While a large hydrocarbon company expresses its satisfaction for having managed to eliminate the tax on energy companies at the end of the year, the bank charges against the rate that will tax its profits in the next three years
In the midst of the political gale caused by DANA and its consequences, and when we are seeing how important it is to have the necessary public resources to face emergencies like the one mentioned, large companies and financial entities are very concerned or, more directly, are They explicitly oppose seeing their contribution to the public coffers increased via taxes, despite the fact that their profits reach record figures. Thus, while a large hydrocarbon company expresses its satisfaction for having managed to eliminate at the end of the year the tax that affected energy companies, the bank charges against the rate that will tax its profits in the next three years.
The CEO of Repsol, Josu Jon Imaz, expressed his satisfaction to the company’s General Meeting for having avoided maintaining the tax on energy companies, while announcing a dividend of more than 30% in this fiscal year of 2024. One of the spokespersons for the The banking network claimed that this tax surcharge was unfair, since its profits were only 13% while those of the IBEX as a whole were 20%. Another banking executive described such a measure as discriminatory and anti-competitive, while one of his colleagues alluded to the fact that the banking system’s pressure capacity was less than other economic sectors because they “did not have chimneys,” nor could they threaten to paralyze investments. All this while another record of banking profits was announced, with 20% more profits than the previous year. These same days, the CEO of Volkswagen brands, Wayne Griffiths, stated that the automobile industry is at risk, also calling for a reduction in the tax burdens that affect the sector.
All of this occurs while voting is taking place in the United States today. After a campaign in which, with the important nuances between a more obviously protectionist Trump and a more contemporaneous Harris, everything indicates that there will be a new twist to the economic nationalism already on the rise in recent months. But, taxes have also played a key role in the North American campaign, with very notable reduction promises by Trump and with promises to improve the inequitable health system by Harris. All of this will end up having an impact on the country’s public deficit, which today already doubles the limit allowed in the European Union.
The imbalance between economic power and political power has a long history. But, in each historical moment it takes shape in a different way. At the beginning of the 20th century, Hilferding was already talking about banks as great controllers of the economy, seeking to go beyond the 19th century tradition in which capitalism was personified in the owners of companies. Someone to refer to, someone to discuss and talk about the operation of the company and the redistribution of profits. Since then, the process of making capitalism invisible has become more and more evident.
We live in times when the concentration of resources and power in the financial sector exceeds all previous limits, with a renewed ease of operating in real time in any corner of the world. The large financial funds that control the entire framework move money without problems, thinking about the medium and long term, while those who represent us move in the very short term. We are going through a period in which public powers need more resources to face situations of extreme urgency, caused by pandemics, natural disasters, conflicts near and far and generalized uncertainty, and the resistance of those who control the markets is evident. more and more clearly.
The polycrisis scenario in which we find ourselves requires far-reaching decisions. The Draghi Report is an example of this. The growth schemes on which we have been operating do not work for us. The expiration date of the energy model is very explicit. But to address this framework, the democratic and representative powers need to have the necessary funds to do so. But, if every time these issues are raised the response of large companies (very representative of each sector) is to threaten to leave, how can we act? We are not talking about powers that measure their strength on shared grounds. Some use the normative resources to which their democratic representativeness entitles them. The others present their “reasons”: the large investment funds have control over more than 40% of the world’s financial capital; If we refer to the United States, they own a third of the capital of the half a thousand most relevant companies; And if we end up in Spain, the nine most important financial funds have invested more than thirty billion euros in IBEX 35 companies.
It is not that we are in an unprecedented scenario. The ability to threaten and lock public powers in a scenario with no positive outcome has always been a resource used by those who, at any given time, had sufficient economic power to be able to do so. The new thing is that now you no longer talk to those who make decisions because they are the “owners” of the show, but you talk to the executors of a diffuse conglomerate in which all types of people and groups are mixed, including teachers’ pension funds. or nurses from who knows what country. People and groups only interested in seeing their savings increased by a decent percentage, which, without a doubt, will result in better salaries and benefits for those who manage the issue.
What could we do about it? Public authorities need to face these types of problems with better company, and to do so, it is important that in relation to strategic issues they share their management and strategy with more social and economic actors. The market cannot be a prison in which representative public powers cannot operate autonomously. To counteract the disproportionate power of the business sector in politics, it seems necessary to encourage the participation of other social actors, such as unions, non-governmental organizations and citizen movements. This requires strengthening participatory democracy and creating spaces for debate in which diverse perspectives on key issues can be expressed. The most advanced sectors in the defense of the market economy itself have long warned that if the problem of inequality and the perverse effects of the system on environmental issues cannot be addressed, the possibility of survival of the system itself is threatened. Perhaps the time has come when, seeing what is happening, states and public powers in general have a much more active and decisive attitude in relation to the control of the key components for the future of the planet.
#Boxed #politics
