To think the amount of SMP is entirely unreasonable?

[SMPWTF]

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?

Absolutely, or women who want to or are by circumstance doing it alone!

In our case my DHs wage will cover all of our bills, a few hundred pounds of mine will have to add to it for the likes of fuel and subscriptions we have. So technically we could get by on his wage, except we couldn’t for very long, because we need savings, all 3 of us need clothes, relatives need birthday presents, we need funds for the small joys of life such as getting the occasional coffee out when meeting a friend or a trip to the coast for fish and chips.

I thought you could claim UC as well? So not just SMP.
The amount is very low, yes but equally the ones staying childfree IME are those who can actually afford it, they just don't see the point

That’s true. I agree with you :( they don’t even know they’re a different person from their mum really at that age, do they.

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

definitely!

plus that argument also overlooks the fact that we need people to have children, we have an aging population, we need babies born (as a country)

the choice aspect also over looks those who fall pregnant by accident or less than stellar circumstances and can’t access termination services, either due to lack of availability, finding out too late or for personal belief.

there’s also the developmental part for babies that maybe at 6 months old should they be at nursery or would it be better for them to be at home?

there’s also the cost of nursery, even with the new funding, a 6 month old wouldn’t be eligible for funded hours, they’d be full fee paying which is also cost prohibitive for many?

so what’s the alternative, women being coerced into abortions they don’t fundamentally want? That’s pretty dire if you ask me.

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.

Mine did 6 months full pay or a year half pay. DH got one month full pay separately (which was very generous from what I understand)

I also think it's sad. You are doing the most important job looking after your baby.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I’ll take a look, thank you.

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

10000% agree with you

What is this race to the bottom

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

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