For decades UK policy has prioritised redistribution, producing a welfare and tax framework that sometimes penalises success. The childcare "cliff edge" — where a family earning £99,999 can lose extensive childcare support by earning £1 more — creates strong disincentives to accept pay rises or relocate. Kemi Badenoch proposes abolishing this cliff edge (estimated cost £700m static), arguing the change would encourage work, boost taxable incomes and correct a perverse policy distortion.
Badenoch's Bold Fix for the Childcare 'Cliff Edge' — Ending the Penalty on Pay Rises
Ian Forsyth/Getty Images
For three decades Britain’s political consensus treated inequality as the overriding moral challenge, steering policy toward redistribution and an expanding welfare state. As Kemi Badenoch observed in a recent Telegraph piece, that approach has often made welfare the central organising principle of government — with a heavy tax and regulatory burden that, critics argue, can penalise success and distort incentives.
One striking example is the childcare "cliff edge." Under the current system a working couple in which one parent earns £99,999 can receive up to 30 hours a week of childcare support and qualify for Tax-Free Childcare. If that parent earns a single pound more, those entitlements are withdrawn. In practice this design can create the perverse outcome that a parent with two children in London nurseries needs to earn close to £150,000 to be better off than on just under £100,000.
Perverse Incentives and Economic Cost
The practical consequences are clear. Parents decline promotions or cut hours to avoid losing benefits; couples delay starting families; and talented workers may turn down moves to higher-paid jobs. Each of these reactions reduces overall taxable income and, paradoxically, shrinks revenue for the Exchequer. What many intend as fairness can therefore become an economic drag.
The Proposal
Ms Badenoch proposes abolishing the cliff edge rather than making marginal tweaks. The Conservatives estimate the change would cost around £700 million a year on a static basis and say it would be financed by reducing the number of officials in quangos to 2016 levels. Supporters argue the reform could raise net receipts over time by encouraging higher earnings and broader labour-market participation.
"Labour fails when they follow their principles. We fail when we don't follow ours," Ms Badenoch said in her conference speech — signalling a desire to prioritise incentives and aspiration.
Broader Context
The change sits within a wider political argument about taxation and growth. Critics point to Britain's post‑war high in overall taxation, fiscal drag that pulls households into higher brackets, and a 60% marginal rate on earnings between £100,000 and £125,000 driven by the tapering of the personal allowance. Proponents of reform argue that removing penalties on success — including proposals to abolish stamp duty — would strengthen incentives to work, invest and remain in the country.
Whether or not one accepts all of Ms Badenoch’s priorities, abolishing the childcare cliff edge addresses a concrete policy flaw that currently discourages work and mobility. It is a clear example of supply‑side thinking: change the incentives, and behaviour follows.
This debate will help define the Conservatives’ direction and separate their approach from both Labour’s tax‑and‑spend instincts and Reform UK’s focus on headline tax cuts. For voters, the key question is whether reformers can demonstrate that targeted changes will boost both fairness and growth.
Help us improve.
