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.

Yeah, hadn't thought of that. 🙄

It’s incredible but it’s what Governments rely on. Everyone blaming everyone else for their bad decisions.

Divide and conquer.

I think what I am trying to get across is that pensioners receive far, far more from the state than parents do. And that the so-often-seen argument of "I've paid NIC for years, therefore I'm entitled to my pension" doesn't really hold water.

What did you call it? "deferred income". If it was deferred income (ie get your NIC plus interest back) pensioners would be on about £200 a month.

And don't get me started on the costs to the NHS of an aging population, whose longevity and needs were not anticipated when the NHS was created, and who now have to be supported by working age people - who are dwindling in number.

I'd like to live in a society where we don't let anyone starve.

It wasn't the intent of the original post to suggest taking money from pensioners; the question was why do we value pregnant women's needs less? And I still think it's a very interesting question. Of course the answer is (as many have pointed out) that there's no particular reason to compare SMP with state pensions and they are where they are for historical reasons. But if we started from scratch with a blank slate, how would we want to carve up and share out our country's assets between competing groups with different needs and different abilities to support themselves?

I didn’t call it deferred income - that was another poster.

You seem to be dividing pensioners and parents.

Most pensioners are both.

I agree that SMP isn’t great but it’s not the sole source of income the way it is for most pensioners and parents of young children have the opportunity to go to work if they choose but pensioners who are 67 and above either don’t, aren’t fit to or just need some time to not work after working for (in some cases) 50 years.

I personally hate the fact that babies are put into full time nursery at 9 months old. I think it’s a ticking timebomb and it’s unnatural.

I think the money spent on free child care by strangers would be better spent on the parents to allow them to spend more time with their children.

I just don’t think that pensioners should be the ones to bear the burden.

I think what I am trying to get across is that pensioners receive far, far more from the state than parents do
this has got to be absolute rubbish , especially for people who are already pensioners . When they had small children there was child benefit but no child tax credits ( I know that’s now incorporated into UC) no free / reduced cost nursery places etc . Yes the cost of living wasn’t as high but equally wages were a lot lower .

Just in case the penny hasn't dropped yet, all the hard-pressed parents of today will be the pensioners of tomorrow.
So pensioners get more state funding than you NOW but you will get more than parents IN FUTURE.
This has always been the case. A person at the end of their working life is always going to have more disposable income than a person with dependents. It's not rocket science, but I am genuinely curious why today's young parents think they are uniquely placed to demand more money for themselves and less money for pensioners?
Really curious tbh

Can you drill down a bit on the 'far, far more' please?

This “housing ladder” thing. It’s not and shouldn’t be a “ladder”. We (me and my husband) decided when we were engaged that we wanted to buy an old sandstone house with high ceilings, big rooms and original features. So we did. We were 23 and 24. We’re still in it. We weren’t “allowed “ to move in so we didn’t. We moved in on our wedding night.

That was our honeymoon. Our wedding was in the chapel and our reception was in the chapel hall.

It was great.

We had three rooms decorated. The kitchen, bathroom and our bedroom. We had all our pals here for parties IN THE BEDROOM.

The following year we decided that “fuck it, we’re going to France with our friends. The house can wait.”

No harm to young people as it’s a different world now.

But your expectations of expensive weddings, hen nights and stag nights abroad plus deposits for 4 bedroom houses
which are fully furnished etc are unbelievable, yet you begrudge us getting a pittance of a pension.

I didn’t say that , that was quote from @MrsJeanLuc which I responded to by saying it is rubbish , so @MrsJeanLuc is the person to direct your question to .

You are right, I am not having much luck with the quote button today. Apologies.

And no one is denying that younger people don't contribute to the system that funds pensions but its a pay it forward system so their kids will fund their pensions but the people on the receiving end of those pension payments have paid it into the system for their parents, its not a freebie.

I'm happy to listen to younger people explaining their difficulties but we don't need to stigmatise one group in society to prove their point. It demeaning and unfair and a very unreasonable comparison.

