retail Merchants Association, the New Jersey Food Council and American Express filed suits to block the law.

Source: http://www.app.com/article/20110103/NEWS03/110103015/NJ-not-giving-up-on-gift-card-seizure-law-

[zonkers]

1. Official statement of Jersey State Treasurer to critics: "Hey, you do you."

[no limit]

2. So the state is going to steal money from people?

[happyslug]

5. No, just steal money from people who stole the money.

Gift cards are notorious for NOT being 100% used by the people given the Card. When that occur the money NOT used goes to the seller of the card. Thus Gift Cards are a wonderful source of income for stores, people can not decide what to buy someone, because they tastes are so different, they buy a gift card at a store they go to then give it to someone who NEVER goes to that store. In such a situation the Gift card is almost never used and the money goes to the store that issued the gift card. Thus it is THEFT by the Store for money meant for someone else,

The State of New Jersey is saying that in such situations the Gift card money should be handled like any other piece of lost property, become the property of the State till the real owner claims it. That is all the State is doing AND the $80 million Dollars such cards bring in and NOT used tells you how profitable to the people selling the cards these cards are.

Yes, it is the SELLER of the Cards fighting the State over who should get money NOT used by the owner of a Gift Card. The Buyer of the Card can NOT use the Card for it is now it the hands of someone else. The person given the Card has the right to cash in the card, but if who should get the money if he or she does NOT use the card? The person who sold the card or the state? The real owner is NOT in the picture, if the real owner was he or she would prevail over both the seller and the state, but that is NOT the dispute being discussed. The dispute being discussed is who should get the money NOT spent by the owner of the money.

[no limit]

6. It's a free country, if I want to buy a gift card that is my choice

I dont need the government coming in and taking my money because I didn't use it in a time frame they deemed appropriate.

I agree that most giftcards are never fully used and are a great source of income for stores. So what? If you think there is something wrong with how gift cards are handled you can set up regulations that protect the consumer, not take their money from them.

[happyslug]

11. The time frame is the time frame put on the Card by the Stores NOT the State

Basically the State wants any money from any Card that is NO LONGER REDEEMABLE. If the Store wants to keep the Card redeemable forever then no problem, the state can never get the money (until such time as the store takes the redeemable Card as income, then it belongs to the State).

The law in every state has always been that any money kept by a Bank and NOT redeemed becomes State Property. My home state of Pennsylvania publish on the net list of property it is holding (Closed banks accounts and other such assets) every year. If someone wants the property they can claim it.

This is NOT like the situation where someone finds a Hundred Dollar bill in the Street. While some states says such property belongs to the State, most states follow the common law policy that it belongs to the person who lost the money, but if that can NOT be determined then to the person who found the Hundred Dollar Bill.

The reason for the difference is the later no one knows who the real owner is, in the case of the bank the bank knows, but can find that person. To encourage the banks to look for such persons, the States said if the owner is NOT found it does NOT become the property of the Bank but the state (unless an heir or a person with a better claim to the money appears). This has worked for at least the last 100 years and will work again i.e. encourage the seller of Gift Cards to get the money on those cards to the real owners. The State does NOT want to encourage Card sellers to benefit from finding out ways to making sure the owner of the card can never use the card. The best way is to require the card seller to get the money to the real owner OR turn it over to the state, just like what banks do when it comes to unclaimed deposits.

[no limit]

23. Again, I am making the decision to buy this gift card. I am free to make this decision

if the terms say that after 2 years I can no longer redeem the funds on the card then that is the contract that I voluntarily entered in to with the seller. The state has absolutely nothing to do with this transaction and they certainly don't have the right to take this money, which was legally obtained, from the seller.

[X_Digger]

7. So rather than ban gift cards (if they're such a rip-off).. the state claims it.

Whose property is it? The recipient. It's not 'lost' property- it's still sitting in someone's wallet, in someone's desk, or in someone's junk drawer.

Legalized theft.

[happyslug]

13. Most gift cards have a set redemption period, thus if not redeemed the card becomes valueless

And at that point who is the theft? The State who demands it be turned over to them and maybe even be redeemed (or at least used for the Public Good) or the Card seller who treats it as pure profit? At that point the real owner of the Card is NO longer in the picture, thus which theft gets the money? I prefer the state for the simple reason it will be used for some public purpose (maybe even lowering taxes) but I can see other preferring the Card Seller, so the stock owners can get a higher return on their stock (Which is then used as such stock holders sees fit).

