[fma]

In other words...it's funded by anyone who uses a bank. A quick Google shows that only 6% of Americans are unbanked. If 94% of Americans are going to see higher fees, lower interest rates on accounts, higher interest rates on loans, reduced services in order to make up for increased insurance fees, it's practically paid by tax payers.

[dahart]

Everyone being a taxpayer and everyone having a bank account is a coincidence. This does not equate to bank fees being taxes. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this argument isn’t strong. It’s the same as saying we’re being taxed for smart phones or cars on the basis that most people buy them. A tax is something the government collects and it’s mandatory. The other massive difference here is that the fees are distributed according to certain kinds of savings and investments, not according to income nor according to any and every bank account. I don’t have bank fees, for example, for my checking account.

[briHass]

To continue your cell phone analogy, this could easily be like the 'number portability' regulation that was simply passed on to consumers as a fee that vastly overpaid for the cost and now represents almost pure profit for carriers.

Banks are too smart to make it that obvious, however. They'll wind those fees in silently.

[greenyoda]

> lower interest rates on accounts...

These days, banks need to be competitive with Treasury rates to get large deposits from informed investors. Anyone with a brokerage account can get a 5% interest rate today on short-term Treasury securities (risk-free if held to maturity, and exempt from state/local income tax).

So if banks start lowering rates on deposits, they may have a shortage of money for lending.

[hd95489]

If they don’t have required reserves they don’t need any deposits.

[ericd]

It seems likely that it'd be proportional to your holdings in banks, though? So it's a bit of a wealth tax? Seems like people can put down their populist pitchforks. This is a pretty good application of an insurance scheme.

[fma]

Not really...it depends on how it's implemented. I don't pay a minimum account fee because I have enough money. Who does? The poor. If they decide to increase credit card rates, I don't pay credit card interest. Who does? The poor. If they decide to reduce savings interest...I utilize a service called "Max My Interest" where my savings account money is rotated every month to a different bank depending on who has the high interest rate. If the bank tries to reduce interest payments...doesn't impact me. It impacts those who aren't financially savvy.

[ip26]

Better filtered through the open market for banks than paid directly out of your taxes.

[WalterSear]

It's just easier to hide from voters.

[dawsmik]

It could be borne by the tax payers who have bank accounts. But it is also possible the banks could bear some or all of the "tax" by lowering their margins.

[BlueTemplar]

Is the fee progressive like tax ?