To think maternity pay should be better funded?

MPs wage compares with any senior manager

No. Yours sounds generous! How long have you and and your husband been working? I’m sure you can use some of the money you’ve saved for your maternity leave.

I very much doubt it won’t go ahead - the 2 year old funding is now in place without much issue in our area.

@iguano88

They do, works out I’ll get about 75% of my wage for 6ish months and then SMP for another 9 weeks then nothing

That's not bad actually. Lots of women only get statutory.

6 months full pay is a benefit from your employer. Many people only get SSP.

Statutory Maternity Pay, Sick Pay, Maternity Allowance are essentially government benefits to supply a safety net for those whose employers do pay enhanced maternity or sick pay.

It's your employer who you should be lobbying for better benefits or switch to a job where the benefits are better. Public sector generally is pretty generous on this.

Yes, I agree with you, SMP is shocking.

SSP is also shocking. 6 months full, 6 months half tends to be a civil service sick pay or similar. Many people get hardly any sick pay.

Both need sorting.

I think it’s more than likely it will happen or something will happen childcare wise, there is a need for more people in work at the end of the day to support the aging population

Don’t you? Your circle must be quite small. Companies don’t have to offer an enhanced package.

i imagine there’s great many professions that don’t. Or it they do it’s like 8 weeks. I worked in a large IT company (5000 -10k employees in the uK and Europe) they offered the bare minimum everything. Whilst I understand it for local business, I don’t think large companies should be able to offer so little by way of any benefits

Didn’t you notice that the new childcare subsidies for nursery is for kids 9 months to 2 years old? There is clearly demand for places and a shift to some mums taking 9 months maternity rather than 12 months for financial reasons.

Politicians think as far as the next election so I suspect that importing tax payers from abroad will end up being the solution.

I'm mid 20s with wage stagnation high childcare costs and a lack of affordable housing kids aren't on my radar.

These issues are impacting fertility rates

So people who dont have children should not get a pension or healthcare? Even though they have paid into the system for their working lives (payed more in fact, as they will have taken no maternity/paternity leave)

Parents don’t pay for it all out of their own pockets - the birth, healthcare and education are funded by the general public.

I would absolutely leave a country which decided that state services would only be provided to parents and not us unworthy barrens.

This is the fourth time I’ve seen this suggestion on MN this week and it’s vile, frankly.

Should say ‘different to the one with our birth children’ (obvs we’d be the parents) 🙂

In my experience, sick pay provision is less good than for maternity. It's also harder when you need medical appointments as employers do not need to allow you to take time off, whereas for maternity appointments you have to be given paid time off. Not saying maternity is great or doesn't need improving, but I dont think your assumption that sick pay is better is fair.

If this is true, people who don't have children should not get any of the benefits those children will eventually contribute to society.

After all, the parents paid for it all out of their pockets, why should they not reap all the benefits?

Society needs children, it's not just a private decision.

I do think the way things are now is very unsustainable. There needs to be room in society for people who are in these kinds of non-paid caring roles. It's a lot more important than a lot of stupid shit we spend money on.

On the other hand, in the system as we have it now, I'm not sure how it works. Because the question then is, better funded by who? The government is not swimming in extra money as much as we might like it to be, everyone wants them to pay for more. Many people are maxed out and struggling already and won't vote for new taxation.

I think housing is key, and personally I think we should move to a model where there is generally higher pay but more people who don't work in paid employment (people caring for kids or elders for example), and maybe an expectation of simpler lives with fewer consumer goods. But I don't think enough other people will go for that to make it a reality.

I thought this would be a sticking point. Not really as an adoptee and a mum to (birth) children myself. Parenting traumatised children is really hard. Bonding with children who have attachment issues or full blown attachment disorders is beyond hard. It’s a very different situation and parents are dealing with getting to know new children who are strangers and vice versa. These new children often have very difficult backgrounds and are afraid of adults. They’re potentially making disclosures and/or needing therapy. It might begin to become clear there are issues that weren’t recognised before, like FASD, that parents have to seek support for. They have to relearn things, build trust and begin to feel safe. A newborn can hear you while the woman is pregnant, they are already beginning bonding through this. They are born ready to bond. It’s not the same situation at all. We’re hoping to adopt when our children are older (it’ll be the panel’s decision, so we’ll go for it, but whether they find us suitable will depend), but very aware that that journey will be very different to the one with our birth parents. And I didn’t have an easy road! I had birth trauma with my first followed by a year of health issues that nearly killed him.

I’d happily extend paternity leave to be equal to maternity. At the time, it wasn’t possible as we had couples in the company and couldn’t afford to lose half the work force for 4 months (which can limit an employer). Equally, we’d always consider every situation specifically, so if someone had a very premature baby, we’d find a way to support them. Or if a baby had complex health needs, the parents would often get extended leave on full pay.

This.

YABVU

And what do you think a taxpayer is?

@ruby1957 No offence intended. I'm a boomer too, born 1963 and had ds very late.

I actually think SMP is sufficient in the context of all the other things the government would have to cut back on if they increased it.

I really detest this idea that taxpayers should fund choices related to having kids. If you can’t afford the number of kids you want, you either reduce the number of kids you have to maintain the lifestyle you have, accept changes to your lifestyle are necessary to have the number of kids you want or space out the number of kids to ease some of the financial burden in the early years.

Out of curiosity, just googled maternity pay when I was first pregnant.

Maternity Act 1999

“An employee is entitled to 18 weeks of ordinary maternity leave and 29 weeks of additional leave if she has been working for the business for more than one year. Ordinary leave is paid; additional leave is unpaid. However, she must tell the employer at least 15 weeks in advance of taking the leave.”,

So the situation has improved. Also, if I recall, dp’s had to take time off as holiday.

12 mths on maternity leave isn't a luxury, shouldn't be anyway. In fact I think 2-3 yo is when kiddos are kinda ready to go to nursery.

I believe its better to use some savings and return to work after min 12 mths, at 6 mths a child is still v tiny...

I know it's a cliche, but taxpayers are already spending a fortune funding people who make the lifestyle choice to have children. It's really not up to other people to subsidise this.