Every generation has had a tough time in specific areas, its just different problems and it will be never ending as expectations change. The OP tries to pit us against each other by comparing SMP and SP, that is stupid. By all means explain their struggles and how we can help change things but don't rob Peter to pay Paul, its unfair.

I'll take that and raise you 'most families could afford to have a parent at home' that raises its head in every thread like this.
Putting aside the fact that 'most' families could not afford to have a parent at home, I will accept that more did than now.
However ... as I have said before, the expectations and lifestyle of today's families bear absolutely no relation to the lifestyle of families in the past when mothers were at home.
Anecdotal evidence of lifestyle creep is all over MN. Just in the last week there has been a thread from a poster convinced there was nothing more she could do to bring her heating costs down (clue: turn it off overnight). My favourite one was about how much 'pocket money' a SAHM should expect (£500 a month minimum evidently, although one poster could not manage on less than £1,500).
Both of these things are so off-the-scale different to my SAHM's reality and expectations it's mind-boggling.
If my mum expected £500 pocket money, a nearly-new car and petrol, cash to entertain us with soft play, farms, lunches out, cinema visits etc on random days (ie not a birthday treat) and all of the many other things that seem to constitute being just above the poverty line now, she would not have been able to stay at home either.

Agree! It’s comparing apples with oranges. I have two children, I wanted more, but couldn’t afford it. I am in the house I bought when I got married. My dining room table and sideboard are 35 years old - still gorgeous btw, my living room coffee table, lamp table, tv unit and hi fi unit are 31 years old - again still lovely.

We took out children abroad about 8 times and holidayed in Scotland every other year.

We have always had one car and our sons shared a bedroom - a massive one tbh but it was the making of them. They had to negotiate with each other who had their gfs here on what night, plus they are really close and are like a comedy double act.

Both are professionals and high earners.

But I’m apparently “lucky” to have no mortgage, having worked part time for 12 years when my children were small, never claiming free child care, getting 12 weeks maternity leave for both of them and taking a hit on my private pension because my 12 years were converted to 6.

Lucky me.

Now they are moaning that in 5 years time I can claim a pension that I signed up at 18 years old to receive when I was 60 but for some reason can’t get until I’m 67.

And WE’RE the problem? 🤣

The basic state pension is less than that. Maybe a better starting point would be to equalise pensions?

I dont think it follows that suggesting SMP is the same weekly rate as pension means they are pitted against each other or that we should reduce pension to pay SMP. I took it at face value that the pension is seen as a very basic income and wouldn't it be good to give new mums a basic income. I thought the link was NI, because maternity allowance is a contributory benefit, and SMP is claimed back by an employer through their NI bill.

The idea of pay it forward and your kids will fund your pension isnt working already. The people retired now mainly had a ratio of 4 workers to 1 pensioner. The people paying today's pensions are doing so at a ratio of 3:1 and when I retire its meant to be 2:1. I cant reasonably expect no changes. I've already had to accept retiring 8 years later than my mum for instance. I've no doubt further changes will come.

Im very keen to listen to the young and ensure they feel bought into society so I still get something!

It's ok, I saw the question 😀
Oof, it's a hard one - you are making me think!

My reasoning is this:

Pension is roughly £1000 a month (yes, some people get more than that and some get less) but for illustrative purposes let's say £1000.
With pension age at 66 (soon to be 67 I think?) and current life expectancy, on average people will receive it for at least 20 years.
So we have 20 years x 12 months = 240 months x £1000. Multiplied by 2 (because most families have two parents)

Parents here I mean support given to families raising children, so SMP, Child Benefit, free nursery places (is there anything else I've missed?).
SMP = about £800 a month for 9 months per child, so let's say our mythical family has 2 children then that's £800 x 18 months.
Child Benefit is around £100 a month (less for the second child) so, say £180 a month for 18 years x 2. So that's 18 x 12 = 216 months x £180
Free nursery places 30 hours a week. How much is that worth? £250-£300 a week???. So 4 years, say, x 2 children would be worth 4 x 12 x 2 = (nearly) 100 months x £1200 say.

