Mr. Moar Tax - Used under Creative Commons License

Would be socialists and redistributionists are just clapping their hands with glee at this idea from John McDonnell. Companies with more than 250 employees should be putting 10% of equity into a fund that would go to the workers. Who could then receive up to £500 a year each in dividends, the balance above that going to the State.

The problem with this is that upon the one side it’s entirely trivial while on the other it very much ain’t. Given that this is a proposal from McDonnell it’s the benefits which are trivial, the costs which ain’t. And then, for of course we do, we’ve Aditya Chakrabortty showing his detailed knowledge of all things economic:

The sums involved are massive: Labour calculates that 10.7 million workers covered by the scheme will get about £4bn a year in share dividends by the end of Jeremy Corbyn’s first term in government, while the public sector will receive an annual £2bn.

Well, no, the sums to be collected are trivial. Think it through for a moment.

The labour share of the economy is about 60% – the labour share, not the wages share. This won’t be wages after all. 60% of a £1.8 trillion economy is some £1,100 billion close enough. So, this will raise the labour share, after all those dividends are collected, by about 0.4%. Once. That is, we get a once off rise in the workers’ incomes of about the same that even today’s lacklustre growth in wages provides as a rise in real incomes in one year. And if we look at the longer time spans we see that real wages grow, under this capitalism and free market mix, by a percent or two a year. The normal functioning of the system vastly outweighs that is the effects of this little scheme.

On government revenue the same is roughly true. We’re talking £2 billion on a £700 billion number. A 0.3% rise in revenue. Piddly, isn’t it?

The costs, well, they’re rather likely to be greater. An additional tax of 10% of equity on any successful business – for that’s what this is, grow a business to 250 people or more and you then lose 10% of the equity – is going to have a certain cramping effect upon economic growth, isn’t it? We see this rather clearly in France, certain worker protections and costs only kick in over 50 employees. It’s really remarkable the number of 49 people companies in the country.

Like so many of these clever political schemes we’re killing that golden goose of economic growth in favour of some trivially tiny reordering of the distribution of the outcomes.

There is one amusement here. The entire idea is predicated on the idea that the capitalists are hogging all the income, all the growth, leaving the workers wi’ nowt. So now we’re going to take 10% of every large company in the country, 10% of all those commanding heights of the economy. This increases the workers’ incomes by 0.4%. Those capitalists aren’t doing very much in the way of exploitation and expropriation at present, are they? If we took 100% of those commanding heights we’d presumably raise the workers’ incomes by 4%. Plus gain those non-capitalist growth rates of roughly nothing to less than zero.

Somewhere between trivial and disastrous therefore – but then it is an economic policy from John McDonnell, isn’t it.

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

5
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Hallowed BeSpikeTDSoutherner Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Spike
Member

“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”

Southerner
Member

I’m sure I would have made a terrific politician because I’m a consummate cynic. I don’t believe for a second that Big Mac believes anything he says. His aim is not to give the Workers two fifths of five eighths of anything. His aim is to get elected, and he’ll say whatever it takes to achieve that.

TD
Member
TD

Having spent many years in the Silicon Valley where using fairly substantial amounts of equity to provide incentives to employees (who are largely well educated and skilled) is pretty much SOP. It is true that there is something of a reluctance on the part of the VCs to “waste” equity incentives on less critical staff, such as the receptionist for example. However, I have seen CEOs insist that everyone get something. The option grants also result in taxes when successfully exercised. But when people become wealthy it often because they acquire assets that grow in value. To the extent this… Read more »

Spike
Member

And this “vesting,” which takes place over years, gives management something it wants: a subtle way to make employees think of the company as their future, rather than switch jobs over routine disagreements.

Hallowed Be
Member
Hallowed Be

If equity is so great why not pay all salaries in equity? Yes i know because liquidity and risk.Workers on the whole don’t want that. Possibly at 10% they may not mind the forced saving part. But they will definitely mind the risk part when it goes wrong or doesn’t grow. And the given rationale for this is to get a seat as an interested paty in the running of the company. But its fairly well known shareholder activism is largely a myth or counter productive. If a proposal got through that a big investor thought harmed their stake, profitability… Read more »