Windfall tax a necessary evil to pay for jobs

'The Tories have run into the problem that they introduced a retrospect ive levy on the profits of the high street banks under Mrs Thatcher. What was sauce for the Tory goose in 1981 is now sauce for the Labour gander'

In 1992, when Gordon Brown first suggested the idea of a windfall tax on the profits of the privatised utilities, to pay for special measures to eradicate long-term unemployment for young people, the Labour Party seemed so far removed from the levers of power that scarcely anyone paid much attention. Five years later, while there arestill doubts about whether the levy represents a "good" piece of tax policy - and indeed while some people complain that the "expropriation" of private property should not be tolerated in a free society - the shadow chancellor's political antennae so far seem to have served him well.

For, while almost everything else in the party's programme has undergone profound change, the windfall levy remains, the one distinctive landmark in an otherwise cautious Labour manifesto. If there is one thing in the programme that will get traditional Labour voters into the polling booths on 1 May, this is it. It is surprising that Labour has not yet found ways of making its proposals on youth unemployment a central and positive feature of its campaign, though there is still time.

Perhaps there is a concern that even at this late stage, the Conservatives might succeed in frightening the electorate about the impact of the windfall levy itself. But that looks difficult. It is interesting that the existence of the levy has not scuppered Labour's determination to be seen as the new party of British business. In both business and the City, there seems to be a reluctant acceptance that the profits made by many utilities after privatisation were hard to justify, and came partly at the public expense. These high returns demonstrated either that the assets had been under- priced at the time of privatisation, or that regulation had been too lax since then, or both. Furthermore, it is recognised that many managers in these companies became very rich, not through entrepreneurial flair, but through sitting in the right place at the right time.

This, no doubt, is why the levy is the closest thing to a popular tax that has ever been invented. The Government has never been able to persuade the public that this tax is the work of "unprincipled scoundrels", Ken Clarke's endearingly old-fashioned description of the Labour leadership. In fact, every time the Government has sought to exploit the levy as a political issue, it has simply raised the visibility of what the electorate believes is a darned good idea.

Furthermore, the Conservatives have run into the problem that they themselves introduced a retrospective windfall levy on the profits of the high street banks under Mrs Thatcher. What was sauce for the Tory goose in 1981 is now sauce for the Labour gander. In fact, there was enough support for the levy on the Tory side for Mr Clarke to have considered introducing a similar measure of his own in the Budget of 1995.

Some officials in the Treasury reckon that he was seriously tempted before finally rejecting the notion, on the grounds that it was just too far distant from the Government's overall economic philosophy to be politically feasible. Despite its electoral advantages for Labour, the Institute for Fiscal Studies argues that the levy offends against some of the principles of good taxation. The main problem is that the levy will not necessarily hit the same shareholders who received the excess profits in the first place. In the first few days of trading in the shares of the privatised companies, about a quarter of the shares typically changed hands; and of the original 12 RECs, only Southern Electric has not experienced a total change of ownership since flotation. So there is no doubt that some of the main original gainers from privatisation will escape from the tax scot-free, though Labour points out that most large institutional shareholders have stuck around, and will now pay the tax.

Mr Brown has still not clarified the size, or the exact basis, of the levy. According to a study released last week by Goldman Sachs, a levy of around pounds 5bn has been discounted by the stock market, which is around pounds 2bn more than Labour has promised to spend on its job creation programmes. The pounds 5bn payment might be spread over two or more financial years, but the tax would be unequivocally defined to be a one-off. Any other course would run the risk of increasing the cost of capital for the utilities, which in turn could feed into higher prices at the next regulatory review. Obviously, if the burden of the tax were felt by the consumers of electricity and water, rather than by the shareholders, it would soon lose its political acceptability.

There are many options for the basis for the tax. The only important restriction is that the base should not be subject to the charge that it discriminates between individual companies, or sectors, on arbitrary grounds. Such discrimination would leave the tax liable to challenge in the courts, either in the UK or Europe. But assuming the tax is based on a uniform percentage of some clearly defined aggregate - like profits, sales, assets, or excess returns to shareholders - and as long as it applies to all the regulated privatised utilities, there seems little prospect of it running into serious legal trouble.

The most likely base is the excess return enjoyed by shareholders, over and above the average for the entire stock market, in some specified past period. One advantage of this approach is that it would come fairly close to matching the rationale for the tax. Another advantage would be that a Labour chancellor could in effect choose exactly the companies he wanted to hit, by selecting an appropriate period over which to calculate the excess shareholder return.

For example, if Mr Brown wishes to include gas and telecom in the net of the tax, he would select a period such as the first four years after privatisation, when all companies earned high excess returns.

If, on the other hand, he wishes to exclude gas and telecom, he would select a much longer period - such as from the date of privatisation to the end of 1995. Since gas and telecom earned sub-par returns over the second half of that period, they would incur no tax, though they would in theory be included in the tax net.

