bit-tech.net Forums

bit-tech.net Forums (http://forums.bit-tech.net/index.php)
-   Serious (http://forums.bit-tech.net/forumdisplay.php?f=93)
-   -   UK AAA rating Downgrade (http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=256955)

Cozmo87 24th Feb 2013 08:42

UK AAA rating Downgrade
 
Hi everyone just found out this morning that are Triple-A rating has been downgraded to AA1.
What does this mean for our future.
Do you think the government is biting the bullet To reduce Our debt significantly. Or could another government do better. Just wanted to know your thoughts and views.

fdbh96 24th Feb 2013 09:01

To be honest im not sure it was avoidable. Quite a lot of the other countries in the EU have had it too. The problem is that we need to cut spending, but we've got used to the way things were which isn't sustainable, so every time cuts of some kind are announced theres a big protest/strike.

Kronos 24th Feb 2013 10:47

According to all the old speeches from George Osborne that have been aired since Moody's downgraded the U K's credit rating in which he insisted that it was essential that Britain kept it's triple A rating, all of a sudden it does not seem to matter that the rating has been changed.

I do not profess to know about economics on a national scale and whereas I agree that cuts must be made I do not believe for one minute that we are all in this together. The poorest in our society seem to be bearing the brunt of the austerity measures whilst others life continues as if nothing has happened. Cuts are useful but without some sort of growth strategy then we will remain in these dire conditions for much longer than needed.

As to the rating change it has not affected the USA or France so hopefully the downgrade will have a minimal affect on the UK.

JoshH 24th Feb 2013 10:49

The problem I can see it causing is people reluctance to invest yet again

rollo 24th Feb 2013 11:56

Does not make a great deal of difference.

Borrowing rates will go down if a similar thing happens to what happened to america and france. Enough they can not get alot lower. George Osborne just wanted a political promise to keep and now its gone he has failed.

Ill be happy to see the back of George Osborne his cuts hit the poorest and leave the wealthy untouched. ( hell i got a tax deduction lol) Seen friends on the lower wage scales really been hit hard by his brutal stance on Child tax credits among other things.

This has been on the cards for months now, This has already been calculated in most share prices as a guarentee after the uk entered its second negative growth.

People were not investing before when they had the AAA rating what makes you think they will be more reluctant now when they already were not doing it in the first place.

We have rentered a second recession due to lack of growth caused by lack of investment.

Harlequin 24th Feb 2013 13:16

alot less attention is given to S&P , moody`s and fitch now than before 2008 - alot of `noise` was made that those 3 `credit agencies` were paid off to keep the toxic banks looking good , when in fact it was widely known they should have failed allready.

the EU is allready taking steps away from the USA credit agencies , and china allready has.

mucgoo 24th Feb 2013 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRONOS (Post 3293475)
According to all the old speeches from George Osborne that have been aired since Moody's downgraded the U K's credit rating in which he insisted that it was essential that Britain kept it's triple A rating, all of a sudden it does not seem to matter that the rating has been changed.

I think he meant the UK needed to be able to borrow at comparable rates to the US and Germany. Pre 2008 an AAA rating was the guarantee of that and it made for an easy sound bite. Not so much now.

sniperdude 24th Feb 2013 15:50

It's no surprise.

The conservatives under David Cameron seem to be the most incompetent party in my life time at least.

U turns.
Broken promises.
People seeing huge drop in living standards.
Disabled people and people on benefits branded as scum
Bedroom tax for the poorest while richest get tax cuts for living in huge houses.

mucgoo 24th Feb 2013 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperdude (Post 3293601)
It's no surprise.

The conservatives under David Cameron seem to be the most incompetent party in my life time at least.

U turns.
Broken promises.
People seeing huge drop in living standards.
Disabled people and people on benefits branded as scum
Bedroom tax for the poorest while richest get tax cuts for living in huge houses.