[X_Digger]

15. Read the law.. you can't claim it after the time.. the state is not holding it in trust.

If you buy a loaf of bread and then don't eat it, is it theft when the bread turns to mold?

[happyslug]

17. So is the Seller of the Card, after the end of the redemption period you can NOT claim it

So what is the concern? The issue is WHO should get the money NOT claimed by its rightful owner? The Card Seller or the State?

As to the bread anthology, it is more like I buy a loaf of bread but only take two slices out of it and leave the rest with the store after the store agreed to hold onto for me till I can claim it. Instead of making sure the bread gets to me, they re-sell it at a profit, a profit I do not even get a part of even through I had already paid for the full loaf myself.

All the State is saying, is the store can NOT re-sell that loaf of Bread, instead the loaf goes to the state who gives it to the poor. Which is better the Store that re-sells what it already sold and makes two nice profits, or the State which uses it to feed the poor?

[X_Digger]

19. Now you're just not making sense..

Your analogy doesn't fit. I'm not 'leaving' anything with the store- they sold me something with a limited value, I took it home. Everything after that in your analogy falls apart.

The state gives it to the poor? Oh, so the end justifies the means? Oh well, then, that makes it okay.

:sarcasm:

[happyslug]

20. In my story, you left the loaf with the store, on the promise the store would keep it for later.

It is clear you do NOT like my analogy for you are rejecting the premise, that the loaf could be paid for and left behind on the promise that it will be kept till I later can claim it. While not done with break, it is done with money all the time, I leave things in trust with another (Classic example I leave my car in a parking garage with the promise the car will be in the garage when I return to pick it up).

In my analogy I am leaving something with the store for that is what you are doing when you buy a gift card and uses just part of it. I use bread for you had used bread. I left the bread with the store on the promise I can redeem it later. I never redeem it, it had been paid for, who should get the bread?

[X_Digger]

21. There is no 'bread' after a certain amount of time..

Hence why I used 'bread' as an example- given enough time, it's valueless.

I'm not leaving anything with the store when I only redeem part of it- I exchanged 'bread' for goods, and took the rest of the 'bread' home.

It would be one thing if the customer weren't aware of it- but every gift card I've ever bought has it right there on the reverse.

[MattBaggins]

25. You are completley and utterly incorrect

The value of money used to buy the card does not evaporate just because the value left on the card does. That money is still sitting in a bank account.

[no limit]

31. The money, according to the contract I happily entered in to with the seller, goes to the seller

nobody said that it simply evaporates. It belongs to the seller since it is a product the seller sold to us. It does not in anyway belong to the buyer after that point and it sure as hell does not belong to the state.

[fishwax]

33. that really depends on the state

New Jersey isn't the only state to claim unused balances on gift cards as unclaimed property, particularly if the cards are expired.

[no limit]

34. The state can "claim" the money is theirs all they want. It's not.

You as the buyer entered into a contract with the seller. The money was not lost, the money according to the agreement you entered in to went to the seller.

[fishwax]

38. that's not how it works in many states

"You as the buyer entered into a contract with the seller."

And the seller knows that, depending on state law, any unclaimed amount when the gift card expires (or after a set period of time) may revert to the state.

"The money was not lost, the money according to the agreement you entered in to went to the seller."

Nobody claimed the money was lost. But the money isn't like cash received for inventory. The companies aren't selling the little card for 10 bucks, 20 bucks, 50 bucks, etc. The sale of the card itself is not revenue but rather as a liability. That liability will then be reduced by property transferred to the person redeeming the card. Eventually, if the card expires or is not redeemed for a certain amount of time, the unclaimed balance will be moved away from liability.

Unless, as is the case in several states, the state has laws that treat that balance as unclaimed property.

[no limit]

42. Well then the way it works in some states is not right, it is legalized stealing

When you buy a gift card you are buying a product. That product has certain obligations you agree to. It's as simple as that. If you don't like the way it works don't buy the gift card. And if it is actually legal in certain states for the government to steal your money then I can't wait for the supreme court to look at this.

[fishwax]

the sellers also know how it works, and if they don't like it they needn't sell the card

:shrug:

[no limit]

74. Sellers have every right to sell these products. Yes, they know how it works

and they know it makes them a shit load of money.

