Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the amount of SMP is entirely unreasonable?

310 replies

SMPWTF · 13/08/2024 15:02

I knew the amount prior to TTC but only now at 6 months pregnant is it actually registering.

£184 a week, and it’s taxed. If it weren’t taxed the amount would be £736 for a 4 week month.

How is this even close to enough?

DH and I earn similarly, respected careers but we’ll never be millionaires. Our household bills for our small semi-detached home are just over one of our whole salaries.

I understand that in the ideal you’d save up for maternity leave, but in practice that’s difficult for most people. The start up costs for preparing for baby are very expensive. We have been lucky to have been gifted a lot of big ticket items but even so the costs still add up fast. I can’t imagine even trying to save anything for a second maternity leave if you’re paying childcare fees for your toddler - probably one of the reasons we’ll be one and done.

I don’t think working people should have to save for years per child they have. Nor do I think people should only have children if they can afford to live on one income, because then we create a society where only either end of the wealth spectrum find themselves in a position to start and grow families.

No wonder couples are having fewer or no children.

Why can’t women be paid at least 50% of their wage? So many companies offer 6-12 months full sick pay, so why are so many still reluctant to meet this offer for parental leave?

OP posts:
Lancelottie · 13/08/2024 16:13

Actually, I'm wrong. It was 6 weeks on 90% pay.

Lancelottie · 13/08/2024 16:12

Many of my friends had six weeks (!!) full pay.

Yup, that was me. And I was firmly told that I could come back to work full-time or not at all at the end of six months (most of it on SMP); no chance of shorter hours or a job share. After I'd resigned, they decided to appoint a job share to replace my role.

In retrospect, I was not nearly angry enough about it at the time.

(Then I did my next maternity leave as a freelancer, which was tight, but less infuriating.)

BeaRF75 · 13/08/2024 16:12

Because there is no reason why other people should be paying for you to have a baby. You want a child - you pay. Or, at least, get a job where they offer a better contractual amount.

Worrywartandall · 13/08/2024 16:07

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 13/08/2024 16:00

Because I don't feel in the slightest bit sorry for the OP.

Show quote history

Yes because ‘mortgage rates were 15% in your day’ and ‘you had frost on the windows’ ‘only had 3 days mat leave’ etc etc. It’s tired. We should be moving forward as a society not backwards

DrinkElephants · 13/08/2024 16:04

I agree. I’m on statutory now and as the higher earner it’s hit us hard. I was very fortunate to have 6 months full pay but I’m currently regretting taking a year of maternity leave as it costs so much. I wish I could go back sooner but nursery have said they can’t accommodate that.

Flossflower · 13/08/2024 16:04

Yes I think it is rubbish but how would you expect small companies with just a few employees to cover a better rate?

Original poster
SMPWTF · 13/08/2024 16:04

JLT24 · 13/08/2024 16:03

It’s a disgustingly low amount. But in many cases you are able to plan for maternity leave years in advance.

I can’t work due to a health condition. And ESA is only £598 a month 😞 this was not something I could plan for

Edited

That’s shocking too.

OP posts:
Original poster
SMPWTF · 13/08/2024 16:03

Boymumtobe09 · 13/08/2024 15:57

I agree OP - we have been saving like crazy to cover the shortfall but not everyone has the spare cash at the end of the month to save. And the alternative is going back to work quite soon after the baby arrives but then you have to pay loads for childcare. It’s really tricky and I can see why so many people are only having 1 or choosing to stay child free

Definitely. The funded hours will help but you can’t use them until the term after baby is 9 months so still makes those first few months expensive for people if they choose to go back, and not always cost effective

OP posts:
JLT24 · 13/08/2024 16:03

It’s a disgustingly low amount. But in many cases you are able to plan for maternity leave years in advance.

I can’t work due to a health condition. And ESA is only £598 a month 😞 this was not something I could plan for

Original poster
SMPWTF · 13/08/2024 16:02

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 13/08/2024 16:00

Because I don't feel in the slightest bit sorry for the OP.

Show quote history

Yet you employed a nanny? Nannies are very expensive. I hope you can see why your comment just doesn’t match a lot of people’s realities…

OP posts:
OrangeCrusher · 13/08/2024 16:00

SMPWTF · 13/08/2024 15:19

I know, but most people have significantly longer to save for retirement than they do to save for parental leave

Show quote history

Wait to you find out about carers allowance. It’s £81 a week, shocking.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 13/08/2024 16:00

Worrywartandall · 13/08/2024 15:59

What is this race to the bottom

Show quote history

Because I don't feel in the slightest bit sorry for the OP.

Worrywartandall · 13/08/2024 15:59

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 13/08/2024 15:58

Nothing when I had my son. I employed a nanny and went back to work full time at 3 months.

Show quote history

What is this race to the bottom

Original poster
SMPWTF · 13/08/2024 15:59

Bogasphodel · 13/08/2024 15:57

Some of the responses on here are quite scary and regressive. Saying that “it’s not meant to cover as you have partners wages or savings” or “appreciate the free money” just contributes to society’s de-valuing of women’s contributions and forces women to stay in abusive situations.

It’s also just not cost effective to expect women to really on their partner, as as a society we end up paying for the impacts
of child poverty or the effects of domestic abuse on children in their later life.