They inherited the worst recession since the great depression. Not a single western country has avoided a decline in living standards.
And I don't recall any branding as scum of any group.
Its not a bedroom tax rather a charge for couple who's children have left who are enjoying living in government subsidized three or four bedroom houses. Seems perfectly reasonable. If it was being levied on owner-occupiers who had spare room in some move to lower house price (I wish) then it would be a tax.

I agree on the first two.

sniperdude 24th Feb 2013 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by mucgoo (Post 3293655)
They inherited the worst recession since the great depression. Not a single western country has avoided a decline in living standards.
And I don't recall any branding as scum of any group.
Its not a bedroom tax rather a charge for couple who's children have left who are enjoying living in government subsidized three or four bedroom houses. Seems perfectly reasonable. If it was being levied on owner-occupiers who had spare room in some move to lower house price (I wish) then it would be a tax.

I agree on the first two.

Call it a tax or a charge it still amounts to the same thing (people who don't have it OR have any other place to go have to pay)

And it don't just effect people people in three of four bedroom council properties and its not just for "couples who's children have left who are enjoying living in government subsidized homes.

You have to realise that for years their has been a shortage of these houses and flats,
Councils have been giving single people 2 bed room properties because they just don't have 1 bed properties to give (still the case even now and yes these people have to pay)

Same as the single dad or mum who has the kids of a weekend so needs the room/rooms.

This also includes people who were given accommodation under a medical award stating the amount of bedrooms they need ( in other words the only properties they could ever be offered could now classed as under occupied)


Government says this "Tax" will save 500m a year

But how?

They force a single person (evict because of being in arrears) out of a 2 bed costing 65 a week into a private place were he/she can claim 85 a week, how does that save money?


The only way the government will save any money is if people refuse to leave and what choice do they have if their is no other place to go.

YEHBABY 24th Feb 2013 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by mucgoo (Post 3293655)
They inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.

If I hear that Tory mantra 'inherited' anymore I will scream. At some point they have to take responsibility for their actions. They have taken a lot of decisions over the past 2.5 years, when there were other options.

For me one of Osborne's biggest mistakes is to constantly talk down the economy and state "the mess we inherited, it's worse than we thought". All the negative soundbites put investors off investing and consumers think twice before they purchase big items.

The other is not be willing to change course, because it will be seen as politically weak. It just means the country suffers so that he can keep chanting his mantra.

mucgoo 24th Feb 2013 18:44

The lack of smaller housing units is a flaw with the policy yes. Shouldn't take long to subdivide some houses up. The idea that you can expect a subsidized lifetime tenancy in a larger than needed house is lunacy.

2.5 years isn't very long on an economic time-scale. Gordon Brown didn't make any progress in finding a solution in his 2.5 years either. No western country (with the exception of Australia's resource fuelled growth) has found a way to growth. I don't quite see what they could of done differently. Spending your way out requires a sufficiently small debt going into a recessionary period for the market to let you borrow heavily as you try and return to growth. The same applies for consumer helping to spend the country out of recession. Households can't borrow more when they're already heavily leveraged as they were in 2007.

YEHBABY 24th Feb 2013 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by mucgoo (Post 3293740)
2.5 years isn't very long on an economic time-scale.

They have made a lot of decisions over the last 2.5 years that will affect the country for many years to come. The economic forecasts are made many years into the future and look very grim indeed. The worst thing is when we compare earlier forecasts with the current they all turn out to be optimistic.

What people don't realise is that we haven't seen the worst of it yet. The cuts will really start to bite over the next 2 years.

mucgoo 24th Feb 2013 19:17

They look more pessimistic for the entire globe not just the UK.

The alternative is what? Borrow and spend and hope the markets doesn't start hiking up interest rates to much. You could find many economic PHD's advocating either side. Dismissing the governments handling as incompetent isn't a fair judgement.

sniperdude 24th Feb 2013 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by mucgoo (Post 3293740)
The lack of smaller housing units is a flaw with the policy yes. Shouldn't take long to subdivide some houses up. The idea that you can expect a subsidized lifetime tenancy in a larger than needed house is lunacy.