If you don't like businesses making money from a perfectly legitimate product then that is your issue, leave government out of it.

[fishwax]

80. it's not a real product, though, which is why they can't count the sale of a gift card as revenue

I have no problem with businesses making money off of gift cards, though.

[no limit]

81. Yes, jesus christ, it is a legitimate product

the reason they can't count it as revenue is because they have no way to know who will cash in on the cards and who won't. But after the cards expire it does get counted as revenue.

It is no different than any other product you buy. It works in the same way as extended store warranty does for example. You have no right to claim these products are not legitimate, they are.

[fishwax]

86. it's quite different from other products that you buy, regardless of the appeal to divine authority

It is different from other products that you buy in that it is a promise to deliver product in the future.

"the reason they can't count it as revenue is because they have no way to know who will cash in on the cards and who won't."

No, it can't be counted as revenue because it is not revenue, but rather a liability. Once a consumer claims a product in exchange for some balance of the gift card, that liability has been met and at that point the money becomes revenue. It isn't *uncertainty* that makes it not revenue, it's the fact that it represents a real liability.

Your comparison to an extended warranty demonstrates that it isn't "no different than any other product you buy," since an extended warranty is, also, different from other products that you buy. Warranties create deferred revenue for companies, and in that way may be similar to gift cards; but they're different in that a warranty may result in a loss of revenue (if some portion of the sale price is forfeited) or in an accrual of operating costs (in repairing a product).

I think rebates (which don't simply become company cash if the customer doesn't cash the check) provide a better point of comparison to gift cards than do extended warranties.

[no limit]

89. So in your view insurance and extended warranties are also not legitimate products?

[fishwax]

91. no, that's not my view

I also don't think that gift cards are in any way illegitimate, just that they aren't products in the same way that merchandise is.

[no limit]

92. So if they aren't products what are they?

In the meantime also answer if extended warranties and insurance are not products then what are they?

[fishwax]

93. a gift card is a liability

Obviously there are plenty of different definitions of "product," but my point that they aren't a "real product" was in response to your claim that they are a product just like any other product, which is simply wrong, as demonstrated by accounting principles as well as common sense.

"In the meantime also answer if extended warranties and insurance are not products then what are they?"

I'm fine if you want to say warranties and insurance are products. I never said they weren't. I just said that they weren't products in the same way that, say, merchandise is.

[no limit]

98. You were spliting hairs. And I still dont get why. Just for your reference:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/product

a (1) : something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity

Have a nice day.

[fishwax]

99. it's not splitting hairs, as any company that treated GC sales as revenue would quickly discover

You have a nice day, too, no limit. :hi:

[MattBaggins]

51. The USSC will be fine with it

These cards get passed on to children as gifts and the merchants honor them 3rd, 4th, 5th party. They don't care. By that fact alone there is no contract nor agreement.

[no limit]

75. Yes, there is a contract/agreement

just because you give something as a gift doesn't void the terms you agreed to when purchasing the product.

[MattBaggins]

50. What agreement?

I didn't agree to anything neither did I sign anything nor have anything explained to me. I went to the register handed the clerk $20 and went on my merry way.

[no limit]

76. Maybe you should read what is on the product before you buy the product

I guess I can pirate music, software, and movies since I didn't officially sign anything when I bought those products.

[X_Digger]

41. It is not money. If it were money, you would give money, not a gift card...

It represents a certain amount of credit.

If it were equivalent to money, then a $10 gift card one year later would be worth $10.01 (or $9.99 depending on inflation / deflation).

[no limit]

44. It is a product that you buy. If you don't like the product don't buy it.

[X_Digger]

45. Agreed. You agree to the terms when you purchase the card. n/t

[MattBaggins]

52. Then the cards can not be given as gifts

[X_Digger]

56. Flip one over, and read it :)

... is not cash, can not be redeemed for cash, items purchased may not be returned for cash.. 'your use of this card means that you agree to these terms..' etc etc.

[MattBaggins]

58. Can't be given to children, people who can't read or read English,

handicapped, incapacitated or a number of other cases. That "by using you agree" is just about worthless.

[X_Digger]

64. So a store shouldn't honor a gift card from a minor ;)

It would be within their purview to do so.

[MattBaggins]

67. Yes they could refuse to honor it

Bad for business but they could. I'm pretty sure iTunes has taken all this into consideration though.

