Nick Clegg: Britain needs tax cuts – not just a bank bailout
Innovation must be harnessed, not stifled, if we are to beat the recession
Thursday, 9 October 2008
Yesterday's rescue of Britain's banks is arguably the most ambitious act of economic intervention by a post-war government. The magnitude of the rescue package is staggering: the £50 billion of capital plus guarantees of £250 billion equate to more than 20 per cent of UK gross domestic product flowing into banks which seem to soak it up like blotting paper.
The Government action, pulled together early on Wednesday morning by a legion of exhausted officials, was unprecedented in scale. But it was necessary.
These are extraordinary times. Dramatic, even heavy-handed, action is right. It is right to go far beyond what I, as a liberal politician, would dream of proposing in the ordinary course of events. This is a once-in-a-lifetime crisis. It needs once-in-a-lifetime action.
Does that mean the era of Big Government is here to stay? Do uncertain times, as many people on the left assume, require the strong arm of the central state to intervene? Listening to the debates at the Labour Party conference, it was obvious that there are plenty of people in the Labour Party who seem to take pleasure in using this crisis to roll forward the frontiers of the state. Such overreaction is wrong and dangerous.
State action has also left the Conservative Party confused. Their ideological hostility to such intervention has produced slow, ill-considered and contradictory reactions. One day David Cameron defends the freewheeling City of London culture, the next he rants and rails at City bonuses. Such flip-flopping is the inevitable consequence of a lazy view of society which assumes that all problems can be tackled by laissez-faire conservatism and Victorian-style philanthropy.
The truth is that Britain needs a government which intervenes heavily when necessary, but leaves us alone when it can. Innovation must be harnessed, not stifled, if we are to beat the recession. The United States president Franklin Roosevelt, when confronted with the Great Depression, promised "a policy of bold, persistent experimentation".
State intervention is needed in some areas. We need immediate action to stop unjustified repossessions of homes and business assets. Propped up by taxpayers' money, the banks must realise that their obligations have changed. They must act in the public interest as well as their own, and it is right for the Government to intervene to ensure that happens.
But, outside the financial markets, British families still need the excesses of central government to be reined in. As every family tightens its belt, government must too. Now is the time for tax cuts for people and families on low and middle incomes, to help them pay their bills and mortgages.
Liberal Democrats are committed to lowering taxes for those who need help while raising them for the rich by closing the loopholes that benefit the wealthy. This is what families want and need: a simple, fair tax system that cripples no one. Some say our plans are no longer possible given the crisis. They are wrong – tax cuts are not just possible, they are vital.
During the 1980s recession, the chancellor, Geoffrey Howe, raised taxes and cut spending. Many imagine that such an approach is needed today, but times have changed and it would be madness to raise taxes now. In the short term, we have no choice but to run a deficit, and Liberal Democrat tax cuts will not change that. Tax cuts are affordable without additional borrowing if we trim spending and raise taxes for the wealthiest, as we propose. If we comply with the current fiscal rules over the next couple of years, we would have to decimate public spending or raise taxes to painful, punitive rates that would do far more harm than good.
In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes advocated spending to pump-prime the economy, financed through unprecedented levels of borrowing. In the short term, the deficit was less important than helping people to make it through, he argued.
Today, taxation and spending are far higher than Keynes could ever have dreamt, so extra spending is not appropriate. But I share Keynes's reaction to the economists who believed that year-by-year budgets had to balance, irrespective of the pain it caused.
Our focus must be to get ourselves out of recession. Only growth will balance the budget in the long term.
Poor families need cash right now. Winter is closing in, and people will have to choose between heating and eating. They need money in their pockets, right now. The banks have had their rescue: it's time for families to get theirs.
The writer is the Leader of the Liberal Democrats
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
19 Comments
Well Mr Clegg is well versed in Tory fiscal policies as he used to work for Norman Lamont., so he should know. He is also quite correct about FDR who spent his way out of recession also as Keynes advocated. They were good practical measures. HOWEVER, those policies were only temporary and governments back to the same boom and bust legacy that is not just apportioned to Labour but across the board and across the world. What politicains fail to identify is the nature of people who are greedy and lazy, and Banks and others are there to facilitate their every desire-at a huge profit for them. This also fuels the ECONOMIC GROWTH, why do we have to have this?WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE SO MUCH CREDIT? Why do we have to foolow the American fiscal model like sheep?Why noy just reduce our material consumption? Do we have to have so much material throw away junk in our lives?Why can't we just spend less and stop this consumerist madness that is driving humanity towards the abyss of climate change?
Posted by Franklyn Delaware Roosevelt | 12.10.08, 13:44 GMT
The same in the USA Cutting the capital gains tax would begin a selling of assets that are lokced in due to the tax, and this selling would flood the nation with new activity and wealth.