Also the “stick them in nursery” brigade, that should be a choice, but it’s certainly not open to women in areas that haven’t nursery places for under 1s.

10000% agree with you

OP posts:
IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 13/08/2024 15:58

Gogogo12345 · 13/08/2024 15:54

16 weeks I think when my eldest was born. She was in nursery at 3 months

Show quote history

Nothing when I had my son. I employed a nanny and went back to work full time at 3 months.

Original poster
SMPWTF · 13/08/2024 15:58

OneCoolPearlOP · 13/08/2024 15:56

Are you sure? There's a lot of threads on here with people being surprised at how much they can claim on the average wage.

I've just done a quick calculator and come out with a grand total of... £40 a week for a 31K p a. Salary in my area. It would have been more if I hadn't ticked the savings box.

Show quote history

I’ll take a look, thank you.

OP posts:
Sundayschool · 13/08/2024 15:57

If you put your baby in nursery you’re then spending most of your salary on childcare and missing out on their early years. And if you change jobs to a company with an enhanced package you’ll need to wait until you’re eligible. Not everyone has this luxury and not everyone can work for an employer that offers an enhanced package. The usual rubbish spouted on here.

Worrywartandall · 13/08/2024 15:57

Spectre8 · 13/08/2024 15:55

Relatives do not NEED birthday presents though. So you could save some money by cutting out unecessary expenditures

Why work for a company that offers crap maternity pay? Many offer much more so why did you choose not to move jobs in preparation for having a child?

Edited
Show quote history

come on!!!

because sometimes it’s that or not have a job, and having a job is better.

yes benefits inc mat pay should be part of anyone’s decision making process, but sometimes needs must. Let’s not blame the individual for the big corporations stinginess.

Bogasphodel · 13/08/2024 15:57

Some of the responses on here are quite scary and regressive. Saying that “it’s not meant to cover as you have partners wages or savings” or “appreciate the free money” just contributes to society’s de-valuing of women’s contributions and forces women to stay in abusive situations.

It’s also just not cost effective to expect women to really on their partner, as as a society we end up paying for the impacts
of child poverty or the effects of domestic abuse on children in their later life.

Also the “stick them in nursery” brigade, that should be a choice, but it’s certainly not open to women in areas that haven’t nursery places for under 1s.

Original poster
SMPWTF · 13/08/2024 15:57

annahay · 13/08/2024 15:50

I agree. And it's having an effect on the age that people decide to have children, and the number of children they choose to have. It's better for children to be with a parent for longer, and it's better for society if we have enough children. We need a drastic rethink.

Exactly. We could’ve waited another 5-10 years, well into our 30s and probably in a better financial position but then grandparents would be older, we’d have less time with them and there are biological reasons why it’s better to do it when it’s optimum if you at all can. If you’re working (and comfortable lifestyle wise whilst at work) finances should not be the barrier.

OP posts:
OptimismvsRealism · 13/08/2024 15:57

YaWeeFurryBastard · 13/08/2024 15:36

What a silly comment. The state pension is loads more, people have way more time to save and there are massive tax advantages to paying into a pension!

OP I really sympathise, I’m lucky I have a husband who earns well and a decent maternity package. I don’t know how others manage, it’s sad.

Show quote history

It isn't "silly". Money is finite. Having kids is a choice. Ageing isn't. Hence an ageing population that costs a bomb. So, pay for your own kids or don't have any. If only we had the same opt out option for decrepitude.

Boymumtobe09 · 13/08/2024 15:57

I agree OP - we have been saving like crazy to cover the shortfall but not everyone has the spare cash at the end of the month to save. And the alternative is going back to work quite soon after the baby arrives but then you have to pay loads for childcare. It’s really tricky and I can see why so many people are only having 1 or choosing to stay child free

OneCoolPearlOP · 13/08/2024 15:56

SMPWTF · 13/08/2024 15:48

We’re just above the threshold on DHs income alone despite only earning the average UK wage each. If I quit my job entirely we probably could claim something but I’m not willing to do that as I enjoy working and know how important it is that I am also earning

Show quote history

Are you sure? There's a lot of threads on here with people being surprised at how much they can claim on the average wage.

I've just done a quick calculator and come out with a grand total of... £40 a week for a 31K p a. Salary in my area. It would have been more if I hadn't ticked the savings box.

blushroses6 · 13/08/2024 15:55

It’s a ridiculous situation. MAT pay is peanuts but then if you go back to work early you’ll just be spending all or the majority of your salary on nursery fees anyway! It doesn’t even cover half my mortgage let alone any additional bills. Paternity leave should be at least 4 weeks too. Also, as for a PP it’s not “free money for looking after your baby”, we have a declining birth rate and need future tax payers.

Sundayschool · 13/08/2024 15:55

It is ridiculous, but like many things on mumsnet that could advantage mothers (parent and child parking spaces, maternity leave, more nursery places) plenty of people will come alone to tell you how having children was a choice and start the inevitable race to the bottom.

My MIL gets paid more than me on a state pension than when I’m on SMP. She’s sitting in a £1m house that cost £200k. She’s never paid a mortgage as she inherited from DFILs parents and she’s never worked either. But she’ll tell me how upset she is that her winter fuel allowance has been stopped.