“That chart is incorrect.”
That was my first reaction. I think the reason that the term “effective MTR” was used is because behind the scenes they are accounting for the current tax subsidy for employer-based coverage. So while the nominal MTR at $50K AGI might be 15%, the tax exclusion effectively gives people in this income bracket a 15% discount on the cost of employer-provided HI. This discount applies to the “employer-paid” share even though the employee never directly sees this savings, as the CBO and other modelers generally assume that every dollar paid for health benefits is a dollar the employer otherwise would have paid in wages etc.
So if the typical worker in this income range has a family policy with premiums equal to 20% of income, the savings amount to 3%, dropping the EMTR from 15% to 12%.
Thanks - that sort of makes sense. I figured they weren’t making weird adjustments when they said they were not counting payroll taxes.