I know, just about everyone due south of London too. And I am very sorry for the people horribly affected by it. But I have heard about it for months on the national news and I am bored by it.
It seems the only ones benefiting from the interest rate cut is the bloody banks. A good excuse to slash saver's rates whilst not passing on the cut to mortgages...
.4 of a percent might not be much to you durbar but there are a lot of pensioners relying on the interest on their savings to see see them through
Not so. If interest rates drop, the banks earn less interest on the money they lend. So they don't benefit across the board. Businesses will benefit from being able to borrow at a cheaper rate. That will lead to investment and projects being made that otherwise may not have, leading to more work, jobs, and money moving around in the system. And when money moves around, that's actually what generates wealth for everyone. It's when money stops moving about that the economy slows down. As for mortgages, they are pretty low right now, and the only ones that will remain static are those people on fixed rate - but they will have made the decision on fixing their rate, and will be aware that should rates rise, they are also protected. So it's not the bank's fault that many mortgage payments will remain the same, it's the borrowers who opted for a fixed rather than a variable rate. And that rate allows them to budget and know what their outgoings are, so one can presume that they are happy with that rate for the duration of their fixed period. Of course, in the big scheme of things we're talking such small numbers here (0.5% to 0.25% on base rate) that additional measures such as quantitative easing - to make sure there's enough money to lend - will fall into the mix regarding borrowing and lending. However, it's incorrect to say that only banks will benefit, or that they will benefit across the board.
0.25% base rate actually. Some lenders have reduced their product interest rates by 0.4%, but at such small numbers there's very little money to be gained or lost anyway.
You argument may hold true for people who are well off. Of course, as Kiwi pointed out, if you are a pensioner on a fixed income even a small cut in interest can be life changing. People will have to spend their capital to live and end up in a much worse position than they are already in. Successive governments in cahoots with moneylenders have turned us into a nation of debt, and this will make it worse for no appreciable benefit for ordinary people. Now we have the prospect of inflation with close to zero interest rates the result of which is poverty. For future reference, it is always the banks' fault. Global warming, Ebola, Harry Redknapp, you name it, a banker is to blame.
At 0.5% most will likely have been spending capital anyway. Reducing this by a quarter of a percent won't hit as hard as you are painting. Be honest - if we were talking about a cut from 15% to 14.75%, would the 'outrage' be as bad? Of course not.
Just seen on Facebook the clip where Trump essentially encourages the '2nd Amendment folks' (i.e. the gun owners) to 'do something' to stop Hillary Clinton. Crazy. And then, some Trump supporters turned it around on Clinton by expressing surprise at some of the people she had at her rally, asking "don't they monitor the people who support Clinton?" Monitoring someone based on whether they are a Democrat or a Republican shows just how broken that nation really is. I'm not sure which of the two statements above I find most worrying...
It's no more broken than this or many other nations as far as I can see. Lots of angry and and desperate people who feel that they have lost control of their lives, if they ever had it, and the future is worse than the past. Perfect ground for populist politicians.
Chaz,Trump is a llunatic, I agree, but you must also look at who that person was behind Hilary before you say anything.
I know who they are. It's the father of the Florida nightclub gunman, invited to add weight to Clinton's gun control pledge. And my point still stands. If he's a Democrat, should that mean he needs to be 'monitored'? Or that trump can encourage some other gun nut to action?
He's not being "monitored" as you put it, because he's a Democrat, he was pointed out because his son killed 49 people and injured many others and is supposedly an Al Qaeda supporter.
If his son killed 49 people and injured many others, why should he not be allowed to attend? Do we blame parents for the crimes committed by their children now?
Not "if", he did. By the way would it make it better for you if I told you he is a Chelsea supporter?
I'm curious now. OK, his son is a mass killer. What does that have to do with his father being allowed to attend a political event?
No, because the equivalent interest rate cut would be from 15% to 7.5%. I understand why they have done it, but I don't think it will make a shred of positive difference on its own and will make the people who can least afford it have harder lives, if only fractionally. But hurrah we can rack up more debt and bigger mortgages on relatively lower rates.
