Stat maternity pay should be relative to earnings

[nappyvalley2024]

Why is statutory maternity leave a flat rate after the initial 6 weeks?

It would be fairer to have it linked to earnings for 3-6 months. Families in higher incomes will find the drop in pay more significant than those on lower incomes and would have been paying more NI.

This leads to higher earning women having to take shorter mat leaves than those on lower incomes.

How dare people on low incomes have children... the nerve of it all!

Surely higher earners notice the drop more as they live to their means and would generally have higher outgoings? Forward planning is key, saving up a bit. As other posters have said maternity packages as a whole tend to be better for better earners.

I've had two 12 month maternity spells as a middle earner with middling outgoings. We had savings and I was fortunate to have reasonable maternity packages.

This. More high earning women will have a decent employer who will top up sat mat pay than those on minimum wage/zero hours contracts.

Women should be paying attention to stuff like this when they choose an employer. Yet still so many have no idea what their employers maternity policy is until they are 26 weeks pregnant!

High earning women also have more opportunities to save prior to the baby being born.

@Bookmark1111 not necessarily if the partner is a low earner.

Oh and most higher earners would be eligible for a tax refund on Sat Mat pay. I was getting £500 back on tax every month on SMP.

DDIL is on maternity leave. Both she and DS2, they’re both nurses, picked up extra shifts while she was pregnant to save for when they had a drop in income. He’s just started his Masters, as well as having a newborn and a full time job, but if they need the money he will do over time shifts, too.

There comes a time when you have to take responsibility for yourself and your own actions. A baby takes nine months to grow, so even if it’s not planned you do have time to save, especially if you’re a high earner.

Slightly off thread, but there are many single/widowed pensioners who are expected to live on this kind of monthly income!

So should JSA also be based on previous earnings? Do you know how benefits work and who gives them out?

I agree with this but when I’ve vocalised it to friends and family people have looked at me horrified. I’m first time mum after an unplanned pregnancy and did not budget for income dropping by £3.5k. Over the last 10 years I’ve paid far more tax each month than I’m currently getting a month. Massively struggling with mortgage and have had to borrow money from my mum.

There should be a higher rate of SMP for higher rate tax payers, especially as we will not quality for child benefit for next 18 years!

Don’t think we’ll get any support for this but I do agree.

I was actually better off on SMP as normally I earned less than that per month.

But yes you should be saving for it. Currently saving for an IVF cycle and will try to factor in some for a maternity leave too if it works.

I agree that stat mat pay isn’t enough, but your post is really ignorant. Higher earners are more likely to have a partner who is a higher earner, and therefore both able to save. Low earners won’t have that privilege and therefore are definitely much more likely to feel the drop in income, so that they have to return to work early.

"Slightly off thread, but there are many single/widowed pensioners who are expected to live on this kind of monthly income!"

Presumably they don't have housing costs though.

So following your logic…. the state pension would be reflective of earnings?

how did you reach that presumption?

I’m guessing you used the NHS for your birth? And other services more generally?

And will retire at some point too?

Very short sighted to think NI is only for your mat leave.

This leads to higher earning women having to take shorter mat leaves than those on lower incomes.

source?

Of course not. It’s a choice, why should it come out of others taxes. Save up. And find an employer with enhanced pay

Yes that would make sense. Pay in more, get more out.

Not necessarily - their household running costs such as mortgage is likely to be higher. Just because someone earns ‘more’ doesn’t mean they’re not down to their final few quid in the last week of the month.

No, it's not all relative. Lower income women and their children have the same needs in regard to housing, heating, food, etc. Living is no cheaper.

the OP is all over mumsnet talking about UC claimants “doing alright” when the rest of us are suffering etc etc

oh and this thread the Op actually started

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/ami_being_unreasonable/4998829-to-feel-annoyed-that-those-on-uc-have-more-disposable-income?page=16&reply=132739000

Enhanced. I got 6 months full pay and 3 months half pay which is pretty standard in my industry (city law).

The same job role / companies have enhanced shared paternity policies to bridge the gender pay gap. So if a family choose for the father to stay home (even if his partner doesn't work at the same place) then he gets the same benefits.

The privilege is this comment is shocking.

the ignorance and stupidity more like

So rude. It’s a discussion.