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.

One of the most beneficial things you can do for a society is invest in maternity and early years. The first 1001 days are critical for predicting future outcomes.

Women need time to heal physically and emotionally from becoming a mother, babies need to be with their primary caregiver, not in nursery from 6m old. Protecting and supporting breastfeeding would create future health savings in the millions. This isn't about mums affording a "jolly" for 12m, this is about supporting research backed, crucial life periods that can and do have massive impacts on outcomes.

We're absolutely terrible at family friendly policies.

No generation has ever suffered as much as today's young parens, you must remember that.
Negative equity, massive mortgage rate hikes, inflexible jobs, poor maternity leave and pay, no subsidised childcare, no paternity rights are all airily brushed aside because house prices. There seems to be a complete inability to understand that their hardship is in no way unique and they will get oldvthemselves one day. It's like turkeys voting fir Christmas.
This generation will probably be on MN in 30 years time arguing that pensions should be better. I di hope their children will put them back in their boxes. 😂

Meant to quote this. Not myself!

I dont understand refusing to accept that pensioners depend on the current workforce wanting to continue the system. I have contributed to an NI scheme my whole working life - around 30 years to date and will be heavily reliant on there being a state pension to not starve. But i know there is no fund put by and I will totally depend on the generation following me.

I think the best way to ensure that system continues is to listen to younger peoples concerns. If young people are saying they'd like slightly better SMP then its worth looking at.

People are much more inclined to support systems that also supports them.

If they are left supporting me retiring at 68, being told they cant retire to 72 and me getting a bus pass, but them being told that scheme ends, and me getting winter fuel, and them told they arent cutting their cloth to afford that baby, i'd actually be expecting them to feel disenfranchised from the system too and less supportive of it.

The only thing younger people need remember is its not a shock that people who have been alive longer have the most wealth. Its obvious that if you spend your 45-50 year working life putting some you are going to hit peak wealth wealth just as you stop working. It would be odd for people just starting out to be equally wealthy.

You problems are different. That's all.
There is nothing special about suffering financially when you have a young family. These are your most expensive years and always have been.

Well, I haven't said that actually, all my comments have been about whether we should be concerned about falling birth rates.

But now you ask, it's an interesting question, isn't it? Who sets these things? How do they decide how much money a pensioner needs? Or how much support a mother-to-be needs?

I think it's a very interesting debate. What does it say about our priorities as a society?

But that is what the OP is proposing, that SMP should be the same as SP and they serve two totally different purposes so I just don't get the comparison. SMP is voluntary (and I am not minimising the importance) where as most people have no viable option but to retire. You have an opportunity to financially recover after SMP, whereas pensioners are stuck on that income. The two are just two totally different and unrelatable subjects.

Have a discussion about improving new parents financial lot - fine, but lots of posters here are in effect saying pensioners get too much money. Well I beg to differ, just like there are some parents who have great incomes and can sail through maternity leave without any financial issues, there are many some pensioners who are very well off. But the reality is that there are also a significant number in both groups who have real financial issues. Many pensioners are in fuel poverty, and yeah they may be sat on an asset (their home) that they have worked for all their lives, but it doesn't help if they are cash poor and can't afford to heat it. This is a permanent position whereas you can return to work after maternity to alleviate things.

Both are difficult situations and need addressing but nit at the expense of each other as they are totally different issues.

They didn't contribute to their pension though so makes no difference.

Then if they didn’t have enough NI contributions they won’t get the full state pension.

So a saving to the tax payer while free childcare is a cost.

And many do!

Hmmm and who will fund that - tax payers? With what money exactly 🙈😅never gonna happen.

Well, my mother is 97.
She worked for around 10 years before I was born, and was a SAHM for 30 years.
She has received state pension for 37 years (and she gets almost the same as I do and I have full NIC).

The paltry NI contributions she made between 1948 and 1958 don't even touch the sides of the pension benefit she has received from the state.

The problem is, we are all living too long. Many of us will draw state pension for as many years as we worked. Think about it - there's no way your NI contributions cover that cost.

Whereas SMP is paid for 9 months. Even free childcare only applies for a few years

You do "earn" SMP by your definition though because you need to be working for a set amount of time to qualify and earn above a certain salary. Same as state pension. You don't get it if you're not working. It has a shorter qualifying time sure, but you're also off for a shorter time and expected to return to work and contribute again. And some companies may choose to top it up, but that's market forces in action to attract people to certain jobs, like they contribute differently to private pensions, and a lot still do not offer anything extra. The social contract is: You go to work and we'll protect you when you have children which we need for our country's future.

Also with pensions the government can just change the policy at any moment, so future generations can "pay their due" as such and policy can just be changed. Obviously it's unlikely to be removed, but in theory they could just stop offering it regardless of years of contributions. You haven't signed a contract for specific things like with your mortgage so it's quite different.

I believe people deserve the right to a good pension, and the right to good pay on maternity leave.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here?

Women her age at that time lost their jobs when they became pregnant.

What is it you think should happen to the older generation who raised families or worked for 40 years?

We should let them starve?

Why is it that having a family is positioned as a personal lifestyle choice now, but was viewed as necessary public service in the past?

9 months is 5 more months than we got and the free childcare was zero compared to almost 5 years.

It’s always been a personal choice.

I don’t think it was that having a family was viewed as necessary public service in the past. It was more that, in the absence of reliable contraception, women didn’t have much choice in the matter if they married.

So in that case, a woman who has paid decades of income tax and NICs shouldn’t expect reasonable support when on mat leave, but a woman who has never have worked, should expect reasonable support as a pensioner.

It sounds like it’s not really about contribution or work at all.

Yeah I will accept that, but my point was in defence of the fact that the state pension is a deferred income born out of a life of work, where as the poster I was replying to, said it wasn't.

But my point is also that you don't have to work for your entire life to get SMP so it make sense SP will be at a higher rate.

If the argument was that people on maternity leave needed more support, I would have no argument but comparing it to SP is just not comparable and there is a lot of pensioner bashing going on here (not you) and there is no need to take one section of society down to raise another.

Yes, I agree, but getting married was generally a choice.

All I’m trying to say that the brick wall argument that children are a lifestyle choice should be applied evenly. If the view is that people should only have children if they can afford to fully support their family without state intervention, then why shouldn’t we question why we are paying SP for decades for people who have never worked?

Seems a bit unfair to me.

What’s that got to with having children being a personal choice?

What age are these women who work decades before having a baby?

Do what do you we should do with our parents when they old?

Carers allowance is currently £83.30 a week

With a cap that a person can only earn £196 per week.

National Insurance contributions are paid.

Maternity pays more than this

Carers is a pitiful amount of pay

I think some posters let their bitterness stand in the way of logic tbh.
Women who are in paid employment should be funded more generously to allow them to take more time off work temporarily, whereas women whose options were completely different should not be paid anything.
Where's the logic in that? How would that work?
Still if it means taking from pensioners to fund today's hard-pressed workers, it's a win-win, no?