[no limit]

77. So I guess you make the same arguement for buying software, music, and movies, right?

Because a child or a handicapped person won't be able to read the terms about piracy. I guess we should just not allow stores to sell these products to mentally retarded people, amirite?

[MattBaggins]

24. He was making perfect sense

Perhaps there is a difficulty in understanding?

[bighart]

94. The seller and and the purchaser enetered into a contract.

The seller is NOT stealing the money, they are honoring the terms of the contract. If the STATE seizes the money the STATE IS COMMITTING THEFT!

[Posteritatis]

12. You seem to have an impressively bullshit definition of the word "theft." (nt)

[happyslug]

14. No Limit called the action of the State "Theft", I just pointed out that can include the Card Seller

Yes, technically neither the actions of the Store nor the state is Theft, but "No Limit" called the actions of the State to make such money the property of the State Theft and I just went with that determination.

My concern is the real owner of the Card will almost never get the money, that is theft, but the fight is over who should get the money NOT used by the Card Owner. Who do you think should get that money (In my opinion the owner of the Card, but that is a solution NOT in the picture) the State or the Card Seller?

[no limit]

78. Yes, what the state is doing is theft. What the seller is doing is not

[Statistical]

79. Most cards don't expire but NJ will still seize the consumer's funds.

Under the current system most giftcards never expire, the money is always available to the consumer. Now many of those consumers may not act upon that money but it is there.

Under NJ proposed system they would seize all funds on gift cards after 2 years (regardless of if/when card expires), they would also seize all funds from money orders & traveler checks after 3 years (despite those products clearly indicating no expiraiton date). Worse they will make the law retroactive and seize all traveler's checks and money orders from 1995 to 2007.

Finally the law has implications beyond NJ.

For example someone in NJ buys a best buy gift card (no expiration date) and sends it as a gift to a family memeber in VA. The person in VA is unlikely even aware of the naunces of VA law. The card clearly says no expiration date. 2 years after purchase the value on the card goes to $0.00 and NJ makes some money off a working class guy in VA.

You honestly think this system is no worse for the consumer than what exists now?

[bighart]

95. So if I enter into any other contract and fail to comply with the terms

of that contract, if the other party keeps what I paid them are they committing theft? Your logic does not stand up.

[Lucian]

16. It's theft from those who own the gift cards.

Just because one doesn't use it in the time frame specified doesn't mean they should get their card stolen, regardless if they intend to use it or not.

[happyslug]

18. I agree, but that is NOT the issue, the issue is which theft gets the money?

What should happen to the money NOT used? and NOT claimed? Should it go to the State or the Card Seller? The Court said the Card Seller, the State says the State. No one is disputing that the real owner is the Card Owner, but he is NOT in this dispute. If he was he would win, but he is NOT. That is the problem how do we make sure the Card Seller does all he can to make sure the Card Owner gets full use of the Card? One way is to remove all profit to the Card Seller if he does NOT, thus the rationale for the State taking of the money.

There are moves to correct this problem in Congress, but it is being fought tooth and nail, for example require all cards to be redeemable in cash, to require seller to register owner so that if not used within a set period a Check is written out to the buyer for the amount not used on the Card. Congress is looking into this mess but no one has done anything yet.

[MattBaggins]

53. Nor will they do anything

This is part of the whole beauty of these cards. Companies actually design the system with the knowledge that unclaimed money becomes instant profit.

[bighart]

96. IT'S AN UNFULFILLED CONTRACT AND THE SELLER HAS

THE LEGAL RIGHT TO KEEP THE PROCEEDS.

[Incitatus]

37. nm

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. An unused gift card is abandoned money.

It should be treated just like an abandoned bank account; the money goes to the government who in turn tries to find the owner.

[rurallib]

3. That law doesn't even make sense.

It is like authorized theft.

