First modification:
To finance the energy tariff shield, most of the large European countries have adopted a superprofit tax. In France, this option is still under discussion. The left and part of the government are in favor, but the businessmen are against it. Is the introduction of this new tax today a necessity?
By Dominique Baillard
Germany is the latest country to join this exceptional tax. Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced it on Sunday, along with new measures to support individuals and companies to get through the winter without Russian gas. Berlin thus follows in the footsteps of London, Rome, Madrid, Bucharest and Athens.
Everywhere the reasoning is the same: this must be financed “whatever it costs in energy”. And instead of increasing public debt, it seems more reasonable to tax super-profits. A popular decision, even populist, say his detractors. They denounce the vagueness surrounding the definition of superprofits. However, we intuit that these are abnormally high profits obtained by a company at a given time. But it is true that there is no set threshold at which a company is considered to make a super profit.
Earnings Effects
On the other hand, there are a number of events that are considered superprofit generators, often external factors.
When the profits of a company soar exponentially without having invested or deployed a specific strategy, we can speak of super profits. When it’s very hot, for example, beer consumption increases considerably and breweries’ revenues skyrocket. But the product itself remains the same as in winter. It is a bonanza effect. Brewers make a huge profit. With the rise in oil prices and, above all, gas and electricity, energy companies are having a field day. TotalEnergies profit almost doubled in the second quarter. Those of the German Wintershall have tripled.
No negative effect for companies
Could taxing these superprofits at 25% like in the UK have a negative impact on business? This is the main argument of business leaders, liberal economists and also the Minister of Economy Bruno Le Maire. This argument is contradicted by economic research. When former president François Hollande tripled the tax on dividends, shareholders received less, but investments increased, so there was no negative effect, quite the opposite, three economists point out in an article published this summer. Esther Duflo, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, is in favor of this tax. So is the IMF. Even the very liberal European Commission recommends that governments adopt this tax as an exception.
Is this new tax enough to finance the cost of the energy shield?
The British hope to raise 5,000 million euros, Italy twice as much with the same rate. Of course, this depends on the number of companies involved. In Germany, for example, solar energy producers are affected, while elsewhere it is mainly oil producers that are affected. The tax will only cover part of the energy shield, which amounts to tens of billions of euros, but it will lighten the bill or allow more money to be made available.
Add Comment