Search
00
GBAF Logo
trophy
Top StoriesInterviewsBusinessFinanceBankingTechnologyInvestingTradingVideosAwardsMagazinesHeadlinesTrends

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest news and updates from our team.

Global Banking & Finance Review®

Global Banking & Finance Review® - Subscribe to our newsletter

Company

    GBAF Logo
    • About Us
    • Advertising and Sponsorship
    • Profile & Readership
    • Contact Us
    • Latest News
    • Privacy & Cookies Policies
    • Terms of Use
    • Advertising Terms
    • Issue 81
    • Issue 80
    • Issue 79
    • Issue 78
    • Issue 77
    • Issue 76
    • Issue 75
    • Issue 74
    • Issue 73
    • Issue 72
    • Issue 71
    • Issue 70
    • View All
    • About the Awards
    • Awards Timetable
    • Awards Winners
    • Submit Nominations
    • Testimonials
    • Media Room
    • FAQ
    • Asset Management Awards
    • Brand of the Year Awards
    • Business Awards
    • Cash Management Banking Awards
    • Banking Technology Awards
    • CEO Awards
    • Customer Service Awards
    • CSR Awards
    • Deal of the Year Awards
    • Corporate Governance Awards
    • Corporate Banking Awards
    • Digital Transformation Awards
    • Fintech Awards
    • Education & Training Awards
    • ESG & Sustainability Awards
    • ESG Awards
    • Forex Banking Awards
    • Innovation Awards
    • Insurance & Takaful Awards
    • Investment Banking Awards
    • Investor Relations Awards
    • Leadership Awards
    • Islamic Banking Awards
    • Real Estate Awards
    • Project Finance Awards
    • Process & Product Awards
    • Telecommunication Awards
    • HR & Recruitment Awards
    • Trade Finance Awards
    • The Next 100 Global Awards
    • Wealth Management Awards
    • Travel Awards
    • Years of Excellence Awards
    • Publishing Principles
    • Ownership & Funding
    • Corrections Policy
    • Editorial Code of Ethics
    • Diversity & Inclusion Policy
    • Fact Checking Policy
    Original content: Global Banking and Finance Review - https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com

    A global financial intelligence and recognition platform delivering authoritative insights, data-driven analysis, and institutional benchmarking across Banking, Capital Markets, Investment, Technology, and Financial Infrastructure.

    Copyright © 2010-2026 - All Rights Reserved. | Sitemap | Tags

    Editorial & Advertiser disclosure

    Global Banking & Finance Review® is an online platform offering news, analysis, and opinion on the latest trends, developments, and innovations in the banking and finance industry worldwide. The platform covers a diverse range of topics, including banking, insurance, investment, wealth management, fintech, and regulatory issues. The website publishes news, press releases, opinion and advertorials on various financial organizations, products and services which are commissioned from various Companies, Organizations, PR agencies, Bloggers etc. These commissioned articles are commercial in nature. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. It does not reflect the views or opinion of our website and is not to be considered an endorsement or a recommendation. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third-party websites, affiliate sales networks, and to our advertising partners websites. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish advertised or sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a commercial article placement. We will not be responsible for any loss you may suffer as a result of any omission or inaccuracy on the website.

    1. Home
    2. >Finance
    3. >Is the High Income Child Benefit Charge Unfair?
    Finance

    Is the High Income Child Benefit Charge Unfair?

    Published by Gbaf News

    Posted on November 12, 2019

    5 min read

    Last updated: January 21, 2026

    Add as preferred source on Google
    An informative graphic illustrating the High Income Child Benefit Charge and its criticisms, emphasizing issues of fairness and tax implications for higher-rate taxpayers. This image supports the article discussing the charge's impact on families and income disparities.
    Illustration depicting the unfairness of the High Income Child Benefit Charge - Global Banking & Finance Review
    Why waste money on news and opinion when you can access them for free?

    Take advantage of our newsletter subscription and stay informed on the go!

    Subscribe

    Tax Preparation Specialist Evaluates Criticisms of High Income Child Benefit Charge

    Critics of the High Income Child Benefit Charge, where higher-rate taxpayers pay a tax charge when receiving child benefit, have long-argued that the charge is fundamentally unfair – both in design and practice. Tax preparation specialist David Redfern, managing director of DSR Tax Claims Ltd, appraises the tax charge and associated criticisms and questions whether those criticisms have any validity.

    Introduced in January 2013, the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) was intended to boost the Treasury’s resources by restricting Child Benefit for taxpayers with an adjusted net income of £50,000 or more. By placing a tax charge of 1% on each £100 over that £50,000 threshold, this meant that taxpayers who earn more than £60,000 would receive no child benefit. However, as Redfern explains, the tax charge has been controversial from the very beginning, stating “Because the tax charge targeted individual high earners, rather than household income, HICBC has faced the very valid criticism of inequity from the very start in that a household with a sole earner who has an adjusted income of £50,000 or more is affected by this tax charge whilst a household with two earners, both earning £49,000, escapes the charge despite having nearly double the household income. Leaving the question of whether it was right to make such changes to a universal benefit which was intended to be for the benefit of the child, not the parent, aside – the method by which it has been implemented opens up a number of valid comments about its fairness”.

