Skip to main content

View Diary: Is 400k the new 250k? (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My comment in an earlier thread (0+ / 0-)

    in this discussion:

    In my opinion, 400K is the new 250K only when the FDIC raise the limits of an FDIC insured account. If not, it is a meaningless number and I dont believe that there are any studies supporting the merits of raising the limit.

    •  as soon as Obama concedes on this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RFK Lives

      you watch how many flock here to praise the merits of the decision.  "Studies?  STUDIES???  I don't have no studies.  I don't have to show you no stinkin' studies!!"

      Oregon:'s cold. But it's a damp cold.

      by Keith930 on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:44:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's the problem with your position (6+ / 0-)

      of tying it to FDIC insurance.  

      The $250,000 is a HOUSEHOLD income level -- i.e., two incomes, like a married couple.

      The FDIC insurance is $250,000 for an INDIVIDUAL.  Joint accounts -- with more than one owner of the money -- are insured at $250,000 per owner.  So a single bank account owned by a married couple already is insured up to $500,000.  

      Under your analysis -- the income threshold for household income ought to be the same as the level the FDIC will insure for that household -- the threshold should be $500,000, not $250,000.  

      •  I think we should use the average household income (0+ / 0-)

        you make $250,000 even as a couple and you make quite a bit of money and are living a pretty high life, large house, private schools, yearly vacations, 2 cars(probably more) and a vacation house, not to mention a large retirement nest egg.  You can carry you load on the tax front.

    •  tying it to a FDIC rate makes no sense (3+ / 0-)

      The limit isn't not a number in isolation. The rates matter because of how much revenue they raise for the government, and economic stimulus effects, not irrelevant things like FDIC limits and the President's salary.

      •  The reason I anchored the FDIC number (0+ / 0-)

        for this discussion is that I recall that the first time a congressman appearing on CNN (it was about 10 days ago, sorry I dont have a link to it) raised the issue of stating that $250K is not sufficient in the district he lives in and it would probably be equivalent to $400K considering the cost of living in his area.

        When the congressman raised this issue, it seemed odd to me that they dont say the same about the FDIC amount: that it should vary depending on the district. No bank will ever agree to that approach to computing a depositor's insured amount. Also what concerned me is that the Congressman simply chose to go straight to the upper limit of the range without even talking about a measured approach to the computation, assuming that it was put forth with sincerity.

        Since that interview with the congressman, I have been dreading this number to show up in the negotiations, because that would be presented as a compromise to the rest of the nation, which is currently held hostage to negotiations with the intransigents.

        My point is that if the Congress tries to sell the cost-of-living index as a reason to raising the level to $400K from $250K I wont buy it. Does anyone know the reason this number is being floated around as the new $250K at least publicly stated or is it simply a halfway compromise between 250 K and 1 MM?

        Obiviously, the argument about tying to FDIC has fallacies in because the account balances could span multiple years in addition to the total number per household as @coffetalk raises earlier in the thread. I hadnt thought through all of the holes with my proposal posted earlier.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site