Browse > Home / Liberal Democrats / David Laws says what we’ve all been thinking..

| Subcribe via RSS

David Laws says what we’ve all been thinking..

June 24th, 2012 Posted in Liberal Democrats by

HT: This week the respected Institute of Economic Affairs will publish an article by David Laws  MP calling for deeper cuts to public spending and tax.

In his paper, David  argues that the great names of Liberalism – William Gladstone, David Lloyd-George, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes – would be “shocked” that more than 40% of the economy is now accounted for by the public sector.  Yes indeed.

The Sunday Telegraph have given it front page status today and has an illuminating interview with him inside. Go get your copy or check it out on line.


2 Responses to “David Laws says what we’ve all been thinking..”

  1. John Carlisle Says:

    Has David Laws looked at Sweden, now? Has he studied the USA after WW2 when highest tax rates were 50% and growth was stupendous? Has he read Prof. Romer in the New York Times, viz.
    “History shows that marginal federal income tax rates have varied widely. Since World War II, the top rate has ranged from less than 30 percent (at the end of the Reagan presidency) to more than 90 percent (throughout the Eisenhower years). The 1964 Kennedy-Johnson tax cut significantly reduced the typical marginal rate paid by American families, but rates rose greatly over the next 15 years as inflation pushed people into higher tax brackets. Rates fell sharply under President Reagan, rose under President Bill Clinton and fell again under President George W. Bush.
    If you can find a consistent relationship between these fluctuations and sustained economic performance, you’re more creative than I am. Growth was indeed slower in the 1970s than in the ’60s, and tax rates were higher in the ’70s. But growth was stronger in the 1990s than in the 2000s, despite noticeably higher rates in the ’90s.”
    In the Sunday Telegraph Mr Laws was very open about his personal life and his better knowledge of himself as a result of the personal crises. Would that he would take a look at his business paradigm in the same way and understand to what extent his job as banker etc. may have influenced his assumptions.
    When all you have a hammer you see everything as a nail

  2. Psi Says:

    @ Chris B

    “This is from someone that couldn’t square his personal expenses with his private life, and you think we should invest our future in his ramblings?”

    Really? Is that the best you can do? Do you perhaps want to engage with the issue?

    Man/Ball and all that.

    I suddenly don’t care what the point you were trying to make in the first paragraph was. Not really a constructive way to try and argue your case.