[happyslug]

8. Or, who should get the money on a Gift Card in your name, that you never used?

That is the money in dispute, money in the form of Gift Cards that are NEVER cashed in (or cashed in and left with a few dollars on the card that the owner of the card never uses for he or she will have to pay extra to use that money for anything sold in the store the gift card is from). Who should get money on gift cards that is never spent? The seller of the Card or the State? If the Seller of the Card would send a check for the amount left on the card, there would be no dispute, but what seller do is keep that extra money as a profit. The State is just saying, it is money, it is NOT the card seller's money, it belongs to the owner of the card BUT the owner has not cashed in the card, or what is left on the card, for two to three years. In such situations the Gift Seller views such cash on the card as income to themselves. The is saying, no it belongs to the owner of the card and if the owner does NOT want to cash in the card, the money on the card should go to the State as lost money. That is all the state is doing here, taking money stolen by the Gift Seller and declaring it state property. The person who owned the card can always claim the money, but that rarely happens for it is generally just a few cents or dollars per card and as such NOT worth cashing in. On the other hand sell a lot of gift Cards you are talking about 80 million Dollars a year. Who should get this money (given the actual owner is NOT able or willing to get the money)? The state is saying it should for the Card Seller did nothing to earn that money and if there is "lost money" to be had it goes to the State NOT the person who already made his or her fair profit when the card was sold.

[no limit]

10. If you make a decision to buy from such a seller that is your decision

so what if I don't use it the money then gets marked as profit for the business that sold it to me? It's the business's money, it certainly doesn't belong to the government.

[MattBaggins]

27. No money "belongs" to the Government yet they still have this

nifty little mandate to raise funds and make stuff happen.

[northzax]

102. what about cards that never expire?

Starbucks cards, for instance. they never expire, they never decline in value (well except for inflation and the like) New Jersey now arbitrarily says those cards are good for three years.

let me tell you an anecdote (bad way to make law, but hey) I work at starbucks. on January 1, I had a young man come into my store with his Fiancee. He proudly bought them both drinks with his starbucks card that frankly looked a bit worse for wear. it was demagnetized even, but the number was still visible and therefore we were able to process it. He apologized for the shape the card was in, and explained that he had been in Afghanistan. his Fiancee bought him the card on his way out, to be redeemed for the both of him when he was back for good. so what do you tell someone when the state has confiscated their money?

and what if you pay for a card with cash, and never register it? how do you prove it belongs to you?

[sarcasmo]

30. Exactly.

[littlewolf]

4. what "lawmaker" thought this one up ....

hopefully the US congress doesn't get any ideas ....

[X_Digger]

9. A couple of republicans thought this one up..

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A3500/3002_I1.HTM

[Statistical]

22. Utter BS.

This is a private transaction between store & purchaser. If purchaser decides to never redeem the card what right does the govt have to simply seize it.

The worst part of it is it means the worse gift card rules are the MORE the govt profits. The govt should never be in a situation where it increases revenue the more anti-consumer policies are.

[MattBaggins]

28. The Government has every right to raise funds for the purpose

of running things.

[Statistical]

29. Yeah via equitable taxation not via seizure of assets.

At least not in a Democracy, and not one that respects private property rights.

[MattBaggins]

35. Who has the right to unclaimed property?

[Statistical]

36. It isn't unclaimed.

A gift card is a contract. The person purchasing a gift card is purchasing a card with ability to make future purchases. The sale occurs at the time the gift card is purchased. Since giftcards have no cash value and can't be exchanged for cash they aren't unclaimed cash.

How the individual and merchant decides to use or not use that card is irrelevant. A sale has been completed. The individual owns the right but not obligation to exchange the card for goods in the future. The cash becomes the merchants property at the point of the sale.

If NJ cared about the consumer they could mandate that consumers could redeem cards for cash. Instead they are just looking for a payday.

[X_Digger]

43. It's in my wallet / desk / junk drawer..

it's not unclaimed.

Who says the government has the right to decide that I'm not going to use it tomorrow (2 years +1 day).

[MattBaggins]

49. They are not deciding that.

[X_Digger]

54. Actually, they are..

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A3500/3002_I1.HTM

"a. A stored value card for which there has been no stored value card activity for two years is presumed abandoned."

[MattBaggins]

55. That is only a problem if the cards have a life longer than two years

that clause may need to rewritten if the State has not truly checked to ensure that there are no cards out there with lives longer than two years.

[Statistical]

57. BS. The two years is to intentional seize funds. Without the 2 year provision the bill is worthles

They haven't checked? Really that is your defense. Amazon.com giftcards never expire. Done. I just checked online. It took all of 30 seconds to verify. Amazon even went back retroactively and removed expiration date of cards in past that were issued with an expiration date. Legislators know most gift cards don't expire. That is the point. The purpose of the bill is to seize funds.

