The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
In practise, this tends to strain the credulity of even the most soundly sleeping financial regulator.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
You pay the expenses and taxes through a consumer loan, not a mortgage.
Economics is politics by other means
Think about a negative-amortisation loan as an interest-only loan plus some fictional interest. This extra interest increases the bank's assets but not its liabilities, compared to an interest-only loan at a correspondingly lower interest. It's free funny-money for the bank, in that it comes with no funding cost - no extra liabilities means no need to borrow more from the CB.
Taxes don't work like that, because they have to be paid in real money, not Monopoly money. So a consumer loan to pay taxes actually increases the bank's liabilities, making it less attractive on paper.
(That, and mortgages typically come with stickier strings attached than consumer loans.)
Of course there are no regulations that a sufficiently incompetent or corrupt regulator cannot fuck up. Foolproof systems do not exist in economics, and even if they did nature is ever at work improving the stock of fools. But as a first line of defence, property taxes are not bad.
by fjallstrom - Feb 28 114 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 26 125 comments
by talos - Feb 23 170 comments
by DoDo - Feb 22 6 comments
by Migeru - Feb 21 256 comments
by gmoke - Feb 24
by ATinNM - Feb 20 14 comments
by Migeru - Feb 13 88 comments
by fjallstrom - Feb 28114 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 26125 comments
by gmoke - Feb 24
by talos - Feb 23170 comments
by DoDo - Feb 226 comments
by Migeru - Feb 21256 comments
by ATinNM - Feb 2014 comments
by Migeru - Feb 1388 comments
by DoDo - Feb 12261 comments
by Migeru - Feb 3266 comments