this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
11 points (73.9% liked)

United Kingdom

5669 readers
113 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Womble@piefed.world 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

FWIW the article does make sense, though the conclusion I'd draw wouldnt be the same as theirs but:

Jane is earning £60k and claiming child benefit for three children. That’s worth £3,094.

She’s now in the 42% tax band.6 Jane still pays basic rate tax for her income between £12,570 and £50,270, but now pays 42% tax for everything over that. So her total tax bill is (50270 – 12570) * 28% + (60000-50270) * 42% = £14,643 and Jane takes home £45,357.

Jane is thinking of working a few more hours to earn another £1,000. She’s in the higher tax band – so in a sane world she’d expect another £420 of tax, and a marginal rate of 42%.

But that is not the result. Once Jane’s income hits £60,200, the “High Income Child Benefit Charge” (introduced by George Osborne) starts to apply to claw back her child benefit – 1% for every £200 of earnings.

The marginal rate – the tax Jane is paying on that new £1,000. This is 56.5% – and we will have the same result for all incomes between £60k and £80k.

The solution I'd draw from that would be to raise the higher rate from 42 to 45-50% and scrap the means testing of child benefits. Makes the tax take more progressive and reduces administrative burden by not having to assess people's income for if they are eligible for child support or not.

[–] somerandomperson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What the fuck? Are tax rates being THIS high normal?

[–] Womble@piefed.world 2 points 4 months ago

Yes, if you want a social security net and dont live in the world's economic hegemon

[–] rwtwm@feddit.uk 1 points 4 months ago

I think the author comes to the same conclusion as you, but then rules it out because Labour themselves seem unwilling to do it.

[–] tankplanker@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It gets worse if you compare Jane with Janet and John who both earn say 50k each, as they still get that child benefit despite their combined net income being about double what she earns.

They simply refuse to look at household income, and treat even married couples as singletons living separately for this.