Also the same bill puts a 3 year expiration on travelers checks (despite traveler's checks being issued without any expiration date for decades).
Lastly the bill makes all this retroactive so the state can immediately seize any traveler check issued after 2007. Actually the bill allows them to seize any and all checks issued between 1995 and 2007 on day one of enactment.

This is done for the SOLE purpose to fatten the city coffers. Siezure of private assets simply because they believe they can. There is no portion of this bill that is pro-consumer. Many companies issue no expiration gift cards. It doesn't matter, 2 years on the dot, the state seizes the consumer money without recourse. Not just gift cards but traveler checks. Traveler checks which people purchase specifically because they have no expiration date.

On edit: Did some research and it looks like the overwhelming majority (90%+?) of giftcards never expire. Apple, starbucks, bestbuy, Target, Walmart, H&M, Lowes, Home Depot, Bloomingdales, Macy.

I couldn't find a SINGLE major company with giftcards that expire except Visa giftcard (no merchant accepted anywhere Visa is).

[MattBaggins]

59. That's badly written and need to be done correctly.

It still does not change the fact that expired cards could be treated as unclaimed funds.

I don't agree either with them taking travelers checks or any items that do not expire and that should be stricken out.

[Statistical]

60. Then there would be no reason for the bill to exist.

Almost all giftcards never expire. The point of the bill is to make $$$$. If they can't seize the funds why even write the bill. One would imagine the tiny minority of cards which currently do expire would simply be modified with no expiration (better to earn lifetime float on the unclaimed funds then lose it to the state at the two year mark).

So what is the reason for the bill? It is like saying you are pro-death penalty but the bill should be modified so people aren't killed.

[MattBaggins]

62. I used to work as an auditor for a regional supermarket

out of college and we did offer gift cards/certificates with expiration dates although that was many years ago. They had a great little swindle going on with local charities where they gave them special deals on gift cards/certificates because they were being handed out to homeless people during the Holidays. The company knew they would never be redeemed and it was pure profit.

[Statistical]

63. And now the state believes they have a good swindle going on.

Obviously market forces has forced companies to be competitive and remove expiration dates or avoid consumers picking other cards. I was actually surprised at how few (only 2 of 30+) have expiration dates. So this is a positive trend for the consumer.

So the state is attempting to swindle the consumers WORSE than corporations are. I mean that has to be a new low. When the corporations are offering a product with more "pro-consumer" terms than the state is trying to enact defending the bill is simply stupid.

The bill exists solely to make money for the state:
1) Most giftcards have no expiration dates
2) If the bill was passed to only seize expired giftcards then the minority with expiration dates would simply remove the expiration dates
3) Hence a modified bill only seizing expired cards is next to worthless.
4) The state believes they will pull down $80 million a year by seizing non-expired giftcards. This is outright theft of the consumer property.

[MattBaggins]

69. I didn't write it.

I don't like it either since my wife manages at a mom and pop restuarant that gives out cards and certificates. This would just be stupid for them. My kids get little certificates from local places all the time for doing well in school and this would put a stop to that. The local High School makes money every year by selling special cards that are usable at local businesses and expire and again this would stop that.

Taking from items that are not expired is indeed theft. Taking from expired ones may be very stupid but within the realm of government.

[X_Digger]

66. How about money orders?

"46:30B-12. Presumption of abandonment of money order. Subject to R.S.46:30B-14, any sum payable on a money order or similar written instrument that has been outstanding for more than three years after its issuance is presumed abandoned "

[MattBaggins]

71. I would not propose such a rule

If the money order was such that it was expired after that three years I might entertain the idea but would still most likely vote against it depending on what effect it would have on Western Union.

[X_Digger]

61. The state made no claim that it had any indication about how many did or did not..

It's totally arbitrary.

But it's also beside the point. A gift card represents revenue with a future expectation of redemption in product. Two years (or however many) later, an accountant removes X dollars from expected expenses. The value was never 'lost' or 'unclaimed'. The card is still sitting in someone's wallet or desk (though it has no value), and the projected expense was always in a database on some accounting system somewhere.

If I hand you an IOU for a cake, good for 90 days, for those 90 days, I'd better have a cake handy, just in case. If you don't come to me within 90 days, why the hell should the state demand a cake from me?

[MattBaggins]

65. They should not be trying to pass such a law.

Things such as travelers checks should be treated as money and not taken because of an arbitrary cut off date but expired products could be treated as unclaimed funds.

