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 gmoke - Mar 26
by marco - Mar 26 22 comments
by DoDo - Mar 19 18 comments
by DoDo - Mar 7 21 comments
by DoDo - Mar 12 34 comments
by DoDo - Mar 14 7 comments
by Upstate NY - Mar 15 294 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 14 22 comments
by gmoke - Mar 26
by marco - Mar 2622 comments
by DoDo - Mar 1918 comments
by Upstate NY - Mar 15294 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 1422 comments
by DoDo - Mar 147 comments
by alexc - Mar 126 comments
by DoDo - Mar 1234 comments
by paul spencer - Mar 113 comments
by gmoke - Mar 7
by DoDo - Mar 721 comments
by fjallstrom - Feb 28115 comments
by talos - Feb 23171 comments