Sorry Derwood, I'm with Chaz on this one. If you say the rate has been cut by 50% I would assume you meant a drop of 5000 basis points.
Let me try and make a little easier for you two. If a QPR ticket is 50 quid and they offer 50% off how much would it be?
Let me make it a little easier for you. Here's two questions: If you earn 0.5% interest on an account, and you have £100 in the account, you would receive 50p interest a year. If the interest rate is reduced to 0.25%, how much less interest would you receive? If you earn 15% interest on an account, and you have £100 in the account, you would receive £15 interest a year. If the interest rate is reduced to 14.75%, how much less interest would you receive?
Not sure where you get that agreement from. It's simple maths. The difference is, you're looking at the number '50%' so that you can think ill of the banks again. We're looking at the number '0.25%' as the ACTUAL reduction in the interest rate, so that we can show that people are actually very slightly disadvantaged, but not enough to provoke the moral outrage you're looking for.
Again - stop telling me when I can or cannot post. And again - look at the ACTUAL impact of this, not just how you are trying to twist it into an anti-banker worldview. Actually, just answer my questions honestly, if you are able.
50 quid isnt a rate, its an absolute value. But I know the point you were making and I'm just messing with you. A drop of 0.25% in the rate of 0.5% could be said to be a drop of half its value (which is also 50%). Shouldn't you traders use basis points anyway to avoid such confusion - I always do when dealing with them.
Moral outrage, what the hell are you talking about. All I said that the rate cut was a 50% cut. it was cut in half which is 50%. Next you'll be saying its a racist math equation.
Have we really had 2 pages of argument about what a percentage of a percentage means in relative and absolute terms? Come on guys, this is the maths of 12 year olds and you're all smart enough to discuss the effect of such things rather than different ways of phrasing the result.
Then my amazement at how much you don't understand is far greater than it was before, if possible. Either that or you are being deliberately provocative. Again - two questions above. Any chance you can answer them?
There is good chance but they have nothing to do with my original post. you seem a bit upset today. I've finished.
I'm not upset, just can't understand why someone who was a banker can't understand simple economics. Not even enough to understand that my questions are exactly what this debate centres on. Maybe it's a good job you're opting out, I'm not sure how much further we can simplify this for you.
None of us little people do. If you're the Duke of Westminster or Sir Phillip Greed of Monaco then paying taxes in the country to which you owe your living is a mug's game
I've been trying to Matt, but obviously arcane stuff about % is more comfortable to argue about than poverty. This rate change won't make a massive difference to people, but I can't see how it will make anything better and for those reliant on income from savings it will make them poorer.
Who's going to fall into poverty over this change? Under what circumstances would this drop in interest rates push someone into poverty? The only scenario that anyone could come up with is one where a couple with nearly three quarters of a million in a standard savings account earning base rate, and trying to live off just the interest from that very large deposit. Which is not helping the 'poverty' argument much.
