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

[BridgertonToBe]

I don’t have children, probably never will. But I do think SMP is shockingly low, and if the government is really worried about the birth rate they should look at this.

Many women on maternity only get SMP and no enhanced package from their employer. It’s current set at a maximum of £187.18 a week for 39 weeks. If mothers want to be off for 52, it will be unpaid.

The new state pension is £230.25 a week. While those on maternity may have a partner to support them, they probably won’t have any other income while many pensioners also have a private pension alongside the SP.

AIBU to think that if £230.25 is needed by all pensioners over 66 for a basic standard of living (who probably have less outgoings than a young family), SMP should be the same?

If we can afford to pay the state pension to every pensioner for the rest of their lives out of NI, we can afford to support new working mothers birthing and raising the next generation of workers for a short amount of time. The financial hit is a big deterrent for people having children. I also think SMP should be paid from birth until the child’s first birthday.

For most couples, one partner will be earning a full time salary which will be considerably higher than the state pension. I can kind of see an argument for it being low but comparing it to pensions, is crazy. Also, if people can't afford to live on a salary plus SMP, they probably can't afford to have a baby.

Many couples work full time and just about break even with the cost of living being what it is. The financial climate is a big reason for the birth rate dropping.

i think the subsidised childcare (now from 9 months) is far more significant in encouraging women to have children because it’s childcare costs rather than maternity pay which is the bigger hit and goes on for much longer.

9 months of SMP really isn’t bad - no one is forced to take a whole year out of the workplace. As already said, the child has another parent too who is likely to be earning more than the state pension so that’s a bizarre comparison to make.

I agree - there has been a large amount of rhetoric along the ‘don’t have kids if you can’t afford them’ - well that’s what people are doing and now the birth rate is dropping. So if you want to do something about that, you need to sort out the financial element. Although I think there are other reasons that people are waiting longer or opting out altogether

Many pensioners are single and have no choice other than to survive on a pension. Most couples make a decision to have a child based upon their finances and either have savings or one of them earning a good income. A lot of women will also have an enhanced maternity package and opt for a job especially to benefit from it.

The circumstances are completely different. Being old isn’t a choice; having a baby is.

Many dsabled people get less than SMP

You can for the most part, plan and save for time off for pregnancy

‘Being old isn’t a choice, having a baby is’

But if no one has babies there will be no workers to pay pensions when we are old. There is a panic happening in western countries now due to the declining birth rate and people opting out of having children as it will cause a massive issue in a few decades time.

Many couples do not have a sufficient income to save or for the higher earner to cover the drop in earnings. Lots and lots of jobs have nothing approaching an ‘enhanced maternity package’. Lots of jobs have nothing approaching maternity package whatsoever.

Whether we like it or not, only middle class couples having babies isn’t good for society.

Loads of pensioners aren’t entitled to the full state pension. You only get it if you have paid in 35 years’ worth of contributions.

Yes but then they would be entitled to pension credit which boosts it to almost state pension level (unless they have a lot of savings).

A bit misleading ... SMP is 90% of normal pay for first 6 weeks, plus Mum's can do KIT days, take paid holiday during last 13 weeks if they wish to. They will also almost certainly get tax rebates and potentially child benefit.
We saved very hard before having a baby, it's what people do.
I agree though that SMP is very low. The problem is that the government coffers are not a bottomless pit ... should we raise taxes to.pay for higher SMP, cut benefits???.

I agree with you. And if the argument is that there is a man making enough money, why is CMS so digustingly low and completely unenforceable?

The way women are treated when they have a baby is disgraceful. From the state of NHS maternity services, zero post partum care and then such low maternity pay.

I think future generations will really suffer.

And I disagree that having a baby is a choice like any other life choice. It's a fundamental biological need and function and society needs women to have children. The entire burden falls on the woman and we all know more than one woman left holding the baby all alone.

Maternity leave is always going to be a time-limited period. Women have been saying for years that it’s childcare costs which are the real killer - and this is now pretty heavily subsidised from 9 months old. So a woman can actually go from being paid SMP up to 9 months and then getting a significant chunk of free childcare. Quite rightly imo. I had babies back when mat leave was only 3 months paid and there were no free hours at all - now that was a real killer! I fully support the govt making work more accessible to mums and dads by subsidising childcare but I don’t think there’s any really persuasive argument that making SMP the same as state pension will encourage couples to have a baby

One of many reasons the birth rate is dropping so much.
‘If you can’t afford a baby, don’t have one’……..um ok. Hello ageing population.
And those saying that people can save for a baby. Well pensioners have had their whole lives to save for retirement.

