4 ms·
The legal loophole is that it's essentially a levy on the (other) banks, not the taxpayer. The comedy, of course, is that "bank customer" and "taxpayer" are mor
by dvt 4y ago
The legal loophole is that it's essentially a levy on the (other) banks, not the taxpayer. The comedy, of course, is that "bank customer" and "taxpayer" are more or less the same set of people.
- rafram 4y agoKind of, but I don’t pay any fees for my bank account(s) and I don’t expect to in the future, even with the small insurance rate increase levied by the FDIC to cover making SVB depositors whole. Making loans with my money is profitable enough for my bank that they don’t need to charge fees.
- adastra22 4y agoYou pay fees, even if they are hidden (e.g. lower interest rates in savings).
- swores 4y agoThat's not paying fees.
- adastra22 4y agoCall it what you will, I care not. It is an opportunity cost you pay in the end.
- swores 4y agoBy that logic a law requiring banks to hire security experts who can keep their systems safe from hackers is also a tax, do you object to that too?
- dvt 4y agoI'm not sure why you're being so disingenuous here. It's painfully obvious there's a difference between costs invoked by best-practices and regular business operations and costs invoked by another bank making bad decisions, going bust, and then the other banks' customers having to pay that difference. Making an argument that we should all eat this cost to avoid contagion, etc. might hold some water (and the Fed was stuck between a rock and a hard place), but let's not pretend it's not a cost we're all eating, on top of it being an inflationary move.
- mortehu 4y agoMany banks these days have zero commission brokerage accounts, in which you can hold T-bills or money market funds. Not a lot of reasons to use a "savings" account.