Yep. Same goes for the AMT and to a much larger extent, the indexed-to-inflation mandated yearly increases of entitlement programs like SS, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.
. October 1, 2008 SouthAmerica: Reply to qnome I know that 60% of the money on bank accounts is not insured by the US government - this is the amount above the $ 100,000 deposit insured limit. But the accounts that are holding this 60% of uninsured money what is the percent of these accounts in relation to the total number of bank accounts in the country? Besides if you did not catch on as yet about the new game that is going on on the name of helping protect the American people money that they have on their bank accounts. Do you wonder what is happening that suddenly became so important and imperative that people's bank account be insured to a new limit of $250,000 instead of $ 100,000 that it was fine until Goldman Sacks and Morgan Stanley became Banking holding companies a week ago. Americans and the US mainstream are too stupid to connect the dots on something so obvious. It is no coincidence that Goldman Sacks and Morgan Stanley becoming banking holding companies a week ago immediately they were at the core of this new need to increase the casino chips for these holding companies gamble US government insured money away. qnome I have a feeling that you have grasped what is really going on regarding this increase in US government deposit insurance. .
I guess it never dawned on you that most of that uninsured money is in the accounts of small businesses. Always with the conspiracy angle... It's called pork, or more politely, an amendment. I'd provide you with a link explaining the process of how a bill becomes law but you've already proven that you're not here to learn anything.
You guys are missing the point. So long as someone can divide his money up into $100K tranches at different banks, he could get insurance for ALL of if. And having to do so was just a mechanical nuisance. That't being the case, there's no reason not to have a larger limit... other than hoping some people get defaulted upon simply because they're lazy.
Not quite as simple for a small business. Especially for those in rural areas with few local banks to spread their accounts across.
If we raise FDIC do we have to raise banking fees to cover the additional insurance? Or are the going to just print more money and inflate even faster to cover those losses if and when they come? Gnome I agree with you on most things. I have my money spread out, but it's kind of a pain because I get 1% less at one of the banks than the other. I guess if I completely trusted the current state of affairs I could put my money at Indymac and GMAC but I don't trust. The only trust I have is if we go down so does the rest of world. It's already spread to Europe. Most central banks are talking intervention from what I have seen. I have thought about putting a chunk in Canada as they didn't have the lose lending standards we had, but their susceptible too, to a bank run if for no other reason then they use fiat money too and we are their largest trading partner, I believe. How does a business with payroll for a large staff spread their money. Are different employees get different bank checks? Or are they paying a lot of wire transfer fees to move money for inventory, payroll etc?
FDIC is both a moral hazard AND a very regressive tax as FDIC is nowhere near self-funding and the vast majority of Americans cannot come close to the existing limit. The limits should be reduced to $10k per person, per bank, along with a clear unambiguous statement from the Treasury that there IS NOT an implied backstop for uninsured accounts. Anything more than that is simply socialism. A possible alternative is to make FDIC self-funding, which would require extremely large increases in premiums.