It's much easier to save enough for a few months of maternity leave than it is for years of retirement.

If you've just had a baby you are also eligible for child benefit, which when added to SMP brings you up to more than the state pension anyway.

I agree it’s poor - working mums paying lots of tax to help support them in their moment of need, that moment arrives and then… very limited.

You also pay your usual tax/NI/ pension on it, which for me more or less halves it - about £90 a week!

Has left me querying the enormous amount of tax I pay… my childcare bill for my toddler is more than £90 a day!

But the child benefit is for the extra expenses a child brings, which you wouldn’t have had before. Given the cost of nappies, I doubt it goes far.

Lots of pensioners have only the state pension to live on. Not ll have private pensions hence the government changing the rule to auto enrol. (Although even the you can opt out)

getting old is not an option. You can’t swirl all your life. Having children is a choice and there is already very generous provision compared to many other first world countries

so no I don’t believe more should be paid

If people choose not to have babies (which is what’s happening) there will be no workers to pay for pensions! People need to have babies for humanity to continue, it is not a lifestyle ‘choice’ like having a gym membership or a 5* holiday every year.

Er, no.

It would cost £200 a month to fund a £20k pa pension (on top of state pension) over 45 years, that’s assuming no employer contribution.

A year’s maternity leave costs over £13k for a woman on NMW receiving SMP only. That’s over 5 years of saving £200 a month, and that is per child.

So no, it’s much easier to save for a pension given the enormous amount of time people have to do so, the legally mandated employer contributions and the significant tax incentives offered.

I think one of the issues is who pays. The state pays the pension and the company pays the SMP. Smaller companies would find it really hard. In the past there was a scheme where you could claim back SMP paid if you were a small business but they discontinued that. So now the full cost is born by the employer - which if you only employ a small number of staff and have a low turnover kind of business could put you out of business.
Personally I think under a certain size/profit margin maternity pay should be paid by the state and at a much better rate.

Here we go again. Today's 30-somethings have the worst deal ever, ever and today's pensioners are living the life of luxury after a working life of joy and ease.
The working generation is paying tax to fund today's pensioners, just as they did when they were working. It has always been the same but for some reason it has suddenly become a huge issue and today's workers seen to be under the impression that they have been particularly shafted by doing the same as others have always done.
OP, if it makes you feel any better, you will be paying for my luxurious retirement in 10 years time but I had much worse maternity entitlements, no subsidised childcare and no flexible working and limited workplace pension, so much as younger workers don't want to hear it, they don't have a monopoly on hardship.
And no, we couldn't afford one parent at home as we could not easily afford the 15% mortgage rate on one salary.

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. For some reason pensioners are the only group in society who are not expected to shoulder their fair share of the consequences of difficult economic times. Contrary to what they claim, they have not "paid in" their entire lives, they were taxed to fund the welfare bill that existed at the time, and now the welfare bill is rising, it's completely unfair to expect working adults and children to be suffering disproportionately so pensioners can maintain their standard of living. They should in fact be amongst the first to feel cuts, along with those chronically reliant on unemployment benefits without cause, as over half of pensioners have wealth exceeding half a million, and a quater have assets over one million.

I have no horse in this race however, as I am fortunate enough to not need to consider working or recieving maternity pay while raising children. This shouldn't be an unusual position, as we know it's best for children for them to be raised by their own mothers, for at minimum the first three years of life, and what is the point of society and economic growth if we're deciding as a society that it's acceptable for a six or nine month old baby, who should still ideally be breastfeeding, to be separated from its mother for nine hours a day.

Just on point of correction we have amongst the least generous maternity provision amongst developed countries in terms of pay (discounting the travesty of USA!). We have fairly good provision in terms of leave but not pay. The pay is poor.

You do realise that mandatory auto enrolment only started in 20212, don't you? Up to then, employers were under no obligation to pay into pensions.