{"id":12500,"date":"2023-11-20T11:31:05","date_gmt":"2023-11-20T11:31:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxpolicy.org.uk\/?p=12500"},"modified":"2023-11-21T09:38:15","modified_gmt":"2023-11-21T09:38:15","slug":"apology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heacham.neidles.com\/2023\/11\/20\/apology\/","title":{"rendered":"Marginal rates – an apology"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
In the last few months we may have given the impression that someone earning \u00a350k, with three children under 18, faced a marginal tax rate of 68%. We may have suggested that this was a disincentive to work, contributed to a shortage of key workers and even held back economic growth. We may have used words like “indefensible” and “disgrace”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We now realise that our analysis failed to take into account the uprating of child benefit, and in fact the marginal rate in this scenario will be 71%, not 68%. A graduate in this position repaying a student loan can face a marginal rate of 80%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We also wrongly suggested that someone earning \u00a350k and with six children under 18 faced a marginal rate of 90%. The correct marginal rate is 96%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We can only apologise for what is an unacceptable error, and would like to make clear for the record that a marginal rate of 71%, 80% or 96% is absolutely fine, and the effect on the individuals involved and the economy as a whole is completely unimportant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The corrected chart showing the child benefit withdrawal\/CBHIC effect:<\/p>\n\n\n\n