To think statutory maternity pay should be the same amount as the state pension?

It’s not the answer but save, save, save is probably the best thing to do.

You are presenting a very simplistic view of the state pension system. I don't get anywhere near that amount per week presumably because I'm married. My husband gets even less because he also has a private pension. He could moan because why should he get less when he has paid the same contributions as everyone else (as well as contributions to the private pension scheme run by his employers). He doesn't though because his contributions help others have a basic standard of living.
I know I'm not totally on point, but using £230 as a figure on which to base your argument, is meaningless. I would imagine the number of people who get the full pension are far fewer than those who don't.

Auto-enrolment was 2012-2018
And if you earn less than 10k you arent auto enrolled. This is an issue for people juggling multiple jobs. I had to argue to be allowed to join a scheme just 3 years ago as I have more than one employer and didnt hit the threshold at any of them. But two employers let me anyway and one held out.

In about 2000, stakeholder pensions were introduced and employers had to offer them to all employees (but not auto enrolled) it was the first time a lot of more junior posts got access to a workplace pension. Again, I was a secretary at this time and i was allowed to join a workplace scheme for the first time. They possibly didnt have to offer them if they had under 5 employees though.

It may be nonsense to you, but a lot of nurseries and childminders in my area don’t take before 1. That is when you can actually find a provider because since the funded hours, most have closed down.

“basically months off work” - women helping women again I see. So toxic.

It was in the 90's I think that auto-enrolment came in. That will ensure that a much larger percentage of the population will have a work pension in addition to what the state provides. So anyone who retires now or in the future should be better off than those in the past. (Unless you didn't work or opted out in which case thats your own silly fault).

Why on earth do you think auto enrolment makes future pensioners better off than pensioners today? The schemes are less generous!

Life expectancy has increased. If you are talking specifically about 'healthy life expectancy' that's irrelevant. You're getting paid your pension whether you are healthy or not

Since I mentioned healthy life expectancy I thought it was pretty clear I meant healthy life expectancy.

And it is not irrelevant, when the state pension age moves out you are expected to work for longer. You know all the rhetoric around people of working age who are economically inactive, a significant part of that is because as the state pension age moves out the working age age range increases but it doesn’t mean more of these people can actually work and so instead we see more people having to claim some form of benefits eg disability.

Life expectancy has increased. If you are talking specifically about 'healthy life expectancy' that's irrelevant. You're getting paid your pension whether you are healthy or not.

The main key change is that a lot of today's pensioners, particularly the women, will have little or no private/work pension to supplement what the state provides. It was in the 90's I think that auto-enrolment came in. That will ensure that a much larger percentage of the population will have a work pension in addition to what the state provides. So anyone who retires now or in the future should be better off than those in the past. (Unless you didn't work or opted out in which case thats your own silly fault).

It's obvious that I wasn't talking about a healthy 66 year old.

I would rather see pensions cut or frozen to fund incentives for childbearing, if people don't have children you will not recieve a state pension.

What about people who can’t have children or are circumstantially childless? You think they should be punished for that by not getting a pension? And the childfree by choice? They have all been paying for the pensions of others via NI?

No, I don’t believe the government should go out of their way to fund other people’s lifestyle choices. Whether that be maternity or otherwise. It’s a life event that you should plan and prepare for as much as possible. But then I also think people should adequately prepare for their own retirement too.

The idea that you cant possibly think something has gone wrong for young people & young families unless you are young yourself is completely stupid.

Carers Allowance is £83 per week. And to qualify you need to provide care for 30 hours per week. A person who's worked all their life and develops a very serious illness or disability that prevents them working recieves only £140 a week.
If you are looking at disparity between SRP and other benefits, then there are other groups that would need to be considered and levelled up. People will not want to pay the extra taxes this would require.

So how do you know that?

That healthy life expectancy hasn’t changed for years? Google if you are unsure.

I know it fits the current rhetoric of your generation being shafted for your entire lives but you are stating with such certainty something you have no idea will happen

How presumptuous, I’m middle aged! What do I have no idea will happen? Pensions are less generous for future generations due to closing final salary etc. The age of retirement for the young is already 68….

Housing which is the big one, far less social housing & far more younger people will be renting in retirement.

Agree in principle but dislike pitting groups against each other. Would prefer equatity across the board. I would like SSP to be the same, and for disabled people to get the same protection during redundancy etc. Pregnant than Screwed has actually done loads to protect protect women and new mums in law and the same, unfortunately, cannot be said for disabled people. But that's not to say I want higher protection for disabled people at the expense of another group iyswim.

YANBU. In the grand scheme of things an extra £45 a week for SMP probably wouldn't be a huge coat either.

DH and I earn roughly the same, so when I went on maternity leave we noticed an almost 50% drop in income, it was hard. When my SIL went on maternity they didn’t feel it as hard because she earns less than half what my brother does, so they still had 2/3s of their usual income, the drop was less. Worse though, I also know people for whom it’s the other way around, the mother is the breadwinner. One friend has only statutory pay and they lost 75% of their usual income. She ended up having to go back to work at 4 months. Because bills are bills, you could have a £1000 mortgage or a £2500 mortgage. But the bank still expects that amount even if you are on maternity (mortgage holidays aside), if your council tax is band D, it doesn’t matter that your income has dropped and it’s less affordable. We looked at additional benefits and, were we renting then our rent would have been covered, but no help because it was a mortgage. We just needed help to make it through. Then when I was back at work there were 5 months when nursery was more than my income. People don’t downsize in order to make it through maternity leave, they haemorrhage their savings or have to go back to work early or go into debt. I don’t know what the answer is though.

Because retuning after 9 months is a breeze..

If having a higher fertility rate matters, then we need to improve conditions for mothers, especially new mothers.

And state pensions reflect that. Currently £1k a month, the state pension covers food, utilities, council tax, clothes & shoes, transport, comms and a (very) small amount for emergencies & leisure.

Whilst being old isn’t a choice, it’s a predictable outcome of not dying young.

Why didn’t these impoverished pensioners provide for their old age? Given the evidence of average life expectancy in this country, it should hardly have come as a shock that they would need money to fund their retirement. So there were reasons they couldn’t or didn’t earn enough to save. Same as there will be reasons some new parents find it hard to get by on SMP.

I thoroughly agree with the OP. The pension has been bloated by the triple lock, at a direct cost to the younger generation who now can’t afford to reproduce.

I agree with you.

I would start subsidised child care later - at one year - and increase and lengthen the SMP to one year.
My reasoning is that, from my observation, many babies love being cared for by their own parents.

Then parents have a real choice to design their baby's care to suit what the their child would prefer rather than to suit parents' or society's need for workers.

A lot of people can't, hence very low birth rates. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the OP, but there is not much incentive to have children and this has an impact on things like the ability to pay pensions.

So how do you know that?
I know it fits the current rhetoric of your generation being shafted for your entire lives but you are stating with such certainty something you have no idea will happen.
On one hand, MN is convinced pensioners are untouchable and no govenment would dare even tackle triple lock yet on the other hand everyone under 40 is convinced they will not get a pension. Which is it?

Sorry that's nonsense. Most nurseries have a baby room.
Most women don't WANT to go back before a year (some think they should get more) which is fine, but you can't expect to be paid for basically having months off work.

Healthy life expectancy has increased significantly since the state pension was introduced in 1908. It has only stalled very recently.

I'm 62 and was originally told I could retire at 60. However, I've looked after my health, and am far fitter than my dm was at my age. I am perfectly capable of working longer than she did. Lifestyles have changed since the 70s. I find the extended work years sensible.