[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