So on pensions we have 20 years x 12 months x 2 people x £1000 = £480,000

For parents we have:
SMP = 18 months x £800 = £14,400
Child Benefit = 216 months x £180 = £38,880
Free nursery places = 100 months x £1200 = £120,000
Total £173,289

I'm sure you (I mean people) can pick holes in my analysis, but the huge disparity is clear, surely?

I should also say it's not my intention to "pit young families against pensioners". I'm just presenting numbers. Nor am I saying that pensioners get too much. I am saying that as a society we should be aware of issues like this and be able to have informed discussion about what it means for different sectors of our society.

But the parents of today will get the pensions too, will they not? It's a life stage we all reach, regardless of what's gone before.
And just as I have no doubt posters will say yes but we won't get a pension when we grow old (as has become MN accepted wisdom with no basis whatsoever) I would say that today's pensioners have not had all the cash that today's families get when they were younger.
You get what's on offer at the time you reach the life stage it's available.
Where things seem to have changed is that today's younger people want what their parents are getting and can't seem to understand they can't have it.
Thanks for your reasoned response - I am not sure it proves that pensioners get 'much, much more' though

I'm in the same situation as you. The pension is a basic living rate for those that have retired, its a different situation to those on SMP. I don't see why they should be on SMP at the same rate as pensioners as this is a permanent situation for pensioners that they had contributed to for 40 yrs give or take, where as for those on SMP, its transitory and no where near the same contributions have been paid. The rate for pensioners reflects that this is there remaining lifelong income, for SMP its temporary (and optional) and so they have a reasonable expectation of their monies going back up when they return to work, pensioners do not. And lets not forget that many pensioners do not live to get that money or don't live that long and that's going to get more common.

Sadly people on here ARE pensioner bashing and its not fair. Saying how tough the youth have it but each generation has had its own battles, different stories but same end result, not enough money..

Of course some pensioners will have more money, they have been working towards this all their life, but also some will not have had the income to work towards it all their life and they will have an impoverished retirement.

And I do take the predicament of the youth and the rising cost of living into account as we have provided elder care and help fund our kids house purchases and many grandparents babysit for free. That comes out of our retirement money so we do appreciate the issues but its not their battle alone as it does affect us too.

I just ask that when discussing this, we compare like for like or simply advocate for a better income for those on SMP - there is a fair independent argument to be had without elder bashing.

But SMP is optional and transitory, retirement is not and there is no expectation of being able to buy that new fridge or fix the roof when you are back at work. Also pensioners have paid towards this for 40+years of their lives? They are for two totally different things.

Each child someone has will drain resources such as medical care education etc so it’s not as simple as have loads of babies to boost the future economy.
Most ppl will take out far more than they put in so a declining birth rate will be much better for our population and planet.

Putting a 9 month old I. Nursery with strangers diabolical.

No it isn’t. Stop trying to guilt trip working mothers. That’s what’s “diabolical”.

They are professionals, and you get to know them - so then they aren’t strangers!

My second child will go to the same nursery as my first (still too young to be attending) and I know all the staff well (it’s why we use the nursery - the staff are brilliant).

The baby room staff all come to see the baby when I come in, one has already said she will be the baby’s key worker when they start etc.

I am not remotely concerned about the level of care they will receive - and no, I wont feel guilty for going back to work.

There is nothing wrong with the choice to put a 9 month old in a nursery where everyone is DBS checked, all have safeguarding training, first aid trained staff. Strangers on day 1 maybe but fully vetted ones. Not strangers by the end of the first week. Thousands of kids go to nursery at 12 months so stop trying to guilt trip for some making the financial or career decision go do this a few months earlier.

sMP is much better in the U.K. than lots of countries..,,i went back to work when my 3 were 13 weeks ( I’m 61) ..,that’s the way it was….didn’t put people off having babies then…and it won’t now