EXCESS PROFITS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 6, 8 January 1916, Page 14

EXCESS PROFITS

YIELD OF BRITISEC TAX. "The proposed imposition of an excess profits tax has naturally excited widespread interest, and people are asking not only who will be.affected by it, but the amounts they are likely to be called upon to pay," says the Manchester Guardian. "The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to allow 6 pcl1 cent, to be paid on the capital which was in a business on sth April, 1914. The basis of comparison in calculating excess profits is the average profit of three preceding years. Hundreds of concerns had their capital increased during the three years which ended then, and thai, mast be taken into account wheD the profite last declared are considered, in Telatioa to previous ones. Still, when all this has been ' taken into djtcount, there are certain broad feature?, of great interest which can be clearly indicated! "Mr. M'Kenna, calculates tihat the tax will yield £6,000,000 \ this year and £30,000,000 next. Nobody else has equally good . sources of information, and, although it is' the practice of Chancellors of the Exchequer to take conservative views of the yield of new taxes, we may accept the figures as being approximately near the mark. . ' "If public companies only .were taken into account it would be hard to see where £30,000,000 is to come from, for the railway companies and. the cotton industry wil] contribute next to nothing, and some other big trades are not promising. We must not forget, however, that many of the large industrial concerns which are now making considerable profit* are in private hands, and that in addition to these theie are thousands of small firms which will be required to pay -sums ranging from, say, £100 to £5000. " All British companies will have their earnings taxed, even if their properties are abroad —protected, we may observe parenthetically, by our' Navy. It is a fair subject of debate whether a company which is only just coming into the benefit of past capital - expenditure, or one which had' exceptionally hard luck in the last three years, ; should be taxed a3 if its increase of profit were all due to the war. r" .'■'■• "Subject to the reservations given above, and particularly to the fact that many of the companies—as, r for instance, Brunner, Mond, and Co., and Lever Brothers—have increased their capita) largely in the last few years, we may now set out the profits reported this year by, a number of prominent companies, adding the averages for three preceding years, as these, when properly adjusted, will form the basis of comparison for the assessment of the war profits. Coal, Iron, Engineering, etc. Profit. Average Last 3 previous • reports. years. Armstrong, Whitworth £801,885' £649,000 W. Beardmore - 219,142 184,600 John Brown .... ... 521,007 310,800 British Westinghoose... 151,627 56,100 Cammell, Laird ~ 237,899 146,600 Hadfielda ... -. 139,301 102,000 Kynocb ' „ -. ... 153,212 113,900 King's Norton ' Metal 131,097 40,500 Swan, Hunter _ 217,498 196,200 Vickera .■ ~ _ 1,019,035 808,500 D. Davia and' Sons _ 221,494 175,400 Powell Duffryn _.. 422,204 293,200 United National Collieries ■ .... ._ . -160,048 > 99,400 Textile Trades, etc. . J. Baldwin «..'■-. 78,795 . 55,400 British Cotton & Wool - Dyers .'.. - ..j 42,297 11,200 M. Oldroyd • -J. t-, 48,189 ■ - Tootal, Broadhurst -* , 113,075 92,700 United Indigo ... . .-* v 28,800 8,300 Shipping, eta _ . ' . : Booth Steamship '.. 225,267 197,000 Cunard Line. ..... t> 1,286,948 1,070,000 Elder, Dempster ■ ;-ra • 326,121, , 274,300 F. Leyland ... o 620,839 520,000 Brunner, Mond o 799,322 772,500 Burmah Oil' .... '-■ 1.411,279 "1,225,000 Guinness's Brewery - 1,511,679 .1,225,000 Imperial Tobacco .:. 3,533,359 3.054,000 Mond Nickel .. r* 285,281 162,000 Lever Brothers ...-,1,152,107 830,000