It might still very well be a really stupid law as in there would be a really big stink from the big guys asking why it doesn't also apply to mom and pop places that sell gift cards that don't have an accounting department that already has this info figured out.

[X_Digger]

68. Oh the state already exempted mom and pops..

"and this section does not apply to a stored value card issued by any issuer that in the past year sold stored value cards with a face value of $250,000 or less. "

They wants the money, gotta make up for that budget shortfall _somehow_.

It's sad when two republicans figure out a way to shaft consumers and some people can't see what's going on.

[Statistical]

70. Sad thing is a Republican plan to seize funds of mostly working class consumers is championed on DU.

My roughly 5 minutes of research revealed
a) most cards never expire thus it is consumer who is simply having their property seized by the state.
b) many states have very strict giftcard laws. For example in CA or VT to sell a giftcard it must never expire. Period.

So this bill is both anti-consumer and exists to shift taxation via a stealth tax on the working class (rather than just raise taxes on the rich) yet somehow some on DU think it is a good idea.

[MattBaggins]

72. Not all. I was very specific in considering expired cards

and whether that could be considered unclaimed funds and not theft by the state.

[PBS Poll-435]

26. In Texas, if you don't cash your paycheck, the employer sends the funds to the Comptroller

And her Unclaimed Property fund.


Don't claim it after so long...?


Goes to the State coffers.

[fishwax]

32. several states do this, but apparently the NJ law offers a quick time frame and includes unexpired

NJ has a two-year minimum before cards can expire, but as far as I can tell the unclaimed property claim in the law in question isn't limited to expired cards.

[B2G]

39. Actually, it should go back to the person who purchased the card in the first place.

If it goes anywhere at all.

[walldude]

40. And how exactly do they plan to implement this?

Sieze cards? Are they going to come to my house and demand any unused cards? Are they going to try to demand that the retailers pay them?

This is what you get with our political system. Fucking morons.

Twain was right, the only people who should be elected to office are people who don't want to be there. People who need to be dragged kicking and screaming. THe person who wants it the most should be the last person to get it.

[happyslug]

48. All this law requires is when it is no longer possible for people to redeem their card

What ever is left on those cards must be turned over to the state. One way the Seller of the Cards can do to avoid this is send the excess to the buyer of the Card as a check, but that would require the Seller to get a name and address to send the check to, and in most cases such information is NOT taken down.

[Statistical]

73. False. The bill seizes all funds on all cards after 2 years.

Regardless of if it can be used or not (99%+ of giftcards never expire).
It also seizes all funds from travelers checks & money orders after 3 years despite not having an expiration date.
It also retroactively seizes all funds from 1995 to 2007.

If NJ wanted to look out for the consumer they could simply pass a tougher gift card laws. The reason 90%+ giftcards never expire is a couple states (CA & VT among others) have passed laws saying gift cards can never expire. Period. As result for companies doing business in multiple states it is far easier to take the least restrictive rule (never expire) rather than design giftcards to work differently in every state.

Walmart, Target, B&N, Amazon, Apple, Starbucks, Macy, Bloomingdales all have gift card which never expire. All would be seized by the state after two years.

Are you sure you are on the right board to be defending regressive Republican policies?

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Turn the question around.

Should the merchant keep the money? What about abandoned bank accounts? Should forgotten money belong to the business who finds it?

Gift cards shouldn't be sold without a name and address to refund the money to if they're unused.

Given the choices of who should keep the money;
a) the buyer
b) the government
c) the merchant

... I'd vote for A or B.

[WinkyDink]

83. It is the MERCHANT'S money. That said merchant has not been asked for a transaction IS NOT THE

CONCERN OF THE STATE.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Is an unclaimed Certificate Of Deposit the BANK'S money? n/t

[northzax]

104. how is this the same thing?

a CD is an investment vehicle, cash for cash. a gift card is a promise of future service in exchange for cash now.

[WinkyDink]

82. The buyer paid for the card. Whether or not it is used is NOT WITHIN ANY STATE'S PURVIEW.

Do some people here think "gift cards" are handed out for free by stores?
They are paid for, like pre-paid phone cards, to be used---or NOT, at the recipients' discretion---for future purchases.
They are decidedly not the province of the state, which is legally due ONLY the taxes initially paid on the card and/or on the eventual purchase.

