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 Metatone - Jun 29 50 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 28 32 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 1 4 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Jun 28 23 comments
by DoDo - Jun 23 22 comments
by das monde - Jun 26 19 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 20 355 comments
by melvin - Jun 15 60 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 14 comments
by Metatone - Jun 2950 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Jun 2823 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 2832 comments
by das monde - Jun 2619 comments
by DoDo - Jun 2322 comments
by gmoke - Jun 233 comments
by DoDo - Jun 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 20355 comments
by melvin - Jun 1560 comments