[nindalf]

This bizarre claim that FDIC insurance is funded by taxpayers is becoming more prevalent. So a bank offers financial services to a citizen and in exchange makes money. The bank uses these profits to pay insurance on the deposits. And by some mental gymnastics, this makes the bank taxpayer funded?

If we taxpayers buy phones from Apple, is Apple now taxpayer funded? Is an antitrust fine on Apple meaningless because it’s “borne by the taxpayer”?

At that point, the term “taxpayer funded” becomes meaningless.

[phpisthebest]

FDIC is a Federal organization that can not go under. Banks pay to insurance on deposit up to 250k. We now know that the insurance is unlimited but the fees are only based on 250k liability

So if the amount of money left in FDIC is less than the amount of money needed to make depositors whole the FDIC gets its money from either the taxpayer or the Fed prints the money

If Apple were to offer some kind of protection plan for the iPhone's and then all of the iPhone blew up and Apple cannot afford to pay to replace them Apple would go under

That is the difference between a federal agency like the FDIC and a private corporation like Apple they are not an the same

At the end of the day the federal government IE the taxpayer 100% backs the FDIC

[BoiledCabbage]

> FDIC gets its money from either the taxpayer or the Fed prints the money

The piece that your missing is that if they do (like what just happened here) it done essentially a loan. And any funds provided will be recovered via a special assessment on banks. Essentially they will increase their insurance rates that banks pay. It is legally required that the banks themselves cover all costs, and FDIC cannot just take money from tax-payers to pay back private banks.

You are mistaken when you say that the taxpayer pays for it or the Fed prints money and pays for the result. That's not what happens at all.

You can read it from the FDIC directly on SVB

> No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by taxpayers. Shareholders and certain unsecured debt holders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

[fsckboy]

> No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by taxpayers.

if the govt taxes citizens, and spends the money, it's govt funded. full stop. even though, yes, it's ultimately paid for by the citizens.

if a govt requires fees from banks to an insurance company, that's a tax. if the govt requires cash outlays by the insurance company, not sure what we would call it, but coupled with the tax it's govt funding.

The whole reason it's structured the way it is is so that the govt can deny that it's govt funded; this type of govt regulation creates the argument you are defending, but follow the money, it's govt funding every bit as much as tax and spend.

[BoiledCabbage]

This is a useless argument.

According to your definition, everything that exists in the world that received funding is "tax-payer funded". As a result calling any specific thing "tax-payer funded" is an empty attempt at a slur.

There are two options, either use a scoped definition of tax-payer funded which means it doesn't apply here. Or an ultimately generic wildcard definition of tax-payer funded meaning it's no different than anything else in existence and debate about it is meaningless.

[StopHammoTime]

Banks are known for sacrificing their margins and not passing on fees directly to consumer. /s

[paganel]

> This bizarre claim that FDIC insurance is funded by taxpayers is becoming more prevalent.

Because it is correct. In today's world you're pretty much forced to have a bank account open if you want to have a "normal" life, i.e. a life where you own a house (most probably via a mortgage), where you pay your bills (most probably online) and where you receive your salary (most probably via a bank account).

As such, the great majority of tax-payers are also bank customers, and this was not based on their own choosing (meaning they couldn't "afford" to avoid being bank clients). As such, banking customers bailing out failing banks de facto means tax-payers bailing out failing banks.

[nindalf]

In today's world you're pretty much forced to own a smartphone if you want to have a “normal” life.

And half of all US taxpayers pay Apple for this privilege. That still doesn’t mean Apple is taxpayer funded.

Hear me out, this may sound crazy, but maybe we should call something taxpayer funded if … it’s actually funded by taxes. Not if it is simply used by a person who may or may not pay taxes.

[paganel]

> And half of all US taxpayers pay Apple for this privilege. That still doesn’t mean Apple is taxpayer funded.

That's what's coming next, hopefully. For all its many faults the EU is going down that path in regards to the mobile phone industry and the related ecosystem. It's telling that the one article bashing Apple the company that is now on the HN home page has first been published by a French magazine.

Also, let's leave the "hear me out" thing to reddit.

[nindalf]

Curious you didn’t respond to the part right after “hear me out”. You know, the actual substance of my comment.

Could we leave that behaviour in reddit too?