Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why wouldn't this work?
-
25-11-2010 12:58pm#1Hello,
First time poster in this forum
Why wouldn't this work?
A) Divert a % of annual mortgage repayments from the banks directly to Government.
Extend mortgage 'lifespan' for the duration of the diversion.
Okay, so it affects the banks income, temporarily, but it could be a time defined scheme, with bank mortgage revenue simply 'time shifted' out a few years. And the banks have schemes in place for their liquidity.
If the plan above could replace the increases in income tax, then in would be net pay neutral, leaving people with money they have to spend in the economy.
So what's wrong with that?
DualFrontDiscs.0
Comments
-
DualFrontDiscs wrote: »Hello,
First time poster in this forum Why wouldn't this work?
A) Divert a % of annual mortgage repayments from the banks directly to Government. Extend mortgage 'lifespan' for the duration of the diversion.
Okay, so it affects the banks income, temporarily, but it could be a time defined scheme, with bank mortgage revenue simply 'time shifted' out a few years. And the banks have schemes in place for their liquidity.
If the plan above could replace the increases in income tax, then in would be net pay neutral, leaving people with money they have to spend in the economy.
So what's wrong with that?
DualFrontDiscs.
The government is essentially collecting money to give to the banks anyway, so that would be taking money out of the banks revenue and giving it to the bank. It could have some effect if the national debt was the only problem, but the bank debt itself is the major problem.
You're essentially talking about a tax on bank's mortgage revenues, which I imagine they would simply pass on to the customers anyway. So that would turn out to be a tax on mortgage holders, who are the precise group that are in trouble. Plus, the tax level would be related to how much you owe, not what you earn. Income tax avoids all that and taxes people higher if they earn more (i.e. can afford it).
That's just my thoughts on what you're saying, did I understand you right?0 -
-
-
Advertisement