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.
Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.
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 Cyrille - Apr 18 19 comments
by DoDo - Apr 19 3 comments
by ARGeezer - Apr 18 7 comments
by Cyrille - Apr 12 30 comments
by DoDo - Apr 6 39 comments
by Cyrille - Apr 8 6 comments
by Oui - Apr 16 3 comments
by ARGeezer - Mar 31 10 comments
by DoDo - Apr 193 comments
by ARGeezer - Apr 187 comments
by Cyrille - Apr 1819 comments
by Oui - Apr 163 comments
by Cyrille - Apr 1230 comments
by Cyrille - Apr 86 comments
by DoDo - Apr 639 comments
by aquilon - Apr 3158 comments
by ARGeezer - Mar 3110 comments
by Zwackus - Mar 2910 comments
by DoDo - Mar 279 comments
by Xavier in Paris - Mar 275 comments