Are you trolling?

They are never going to subdivide up houses for the simple fact if they have a 3 bed room place vacant their is a line a mile long with family's trying to move into it

It would cost too much and the government don't even own most of the housing stock
its owned by housing associations that the government have little or no power over and they are just as annoyed with the tax as the tenants.


BTW
"The idea that you can expect a subsidized lifetime tenancy in a larger than needed house is lunacy. "

Pensioners are exempt from this Bedroom Tax a single old lady/man will be rattling round 2/3/4 bed houses with no issues after their family's have long flew the nest.

YEHBABY 24th Feb 2013 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by mucgoo (Post 3293756)
Dismissing the governments handling as incompetent isn't a fair judgement.

Why can't I call them incompetent. They are the ones in control with the ability to make choices. Like you said "You could find many economic PHD's advocating either side." I believe they took the wrong choices and worse still continue to make the same wrong choices purely because of political pride.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperdude (Post 3293761)
Pensioners are exempt from this Bedroom Tax a single old lady/man will be rattling round 2/3/4 bed houses with no issues after their family's have long flew the nest.

The reason pensioners are excluded is that a high proportion of them vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mucgoo (Post 3293756)
They look more pessimistic for the entire globe not just the UK.

Oh wait, did the rest of the world overspend on their public services and cause a recession, as well? That's the reason this country is in recession according to this government.:rolleyes:

sniperdude 24th Feb 2013 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by YEHBABY (Post 3293766)
The reason pensioners are excluded is that a high proportion of them vote.

Makes sense.

You can be sure a lot more people will be voting next time.

Harlequin 24th Feb 2013 20:16

india has a 5% gdp growth - and we`re still giving them `aid` yeah work that out sam with pakistan having 3.7% growth and still aid as well



georgia 6% , gibralter 6% ,norway has 3.1% , iceland 2.7 ,poland 2.1 , sweden 1.9 , germany 0.9 swizz 0.8

a small number of countries (out of many) still with positive growth.

mucgoo 24th Feb 2013 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperdude (Post 3293761)
Are you trolling?

They are never going to subdivide up houses for the simple fact if they have a 3 bed room place vacant their is a line a mile long with family's trying to move into it

It would cost too much and the government don't even own most of the housing stock
its owned by housing associations that the government have little or no power over and they are just as annoyed with the tax as the tenants.


BTW
"The idea that you can expect a subsidized lifetime tenancy in a larger than needed house is lunacy. "

Pensioners are exempt from this Bedroom Tax a single old lady/man will be rattling round 2/3/4 bed houses with no issues after their family's have long flew the nest.

Surely its a good thing if you force a couple to vacate a large house so instead a family can be housed, the purpose of the measure.
The general lack of affordable housing really does need tackling.
Social housing isn't an area I'm too fond of.
The pensioner exemption is as has been discussed pandering to the electorate for votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YEHBABY (Post 3293770)
Oh wait, did the rest of the world overspend on their public services and cause a recession, as well? That's the reason this country is in recession according to this government.:rolleyes:

Well yes. Its not just governments of course.
http://2ndlook.files.wordpress.com/2...-gdp-ratio.jpg
You see a similar picture for most western countries.
The original shock which started this all of was the collapse of the highly leveraged US housing market.

sniperdude 24th Feb 2013 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harlequin (Post 3293788)
india has a 5% gdp growth - and we`re still giving them `aid` yeah work that out sam with pakistan having 3.7% growth and still aid as well



georgia 6% , gibralter 6% ,norway has 3.1% , iceland 2.7 ,poland 2.1 , sweden 1.9 , germany 0.9 swizz 0.8

a small number of countries (out of many) still with positive growth.


however aid to India is finished by 2015 but they no longer want or need the aid so it should have been pulled right away.

this is an interesting read tho
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-to-end-a...-09112012.html


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:05.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.