    The High Income Child Benefit Charge is levied against any high earner living in a household which is claiming child benefit, regardless of whether they are the person claiming child benefit or whether they are a parent of the child receiving the benefit. One of the most common criticisms of the charge is that the parent claiming child benefit is often not the same person who faces the high income tax charge. Redfern added “The parent who claims child benefit is no longer treated as a totally separate entity for taxation purposes to the high earning taxpayer, eroding the independent status for taxation which was only achieved in 1990. Instead, this tax charge wears away any sense of privacy for parents as individuals as they are now forced to share such financial information between them”. In instances where a taxpayer may not know or be able to ask whether their partner receives child benefit, they can write to HMRC who will provide minimum information to clarify the tax position.

    A further criticism is that the tax charge has shifted hundreds of thousands of taxpayers into the Self Assessment system. Redfern explained “High-earning taxpayers affected by the tax charge have the choice to end the child benefit claim, or continue to receive child and then pay the tax charge via Self Assessment at the end of the tax year. While HMRC has always argued that recipients can avoid the charge by stopping their child benefit claim, there are other good reasons to continue with a child benefit claim – not least that it also ensures that the person claiming child benefit, usually the mother, retains a full National Insurance record for the first 12 years of parenting when it may be patchy, therefore retaining their entitlement to a state pension and other National Insurance-dependent benefits. However, the most moderate estimates are that this has brought an additional 300,000 taxpayers into the Self Assessment system – not only creating a bureaucratic burden on the taxpayer who is now faced with completing a tax return, but also creating a further burden on HMRC’s administration of the Self Assessment system”.

    As recently as September 2019, criticisms of the High Income Child Benefit Charge were being debated in Parliament, with a further criticism relating to the fixing of the £50,000 threshold. Redfern stated “Whilst other tax thresholds have increased over time, the £50,000 threshold has remained fixed since January 2013. This means that there are now 370,000 more families being confronted by the choice to pay this tax charge or lose child benefit in the current tax year than there were in 2013/14, when it was introduced, creating an additional financial burden on families who are already feeling squeezed enough as it is”. HMRC undertook to review ‘Failure to Notify’ penalties earlier in the year which resulted in over 4,800 penalties for failing to notify HMRC of HICBC liability being refunded in June 2019. However, Redfern stated “Decisions about the equity of HMRC’s penalty system aside, it is clear that criticisms of the way in which HICBC is administered are valid. From eroding the independent status of individuals for taxation purposes to unfairly targeting sole earners whilst dual income household remain unaffected, it is evident that the High Income Child Benefit Charge was ill-planned and should be reconsidered”.

    More from Finance

    Explore more articles in the Finance category

    Image for German business sentiment fell less than expected in March, Ifo finds
    German Business Sentiment Fell Less Than Expected in March, Ifo Finds
    Image for On Holding names co-founders as CEOs
    On Holding Names Co-Founders as CEOs
    Image for ECB may need to act on even 'not-too-persistent' inflation surge, Lagarde says
    ECB May Need to Act on Even 'not-Too-Persistent' Inflation Surge, Lagarde Says
    Image for Europe's STOXX 600 gains 1% on prospect of Middle East ceasefire
    Europe's Stoxx 600 Gains 1% on Prospect of Middle East Ceasefire
    Image for Estonia says drone enters from Russia, hits power station, ERR reports
    Estonia Says Drone Enters From Russia, Hits Power Station, Err Reports
    Image for Germany's Aurelius interested in buying Carrefour's Belgian unit, L'Echo reports
    Germany's Aurelius Interested in Buying Carrefour's Belgian Unit, L'Echo Reports
    Image for Germany's EnBW expects profits to be stable at best in 2026
    Germany's EnBW Expects Profits to Be Stable at Best in 2026
    Image for UK, EU and Switzerland set out one-day settlement testing plan
    Uk, EU and Switzerland Set Out One-Day Settlement Testing Plan
    Image for Taiwan wary that China could exploit US distraction over Middle East war
    Taiwan Wary That China Could Exploit US Distraction Over Middle East War
    Image for Russian attacks knock out power for thousands in Ukraine's north
    Russian Attacks Knock Out Power for Thousands in Ukraine's North
    Image for UK's Headlam warns of revenue drop as Middle East war pushes costs higher
    UK's Headlam Warns of Revenue Drop as Middle East War Pushes Costs Higher
    Image for Hedge fund founder Odey gives evidence in fight against financial industry ban
    Hedge Fund Founder Odey Gives Evidence in Fight Against Financial Industry Ban
    View All Finance Posts
    Previous Finance PostNuapay and Thyngs Partner to Combat Cashless Charity Challenge
    Next Finance PostToo Much Strictness Brings No Benefits