The Associated Press is reporting that big changes are coming to the way credit scores are calculated. The changes would be for VantageScore, a company that handled 8 billion account applications and is the prime score used for credit card applications.
Of note is the following:
Using what’s known as trended data is the biggest change. The phrase means credit scores will take into account the trajectory of a borrower’s debts on a month-to-month basis. So a person who is paying down debt is now likely to be scored better than a person who is making minimum monthly payments but has been slowly accumulating credit card debt.
The news continues:
But VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well.
This could spell the end of credit card churning for those who partake in that game. Having multiple accounts open with large debt limits will possibly penalize you due to the risk that such behavior poses.
Without seeing it in action, it is hard to know if this is a good or bad thing, but my gut says that rewarding positive behavior (paying down debt, not having lots of cards open) is a good thing.
The AP doesn’t list a date for when these possible changes will take place, but it will be interesting to see play out.
John Gruber points to Mike Arrington’s article that responds to Warren Buffett calling for higher taxes for the rich. Specifically, he points out the following:
What I really didn’t understand until recently though is why so many rich Americans seem to loathe their richness as much as everyone else does. Many in Silicon Valley want to tax the rich into the middle class and let government spend and spend and spend. The super rich tech elite flock to Obama, joining in the call to screw the rich as loudly as all the rest.
Gruber then goes into detail about how the economy was so much better under Clinton and then links that success directly to marginal tax rates. He pays no attention to spending and the increase we’ve seen lately. Sure, entitlement spending is up and in the long term we’re going to have to deal with it, but during Clinton’s presidency spending was lower. It’s easy to create a surplus when your budget doesn’t skyrocket due to increases in spending for food stamps, housing, etc. and yes, your taxes are a bit higher.
My problem with all of this is that everyone wants to focus on their brand of a “solution” rather than examining the problem for what it is, spending more than you’re taking in, and trying to solve that. If Democrats were a family and had $100k in debt, they’d get another credit card to cover themselves. If Republicans were in the same situation they’d, well, I’m not sure what they would do. Maybe stop paying into their retirement or going out to movies.
The answer really is somewhere in the middle. Maybe some short term credit (temporary tax increase) along with some significant cutting in short and long term programs. The problem is, this isn’t an answer to the economy’s problems, it’s an answer to the budget and debt’s problems.