Posted by Pasquale | 10.10.08, 10:46 GMT
I feel I must clarify and elaborate on my views on Nick Clegg's Article that I unreservedly praised. Readers should appreciate that very few people in the UK paid 40% tax when first introduced over 20 years ago -- now several million middle earners are paying because of salary inflation and unrelieved fiscal drag. Several studies have concluded that the gap between the wealthy and the less well off has grown significantly largely because of the disproportionate burden of tax, and elimination of mortgage interest and married couple reliefs. I illustrated how ludicrous our tax rules are regarding Domicile. I propose that if you are a UK citizen you should pay UK tax irrespective of residence or domicile. This is the key principle that USA applies. Secondly I propose that if assets, Income, Profits are derived from British customers then the billionaires concerned must contribute to UK society. Nick Clegg is on the right track.
Posted by Mr Pradeep Chand | 09.10.08, 22:51 GMT
But - Gordon and his Darling preside over a cupboard that's not just empty but hugely in debt because of Gordon's past profligacy. It's rich that Gordon is ranting now about irresponsible bankers given his shocking irresponsibility when at the Treasury. Banker chickens are coming home to roost and Gordon's too.
Before you give tax cuts, Nick - I agree with you re the medicine, but where is the medicine?! Not i nGordon's pantry, that's for sure.
Posted by R.W. | 09.10.08, 20:50 GMT
If the Government needs cash since they now have an interest in the banks they can find out exactly how many billions are stashed away offshore in secret accounts held by hedge funds, corporations, individuals and especially organized crime. If the German Government could find so much untaxed money in tiny Liechtenstein imagine how much is sloshing around in the exotic tax havens from Monaco to the Cayman Islands.
It is an opportunity to not only bring back the cash and put it to use but also collect tax revenues badly needed by every Government and end the hypocritical situation which allows the richest to avoid paying taxes while the burden increasingly falls on the ordinary tax payer.
Posted by petefieldman | 09.10.08, 20:34 GMT
I to have retired to France. Our joint pensions are marginally over £20K. One reason taxes in France are lower for pensioners than in the UK. Britain is rated 23 out of 25 in the table of taxes of the industrialisd western nations. I find it odd that there is still support for the very rich not to pay more in taxes. When a lot of these people have jobs that contribute little to the nation. Celebrities, news readers, pop stars, disc jockeys, sportsmen, record producers, newspaper editors, etc etc etc. We need a 5% band for the lower paid, the 40% rate should start at £100K. When you pay tax on the minimum wage, something is dramatically wrong with our tax system, and peoples perception of it.
Posted by mike ashall | 09.10.08, 16:40 GMT
Perhaps some of the people who posted comments on this forum like "incidentally, where are you in the polls at the moment? 15%" might care to explain why the intellectual worth of an idea is governed by standing in opinion polls? Mr Clegg is either wrong or right and the electoral strength of his party has no place in such a judgement. How else should a party gain popularity if not by proposing new ideas?
Posted by Nick | 09.10.08, 14:59 GMT
It's a great idea Mr Pradeep Chand, but, as norman points out, it is simply not going to happen.
Unless some sort of global democratic government emerges with the powers to levy the likes of the Tobin tax, shut down tax havens ... but that's a similar fantasy.
David: even the CBI has made sympathetic noises in the direction you suggest. The Times - 02 September 2008 - reported this under the heading "CBI urges formulation of industrial policy".
It went on:
"The CBI chief said that he had been persuaded by arguments from Sir John Rose, the Rolls-Royce chief executive, that
a better manufacturing base could promote social cohesion because it offers more jobs with mid-level salaries than
the extremes generated by the City."
Posted by Tom MacFarlane | 09.10.08, 12:58 GMT
Let me first state that I am a pensioner with earnings less than £20,000. The problem with Clegg's proposal is it is unrealistic to expect tax cuts by hammering the rich. If people £100,000+ income brackets are taxed more, they will retire and go to France. I know a few who retired to France. By hammering the millionaires, you give good reasons for them to leave the country. They employ workers who benefit and putting them on the dole is crazy. The reason rich pay the low taxes is that their earnings are not PAYE deductible and they use clever accountants for tax returns. If you hammer them, the Swiss will have them with no questions asked. No use in envying people with huge bonuses selling worthless paper. It is best to regulate the bonus payment for real effort.
Redistribution of wealth failed every where in the world. At a time when £500 billions are sunk to prop up banks, cutting taxes is the last thing in any one's mind. Clegg is playing politics to get Tory votes.
Posted by norman | 09.10.08, 11:04 GMT
Sorry, Mr. Clegg, no-one's listening.
Incidentally, where are you in the polls at the moment? 15%?
And that's even AFTER the great LibDem Left->Right shift.
You're doomed, sunshine.
Posted by Joe | 09.10.08, 11:02 GMT
19 Comments