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.

In Scandic countries this is standard. Together with subsidised child care women work full time and can afford to leave abusing relationships! It’s vital for women to have their own income.

@Earwiggoearwiggoearwiggo I couldn't afford to go back to work after my first baby. I was an average earner but lived in an area with high childcare costs 1.8kpm for a full time place. After childcare and commuting costs I would have been out of pocket.

Not necessarily. The best maternity leave packages for large groups of women come from state organisations like NHS (full pay 2 months, approx 80% pay for another 4 months, then generous paid AL - 33 days over a year plus BH's if been working for 10 years, which works out as about 2 months full pay, so 7- 8 months with minimal loss of salary) which employ people across the pay range from minimum wage to high earners.

And yes, if planning to have children, it's sensible to look at maternity leave policy for your employer, and consider changing employer if doesn't suit your needs. Its about knowing your worth, your priorities. As a physio I could have got a job with a private practice which paid me 50% more than nhs, but rubbish mat leave, limited flexible working, so I made a choice to stay with better mat leave

Not necessarily. The best maternity leave packages for large groups of women come from state organisations like NHS (full pay 2 months, approx 80% pay for another 4 months, then generous paid AL - 33 days over a year plus BH's if been working for 10 years, which works out as about 2 months full pay, so 7- 8 months with minimal loss of salary) which employ people across the pay range from minimum wage to high earners.

And yes, if planning to have children, it's sensible to look at maternity leave policy for your employer, and consider changing employer if doesn't suit your needs. Its about knowing your worth, your priorities. As a physio I could have got a job with a private practice which paid me 50% more than nhs, but rubbish mat leave, limited flexible working, so I made a choice to stay with better mat leave

Interesting. How do you feel about child benefit and benefits in general?

If we're talking in terms of ideals, surely it should just be less shit for everyone across the board. Also, the whole argument of "why should state fund your maternity" is short-sighted. If women can't afford to have children then we encourage even more of an aging population crisis than we already face, surely?

Trouble is this OP wants Scandinavian services and benefits on UAE tax rates.

Those children will be filling the coffers for your future pension…

I agree with previous posters, as a higher earner I am in a fortunate position to be able to save to cover the drop in income for maternity leave, and I also have an enhanced maternity package from my employer which is less common, although does exist, in the bottom end of the pay scale.

Its such a difficult one because not every business can afford these costs. Im lucky, i work for a big bank and got 6 months full pay but i think small businesses would be out if business in lots of cases if they had to match these packages.

It's much more generous than UC many people live on less than £700 a month.

I'm in central Europe and it works like that here - we understand sick pay, maternity leave, jobs seakers allowance and pension as state governed insurance (so the pay is proportionate to income, of course with some reductions and cappings).

We actually see it as more fair, because all employees and employers pay % to the pot as a part of general taxation and than everyone gets better support when they needed, not only those with the best employers with extra benefits.

*Bagwyllydiart · Today 06:28

The state should not have to pay for your children*

We need women to have children. If the birth rate declines then there will be serious issues down the line. South Korea for example is facing a national emergency because of the declining birth rate. Earlier this year, France, alarmed by the lowest birth rate in almost three decades in 2023 — at 1.68 compared with South Korea’s 0.72 — announced a major reform to its parental leave system.
So yes, the state should support families and that includes 'paying for children'.

@PheobeBebe

higher earners pay more taxes so contribute much more. What “entitlement” are you talking about??

I agree that SMP or maternity allowance is quite small especially for someone who normally earns like 4 times of that however, I don’t think it’s the state’s responsibility to keep paying for people’s choices really. People also need to plan before all these major life changes.
I’m lucky that when I had my 3rd, I got full pay for 6 months but we planned ahead for the 3 months of SMP and I went back to work after as for us, it didn’t make financial sense to have 3 months unpaid. Everyone should also plan this way rather than expecting the govt to keep paying.

There is lots of comments that employers should pay better mat leave, which is absolutely true. But this then has knock on effects.
I'm an NHS team lead,team of 10, this year 3 people on mat leave so a third of the team. We can't employ any cover until they get 6 months into mat leave and drop to SMP as still paying them, we dont get any extra budget when someone on mat leave. They then leads to already overworked staff taking on 50% more work, now 1 is off long term with stress, 1 on extended parental leave, and we have 5 people doing 10 peoples work - impossible. And if wait list goes up we get fined and even less money for staff.
But no one wants to pay more tax for the government to pay for better mat leave.
So its not an easy one

Not really those with higher incomes have more opportunities to prepare for it and find ways to make cuts than those on lower incomes where every penny counts. I just think it should be at least minimum wage and last the full year.

Also those on low incomes on maternity allowance find that claiming MA means they take it off the UC and you are worse off.

I don’t think you can expect the state to pay SMP that matches your salary. It unfairly penalises women who do NMW jobs (which are often undervalued but incredibly important). I understand you have paid more in tax but it’s like saying high earners must take priority for NHS services as they have contributed more than the lower earners.

As a higher earner, you have the privilege of choosing to live well within your means where others have no other option but to literally live hand to mouth each week. It’s not the states responsibility to pay for your large mortgage and multiple outgoings when you choose to have a child.

SMP should absolutely be higher than it is, £700 a month doesn’t even cover half of mortgage/bills for most people now. I don’t believe it should be tied to earnings though, those on higher salaries should have been able to save or at least save a portion from the moment they found out they were pregnant every month, at least. I was able to save around £500 a month while I was pregnant for the first time so I had some spending money while on MAT leave. I do laugh at posters who suggest that the state should not be paying at all though, we already have a declining birth rate, someone else’s children will likely be caring for you in your old age.

Many saying those with higher incomes can make cuts more easily, but this isn't always true. I can't just tell my mortgage company (£1500 a month) or council tax (£400 a month) that am going to 'cut' their payments, it doesn't quite work like that. Those on very low incomes may have lower outgoings (cheaper council housing, council tax reductions, free prescriptions, subsidised childcare on UC) but we need to stop this race to the bottom mentality, the 'you can't moan as I think I'm worse off than you' and support all new mums

I do agree with comments that SMP should last a year, no 9 month old baby should be in full-time nursery because their primary carer can't afford to not return to work. Evidence shows that children have the most secure long term mental health outcomes when with primary carer until 18-24 months old, but few can easily afford to be off even 12 months.

Would it be typical for a high earner to rely upon SMP? I would expect high earners to be considerably more likely to recieve enhanced maternity pay from their employer (mine was full pay for 6 months, 75% for the next 3).

I agree and it's a similar story where I am (not NHS but public sector).

I completely agree with you Op - I think lots of people here forget that higher earners generally have higher outgoings…. For example mortgages. It’s easy to save they can save, but someone on £100k could have the same left over at the end of the month as someone on £30k after bills.

You can’t plan your whole life around being on maternity leave so you do have to struggle through.

Yeah possibly, but, you shouldnt live to the ends of your means though