Driving home from work today, I of course got a taste of the commentary associated with the 1 April Congressional event, where four Big Oil CEO’s were called in to be yelled at for making too much money (and investing too little of that profit into new energy).
Naturally, the pro-environment commentators mentioned the oft-mentioned concepts of windfall profits taxes and carbon taxes, as being ways to combat Big Oil from “taking advantage” of average Americans, and of getting Americans to pay for damage their wasteful ways are doing to the environment.
Now, I should admit that I am not a fan of a windfall profits tax. Defining a “windfall profit” is a potentially daunting task, and it is the hope for exceptional profits that incent investors to risk exceptional losses. I’m also not a fan of carbon taxes, due to wishy-washiness of measuring potential harm, and due to the likelihood that the government would waste the extra revenue.
(I’m apparently an evil humvee-driving capitalist for thinking such things.)
With that disclaimer aside…I got to wondering, what if the government sponsored a new capital venture firm, charged with assisting in the funding of new energy or conservation-oriented technology, in return, of course, for an ownership stake.
Initially, this venture capital firm would have the government as its primary investor and shareholder. However, any windfall profits taxes or carbon taxes would instead be considered additional investment into the venture capital firm…in return for an ownership stake. Rather than being true taxes, they essentially become mandatory R&D investments.
I could also imagine permitting voluntary investment into this firm. Let individuals or corporations make, subject to reasonable limits, tax-deductible contributions to this new entity, again in return for an ownership stake.
I’d think that permitting this new entity some tax-advantaged status, given its semi-quasi-public nature, would also encourage this directed investment.
And perhaps the firm could be chartered to exist for a certain period of time — say 30 or 40 years — with its assets (at that point, primarily in the form of shares in by-then-profitable ventures) distributed proportionally to the firm’s owners, with the government’s portion either being returned to the public in the form of a tax credit, or being used to (for example) supplement the Social Security trust fund.
I know there are probably various gotcha’s. For example, to be effective, it would need to be run as a real venture capital operation…something that could be challenging given the government’s involvement, and given politicians’ tendency to meddle.
But it’s still an intriguing idea to me.
3 responses so far ↓
1 The Downside of Mandatory Renewable Energy Requirements // 7 Apr 2008 at 8:10 pm
[...] Anyway, this problem of the apparent impossibility for utility companies to meet legislated hurdles, of money earmarked for green purposes failing to produce any green results…well those are elements fueling my interest in a publicly-owned green-oriented venture capital entity. [...]
2 Drought in Australia and Biofuel Demand in US Contribute to Haitian Food Riots // 17 Apr 2008 at 6:14 am
[...] written previously about my idea of a more coordinated semi-mandatory investment in new energy infrastructure. However, the [...]
3 British MP Wants to Push CO2 Cap-and-Trade to Consumer Level // 28 May 2008 at 7:12 pm
[...] It’s for that reason that I’m still intrigued with the idea of adopting a carbon or windfall profits tax, but requiring that the additional revenue be …. [...]