As the courts will so adjudicate.

[Vickers]

85. No matter which side of the argument you fall on, don't you agree this is pretty fucked up? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. Not really.

A gift card is most analagous to a certificate of deposit - albeit one without a minimum term or an interest rate.

When a CD is lost or forgotten, it doesn't simply become the property of the bank.

[Statistical]

88. Except it isn't lost or forgotten.

Most (99%) giftcards have no expiration date. The NJ bill simply seizes the value of card 2 years from the date of purchase. It makes no attempt to ascertain if the card has been lost or stolen.

Buy a $100 gift card (say a best buy gift card with no expiration date). 2 years later = value is $0.00 because the state seized your "lost" property which was neither lost for forgotten.

Utter BS. Your CD analogy is broken. One can purchase a 5yr CD. This would be like the state seizing your CD after 2 years because you haven't redeemed it despite it being a 5 yr CD.

This bill is completely indefensible and people who try just come out looking foolish supporting a bill sponsored by Republicans to seize private property of primarily working class Americans. Not only that the bill is Unconstitutional simply because there is no method to implerement it that won't interfere in interstate commerce a power reserved by the Federal govt. (Someone in NJ buys a card, and gives it as a gift to someone in VA or even worse sells it to someone in VA. Two years later the card is worthless because NJ seized the property of someone in VA despite the consumer in VA possibly not even knowing the NJ statute).

[Vickers]

90. You don't agree that seizing gift card value by the state is fucked up?

Because it *almost* sounds like you do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. What percentage of gift cards are redeemed after two years?

What percentage of gift cards more than two years old are redeemed at all?

If the answer is zero, then the response to you is "they aren't".

[Statistical]

100. If it isn't 0% then that means they are stealing from consumers.

I found a gift card this year was over two years ago. I accidentally put it into the safe. Had NJ law been in effect they would have seized my funds without cause simply because I didn't spend them fast enough. It is of little comfort to the consumer who has their assets seized that in 70%, or 90% or x% of the cases people never miss the money anyways.

You are aware this bill was sponsored by Republicans right? Rather than raise taxes on the rich it is a scam to swindle consumers of their assets. Why do you feel compelled to defend this.

Even IF it was a good idea it is clearly Unconstitutional. It interferes in the interstate commerce of non-NJ residents. An area that is the domain of the federal government. So while a bad law federally it would at least be Constitutional.

[lumberjack_jeff]

101. This is a reverse appeal to authority.

"If Republicans support it, I shouldn't"

a) In my experience, most gift cards expire after time certain. In fact, I was surprised that the Cabela's gift card I gave my son does not.
b) I suspect that gift cards which haven't been redeemed within two years are rarely redeemed at all.
c) Gift cards which aren't redeemed are a windfall for the merchant. I don't see a lot of reason to cheerlead for WalMart. I'd rather cheerlead for the teachers and other government employees who would benefit.

[Statistical]

103. Try to find a gift card you can purchase today that expires.

CA & VT passed laws making expirations illegal and to avoid costly compliance (where cards work differently in different parts of country) virtually all chains today simply issue cards that never expire.

The Cabelas card wasn't an aboration. I did some research I found about 30 companies that have gift cards that don't expire. I couldn't find a single that has gift cards which expire.

The law is theft and Unconstitutional. It doesn't hurt the rich. It hurts the middle class and it is a step backwards. States like CA & VT were progressive and enacted laws to protect the consumers and now some states want to make it worse for consumers by seizing the funds which don't expire. Fuck that.

Walmart, Target, Starbucks, Macy, Cabelas, B&N, Borders, Amazon, The limited, Old Navy, Gamestop, Petsmart, Best Buy, JCPenny, Sears all issue gift cards which never expire. I can't find a single major brand that has gift cards which expire, which is a good thing for consumers and somehow you think it should be ok for states to seize those funds.

If the teachers need more money then RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH, STOP STEALING FROM MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES.

[northzax]

106. i will agree with you here

if you can post a single merchant who still offers gift cards with expiration dates.

also, you understand that this law would apply to pre-paid cards with the VISA, MC or AMEX logo, right? I found one in my couch last week from two christmases ago. still had five bucks and change on it.

[northzax]

105. not at all

a CD is a promise of cash to be redeemed. you get cash. with a gift card, or a gift certificate, you get services later in exchange for cash now. not the same thing at all.