UK's Tax Trap: High Earners Sabotage Careers to Dodge 60% Rate

The nation's tax system has created an absurd trap: earn £100,000 and you could face a marginal tax rate of 60 per cent. Small wonder, then, that research suggests a significant proportion of high-earning professionals are actively sabotaging their own careers to avoid it. We've accidentally engineered a system that punishes ambition at precisely the income level where people ought to be accumulating wealth and taking risks.

According to data commissioned by IG Group, 82 per cent of households earning between £90,000 and £125,000 have altered their working behaviour specifically to stay below the £100,000 threshold. The tactics are striking in their variety. A third have reduced their hours, some 28 per cent have turned down promotions, and a quarter have refused bonuses or pay rises outright.

These aren't the ultra-wealthy playing tax arbitrage games. They're NHS consultants, senior teachers, and mid-level corporate managers making career decisions based not on opportunity, but on marginal tax calculations.

Enjoying this article?

Get stories like this in your inbox every week.

Join the Community

The mathematics of perverse incentives

The mechanics of this cliff edge are straightforward, if painful. Above £100,000, the personal allowance starts to be withdrawn at a rate of £1 for every £2 earned. Combined with the 40 per cent higher rate of income tax, this creates an effective marginal rate of 60 per cent on earnings between £100,000 and £125,140.

When earning more leaves you with less capacity to invest, that's not just a household issue—it's a structural problem.

For households with young children, the situation becomes more acute. Eligibility for additional free childcare hours disappears entirely once one household member crosses the £100,000 mark. According to IG's research, 92 per cent of those with nursery-age children earning in this bracket said they cannot invest to build wealth due to tax and financial pressures.

That latter figure seems extraordinarily high, and it's worth noting that IG Group—an online investment platform—has a commercial interest in encouraging retail investment. The research doesn't disclose sample size or methodology, which makes it difficult to assess the robustness of these claims independently.

What we do know is that the thresholds themselves have been frozen since 2013. Had they been uprated with inflation, the personal allowance withdrawal would begin at approximately £156,000 today, with the taper ending around £195,000. The free childcare threshold would stand at £135,000.

Fiscal drag by design

This freeze represents fiscal drag in its purest form. Wage inflation drags more workers into higher tax bands without Parliament voting for a single tax rise. The government collects more revenue whilst ministers can technically claim they haven't raised rates.

The strategy has been particularly effective since 2021. Frozen thresholds across the tax system have significantly increased the overall tax burden, pulling tens of thousands more workers into the £100,000-plus bracket who would never have reached it under inflation-adjusted thresholds.

The pain is concentrated in high-cost areas where six-figure salaries don't stretch as far as the number suggests. In London and the Southeast, £100,000 to £125,000 represents comfortable middle-class living, not wealth. These are dual-income professional households dealing with expensive childcare, high housing costs, and perhaps caring responsibilities for aging parents.

Michael Healy, UK and Ireland managing director at IG Group, describes it bluntly: 'When earning more leaves you with less capacity to invest, that's not just a household issue—it's a structural problem.' He has a point, even if his firm stands to benefit from the solution.

The UK government has made boosting retail investment a stated priority, hoping to channel more household savings into British capital markets. Yet the tax system actively discourages the demographic most likely to invest systematically from earning the income that would allow them to do so.

A ceiling on aspiration

The broader question is what this does to workplace culture and productivity. When a quarter of workers in this bracket are refusing pay rises, something has broken. Employers are presumably unaware that they're offering compensation packages their staff are calculating how to avoid.

An economy that penalises professional workers for advancing in their careers is unlikely to foster the risk-taking and capital accumulation the government claims to want.

For those with children, the disincentive is even starker. Over half of those surveyed said they would immediately invest more if they didn't lose childcare support. Instead, they're trapped in a narrow band where additional earnings generate minimal—or even negative—net benefit once childcare costs are factored in.

This matters beyond individual household finances. If the very people who understand markets, have disposable income, and possess financial literacy are being discouraged from building wealth, the prospects for deepening UK capital markets look questionable.

The Treasury, of course, benefits handsomely from the status quo. Unfreezing these thresholds would cost billions in foregone revenue at a time when public finances remain strained. But the current system creates a peculiar situation where the government simultaneously claims to support aspiration whilst maintaining tax structures that actively punish it.

Whether this becomes a genuine political issue depends partly on how many people it affects. Wage inflation continues to push more households toward this threshold, expanding the constituency with a direct interest in reform. At some point, the number of voters facing 60 per cent marginal rates may become too significant to ignore. Until then, expect more senior managers to quietly turn down their next promotion.

More articles by Ross Williams