Does superprofit exist?
This notion has been at the heart of the economic debates of recent weeks, as energy companies have seen their revenues boosted by the rise in energy prices - itself driven up by the war in Ukraine.
The Assembly has also set up a "
flash mission on oil and gas companies and those in the maritime transport sector which have generated exceptional profits during the crisis
", the subject of which, if not clearly specified by the title, is the superprofits.
Several bosses of energy companies like that of Total, Engie or CMA-CGM should be heard.
To discover
OUR FILE - Elizabeth II, a rock and a symbol for England
In government, several discourses coexist on this issue.
"
I don't know what superprofits are
," Bruno Le Maire had cowardly told Medef at the end of August.
Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne had meanwhile indicated that she was not "
closing the door
" to a taxation of superprofits.
If Bercy tells us that there is "
no divergence
" with Matignon, the difference in rhetoric is notable, and reveals the sensitivity of a broader debate: do superprofits exist, and should they be taxed?
Read alsoSuperprofits: Pannier-Runacher defends the establishment of a “contribution on energy producers”
We owe the first mention of "
superprofits
" to Karl Marx, who mentions this term in "
Das Kapital
", a book published in 1867. According to him, this word can be applied to several different situations.
A company realizes “
superprofits
” when it is technologically more advanced than its competitors, and therefore observes greater productivity.
Likewise if it benefits from a technological monopoly.
The word reappears at the time of the First World War and changes meaning: it is then affixed to situations in which "
the profit linked to an exceptional situation, to a form of income, than to a real innovation
", such as the explains Mathieu Plane, deputy director of the analysis and forecasting department of the French Observatory of Economic Conditions (OFCE).
This is the definition still in use.
In 1916, in France, the government of Aristide Briand set up an “
extraordinary contribution on war profits
”, which would tax the profits made by certain companies thanks to the surge in military orders.
The creation of “
exceptional taxation
” like that of “
war profiteers
” thus becomes one of the criteria of the war economy, underlines Pierre Dockès, historian and honorary professor at the University of Lyon 2.
Read alsoSuperprofits: the Twenty-Seven are working on a mechanism targeting energy companies
political concept
The idea of taxing superprofits appealed to the opposition.
During the examination of the amending finance bill, a dozen amendments were tabled to this effect – all of them were ultimately rejected.
But the left intends to return to the charge.
On August 26 on RTL, the First Secretary of the Socialist Party Olivier Faure had thus announced his desire to "
propose at the start of the school year a referendum of shared initiative which will make it possible to go and solicit the French women and men to force the government to have a debate on this issue
”.
Creating a tax as such is, however, a risky option for the government.
On the political level, first of all: Emmanuel Macron had promised during his presidential campaign this year that no tax increase would be on the program for the five-year term, or even that taxation would be reduced.
"
It's the base
", we always agree at Bercy.
But the taxation of superprofits is also delicate on the legal level, since under the principle of equality before taxation, “
the same tax system must then apply to all taxpayers placed in the same situation
”.
The legislator should therefore find a tax base that only concerns energy companies benefiting financially from the crisis, without targeting them by name.
Read alsoSuperprofits: the Twenty-Seven are working on a mechanism targeting energy companies
Faced with these various pitfalls, the French government and the European Commission have decided to act.
But without using the word “
tax
”, nor the word “
superprofits
”.
The Twenty-Seven are working on a "
contribution
" on the "
unexpected benefits
".
The income of energy companies that produce nuclear or renewable energy would be capped, and the difference between actual income and the cap would be levied by the States.
They would then have the freedom to distribute them among households and businesses that are suffering from the rise in energy prices, driven by the inflation of gas prices.
The terms change, but the objective is clear: to involve in the effort the companies which, in spite of themselves, take advantage of the economic situation.