[gorjusborg]

> I would say the banking sector as a whole was bailed out

I disagree with that characterization.

The FDIC refunds depositors using money (assessments) they collect from member banks. So in essence, unless the government does something special to inject funds directly into the FDIC, the remaining FDIC member banks would likely see their assessment rates go up to cover the costs of these bank failures.

From https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2023/spmar2723.pdf:

> "any losses to the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) as a result of uninsured deposit insurance coverage will be repaid by a special assessment on banks as required by law."

[rcme]

I don’t think “the government funds its operations via taxes” is a strong argument against this being bailout.

[gorjusborg]

I'm not sure you understood what I'm saying.

My point is that the FDIC refunding more than 250k wasn't a bailout of the banks because FDIC insured banks are the ones who fund the FDIC.

[gorjusborg]

The main point to take away is that healthy banks are on the hook for paying depositors through assessments charged by the FDIC.

[rcme]

My point is that the FDIC DIF premiums and assessments are mandated by law and are thus a tax levied on banks. So the you’re trying to make it seem like the banks are managing the risk themselves but another way of looking at it is that all FDIC operations are funded via tax revenue, just like everything else the government does. Ultimately, the FDIC is backed by the full faith and credit of the US.

[gorjusborg]

> funded via tax revenue, just like everything else the government does

FDIC assessments and taxes are different. You can over-simplify mentally to a tax, but that doesn't make it true.

The FDIC runs more like an insurance provider than a run-of-the-mill government agency.

[rcme]

Social security and Medicare are also a form of insurance. Are you not paying a social security and Medicare tax? How is that different?