Yes voters tried to distinguish the supermarkets’ profits from the people at the top: the most-respected Yes case called for action on “the board members and their insane bonuses,” recalling executive payouts alongside cuts to staff benefits. Another Yes voter argued that substantial profits during a cost-of-living crisis deserved scrutiny: companies “should have to justify those profits.”
But No’s most-respected case went straight to who would pay: “With what tiny margins retailers work on, this tax is just going to make its way to the shelves.” Other No voters made the related point that supermarkets were not the chief cause of the crisis, and that a tax risked higher prices without easing pressure on household budgets.
That left a genuine tension in the debate: some Yes voters wanted supermarkets to answer for profits and the squeeze on farmers, while No voters warned that a tax could pass the cost down the chain. One Yes voter accepted the catch, calling it “in effect a tax on consumers”; the argument for targeting bonuses rather than the business itself offered a possible distinction, but did not resolve who would bear a broader levy.
The exchange echoed a live argument about how to ease household costs without adding to the pressures on prices. No voters repeatedly favoured regulation or lower public spending over another tax; one proposed a “staple ingredients” price checker instead. The sharpest split was not over whether food was expensive, but over whether taxing supermarkets would help the people paying for it.
The winning case was built around the checkout: any tax meant to relieve pressure, No voters argued, could arrive there instead.
50 Opinions
Don’t just hit the industry that supplies a basic human need. Aim windfall taxes at gambling consortiums, shell & BP and other industries that aren’t necessarily a necessity
Supermarkets have been doing their best to keep the cost of essentials down for years. I remember the blue and white striped cans in Tesco. Having a windfall tax on them, is frankly, going to push up the cost of the weekly food shop, how will this help the low income? Also shoplifting has become a huge problem, that will continue to get worse. The figures don't balance.
Its a bit of a wash really, if the windfall tax just means it being passed on to customers knowing the prices in supermarkets any savings for people would be wiped out. Think going after energy company profits would be better they are massive culprits with the profits they are making.
Crazy idea. Where do you draw the line? Only thid morning energy companies asking for more suport for domestic fuel bills? Why? So you can maintain the dividend levels to the investors? They've got away with it for decades. Water companies borrowing money to payout dividends. Any other privately owned companies currently doing that? the customer will eventually pay anyway.
There's a cost of living crisis. I know, I'll tax the supermarkets making their payments higher, which in turn is passed onto customers giving an all round increase in prices. Sorted... oh, wait. NVM. Idiots!
There are better ways to encourage growth and ease cost of living pressures than finding new ways to tax business.
Sorting the economy out should be the agenda. They will pass the costs on to the consumer and job cuts.
Less taxation is better for everyone. If the country wasn't in such a mess we wouldn't be asking this question. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. This is communist thinking.
No. (& my vote doesn't 'lean right' - I refuse to stand in a box on this one). Properly utilising each others money is something I would like to see achieved in my lifetime, thank you! Refnation - please submit variations of this question for different sectors & industries. 😊 Anyway - any contribution to our essential food line from farm to table, I won't support heavy taxation on. (maybe for terrible ingredients! 🤣) ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Supermarkets need some oversight because farmers don't get enough to continue growing food and charge customers a massive markup