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.

Why are you talking about saving £13K? We're talking about the difference between £230.25 and £187.18 which is (does maths in head) £43.07 per week that you need to save to bring up to the state pension level when you are receiving SMP. if you take 6 months at SMP that's about £1000 you need to save. Which is 5 months based on your £200 saving. Or 10 months at £100.

£200 a month over 45 years seems very low for a £20K pension as well. Unless you are assuming very high growth.

What are you talking about, most people over 66 are capable of putting their own clothes/layers on.

Hmm… this has proven an interesting topic for discussion.

My situation is that I earn well but I have always wanted to be a mum above anything else. My entire motivation in my career has been to build a nice life to bring children into. I have saved astutely for subsidising SMP and the unpaid time following.

Now that I have my first baby I want nothing more than time with her. More money would be great and possibly the difference between me having 2 or 3, but what I really want is to be able to extend my mat leave and keep my role and contract. Unfortunately my workplace takes any opportunity at the moment to change contracts to temporary if they are broken and extending mat leave would break it. They are trying to future proof against redundancies.

As is, I’ll go back after a year and earn more money than I would otherwise, possibly funding a third mat leave if my biological clock allows.

I don’t really care for funded childcare hours as I would rather be caring for her myself.

So babies can cope by wearing layers, but elderly people cannot?

I see…

Yes, pensioners are both totally incapable of looking after themselves, and also absolutely right about everything. Didn’t you know?!

Schrödinger’s pensioner

I’m amazed at how some people completely patronise the elderly and treat them like infants. I would hate to be treated so. Pensioners are currently people over 66 and according to a PP they are incapable of putting on layers unless they have someone looking after them. Or, presumably, of verbalising things such as ‘I’m cold’.

Obviously babies can’t tell anyone if they’re cold.

Pensioners have had at least 45 years to plan for their retirement, Parents may have had between 5 and 10 years. How can this be compared?
It is much harder for young families now than in the past, I am old so I should know!

There are a lot of people not working in the UK or working part time, lots aren’t by choice especially part time work with zero hours contracts.
I saved for my mat leave, as I said to DH if we can’t save now, we have no chance once baby is here. Because children are bloody expensive.
The people I know not having children is because they haven’t found a partner yet, not because they don’t want them.

They also increased the number of weeks of maternity leave, it was 29 when my dc were born. I’d support a higher rate but for less weeks choosing a longer maternity leave is a choice

Exactly the same feeling. Besides even with funded hours, it’s still thousands of pounds for childcare. Most of them are term time only also.

Most of my areas provisions are over subscribed or closed down so I’m staying home when I have my second because it’s nearly impossible for me to continue my work. I’d welcome more unpaid leave for parents but with job security like Germany have. I think we’d actually see more couples saving for this rather than spending thousands on nurseries every month (that’s an opinion not a fact).

I empathise on why our birth rate is 1.4 per woman now based on the way we all have to live now. It’s becoming nearly impossible for middle earners to have kids. The reason our population has grown is immigration, not birth rates.

The unpalatable truth is that childcare is too expensive for many families, Back in the day many mothers of young children didn’t work. This was possible because the cost of living was lower but the flip side was they had no financial independence, so now women are looking at the options and choosing childlessness.
This will be a demographic disaster if we don’t offer incentives to young families.

Not to be pedantic but when you have a baby and young children generally, the advice is to keep your house at between 16 and 20 degrees as they can get very sick when cold. Having a winter baby cost me a fortune in heating even keeping it on low whereas previously we just bundled ourselves up.

So both sides need to be in an optimal temperature environment because both are vulnerable.

This is absolutely the truth of the issue.

Retirement lasts for a lot longer that maternity leave.

I think a big factor in very high birth rate countries is pensions, or rather lack of them. In the countries you've names there's a tradition of children working and bringing money into the family as soon as they're able. Young people in these countries are under great pressure to financially support their parents. So in both high and low, birth rate countries, bottom line, it's all about the money.

Hungary offer mothers of 3 children(I think they’re lowering it to two in the future) NO income tax for the rest of their life as an incentive to have children. Lots of countries are realising there’s a massive demographic issue in 2 decades if they don’t act now.

Yup, Germany was on my mind. A friend had her baby there two months after me and has her job protected for 3 years!!!

This also reduces the cost of childcare (absolute, not to the parents as it is heavily subsidised) as the older the children, the higher the ratios.

The two things are completely unrelated. Of course they shouldn’t be linked together what a ridiculous thing to say.

But they have still had to contribute for the 35 + years and having a baby is optional, retiring isn't really.

I agree maternity pay isn't much but you can save to cover it but comparing it to pensioners is stupid. What if a pensioner never had kids, do they get a higher pension as they will have no elder support and haven't used state resources for their kids and haven't had child benefit etc. If you are on a low income with a kid you can get benefit to top it up.

Pensioners live on a pittance and don't have an opportunity to top it up with overtime etc.

I will agree maternity pay is poor but comparing it to pensioners is just naff.

I agree SMP is low but no country has boosted the birth rate once it falls below replacement rate.

As a pp said the message was “don’t have dc if you can’t afford them” although not sure why this didn’t apply to previous generations. People listened.

Housing is more expensive now for sure but just about everything else - food, fuel, heating is cheaper as a proportion of household income than it used to be.
Our mothers (i am 59) could afford to stay at home because they basically spent nothing. If my mum expected to drive her own newish car and spend money every week on entertaining us at soft play, farms, role play cafes, cinemas, swimming, lunches out and all the other things that have become standard, she would not have been able to stay at home either. It's lifestyle creep that is the real issue.
There is,a thread running at the moment about entertainng kids at half term and one a few weeks ago about how much was reasonable 'pocket money' for a SAHM ( A minimum of £500 a month apparently).
That is not the lifestyle i had with a sahm but that's the reason my parents could afford it.

But they have still had to contribute for the 35 + years and having a baby is optional, retiring isn't really.

The 35 yr contributions hasn’t always been the case & you don’t need contributions for pension credit. Plus the vast majority won’t have paid enough tax for years of a state pension.

Pensioners live on a pittance.

Some do, not all. The pensions available for younger people are less generous

This will be a demographic disaster if we don’t offer incentives to young families

The demographics are already fucked.

Lots of pensioners are not living on pittance. The current wealthiest age group (median household wealth) in the UK are those between 65 and 74, with those 74 and above in 3rd place, only just behind those aged 55-64 and considerably ahead of those aged 25-44.

State resources for children aren’t provided out of generosity as a gift to parents. They are provided to equip the next generation with the ability to work and hence become tax payers themselves. State pensions is part of the welfare system as well.

And as has been mentioned upthread, why is the expectation for people to save hard for maternity leave but not for their retirement?

And, given both the excellent health of a lot of people in their 60s and 70s, combined with the generosity a lot of current private pensions (the likes of which will never be seen again) offer, I think there is a significant argument that retirement is actually optional for a lot of people in their 60s. Lots could continue working.