The point is that varying the basis for the tax gives a convenient and legal way of discriminating between companies. If a Labour government wished to raise more than pounds 5bn from the tax, that would suggest a need to include gas and telecom, and would dictate the former basis for the levy; while if it only wishes to raise pounds 3bn, the second basis would be appropriate.

Few economists would argue that a tax of this type is desirable in and of itself. Indeed, what tax would be? But if we accept that something needs to be done about the evil of hard-core youth unemployment the money has to be raised somewhere. If anyone has any better ideas, they had better speak up before the employment measures are launched in July.

Start your day with The Independent, sign up for daily news emails
News
ebookA unique anthology of reporting and analysis of a crucial period of history
Life and Style
techPatent specifies 'anthropomorphic device' to control media devices
Voices
The PM proposed 'commonsense restrictions' on migrant benefits
voicesAndrew Grice: Prime Minister can talk 'one nation Conservatism' but putting it into action will be tougher
News
Ireland will not find out whether gay couples have won the right to marry until Saturday afternoon
news
News
Kim Jong-un's brother Kim Jong-chol
news
News
Manchester city skyline as seen from Oldham above the streets of terraced houses in North West England on 7 April 2015.
news
Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
Independent Dating
and  

By clicking 'Search' you
are agreeing to our
Terms of Use.

iJobs Job Widget
iJobs Money & Business

Guru Careers: Software Developer / C# Developer

£40-50K: Guru Careers: We are seeking an experienced Software / C# Developer w...

Neil Pavier: Management Accountant

£45,000 - £55,000: Neil Pavier: Are you looking for your next opportunity for ...

Sheridan Maine: Commercial Accountant

£45,000 - £55,000: Sheridan Maine: Are you a newly qualified ACA/ACCA/ACMA qua...

Laura Norton: Project Accountant

£50,000 - £60,000: Laura Norton: Are you looking for an opportunity within a w...

Day In a Page

Sun, sex and an anthropological study: One British academic's summer of hell in Magaluf

Sun, sex and an anthropological study

One academic’s summer of hell in Magaluf
From Shakespeare to Rising Damp... to Vicious

Frances de la Tour's 50-year triumph

'Rising Damp' brought De la Tour such recognition that she could be forgiven if she'd never been able to move on. But at 70, she continues to flourish - and to beguile
'That Whitsun, I was late getting away...'

Ian McMillan on the Whitsun Weddings

This weekend is Whitsun, and while the festival may no longer resonate, Larkin's best-loved poem, lives on - along with the train journey at the heart of it
Kathryn Williams explores the works and influences of Sylvia Plath in a new light

Songs from the bell jar

Kathryn Williams explores the works and influences of Sylvia Plath
How one man's day in high heels showed him that Cannes must change its 'no flats' policy

One man's day in high heels

...showed him that Cannes must change its 'flats' policy
Is a quiet crusade to reform executive pay bearing fruit?

Is a quiet crusade to reform executive pay bearing fruit?

Dominic Rossi of Fidelity says his pressure on business to control rewards is working. But why aren’t other fund managers helping?
The King David Hotel gives precious work to Palestinians - unless peace talks are on

King David Hotel: Palestinians not included

The King David is special to Jerusalem. Nick Kochan checked in and discovered it has some special arrangements, too
More people moving from Australia to New Zealand than in the other direction for first time in 24 years

End of the Aussie brain drain

More people moving from Australia to New Zealand than in the other direction for first time in 24 years
Meditation is touted as a cure for mental instability but can it actually be bad for you?

Can meditation be bad for you?

Researching a mass murder, Dr Miguel Farias discovered that, far from bringing inner peace, meditation can leave devotees in pieces
Eurovision 2015: Australians will be cheering on their first-ever entrant this Saturday

Australia's first-ever Eurovision entrant

Australia, a nation of kitsch-worshippers, has always loved the Eurovision Song Contest. Maggie Alderson says it'll fit in fine
Letterman's final Late Show: Laughter, but no tears, as David takes his bow after 33 years

Laughter, but no tears, as Letterman takes his bow after 33 years

Veteran talkshow host steps down to plaudits from four presidents
Ivor Novello Awards 2015: Hozier wins with anti-Catholic song 'Take Me To Church' as John Whittingdale leads praise for Black Sabbath

Hozier's 'blasphemous' song takes Novello award

Singer joins Ed Sheeran and Clean Bandit in celebration of the best in British and Irish music
Tequila gold rush: The spirit has gone from a cheap shot to a multi-billion pound product

Join the tequila gold rush

The spirit has gone from a cheap shot to a multi-billion pound product
12 best statement wallpapers

12 best statement wallpapers

Make an impact and transform a room with a conversation-starting pattern
Paul Scholes column: Does David De Gea really want to leave Manchester United to fight it out for the No 1 spot at Real Madrid?

Paul Scholes column

Does David De Gea really want to leave Manchester United to fight it out for the No 1 spot at Real Madrid?