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.

SMP is very sad, realistically unless you plan at the very start of your career how many children you want and try and start to save then for potentially ten years in the future it’s nigh on impossible to save enough for most ordinary people. Plus that’s usually the time people are saving for a house deposit to try and have a more secure living arrangement when children do start arriving. As we all know it’s often not straightforward getting pregnant and perhaps savings are used up for IVF. Younger people are facing more deductions from their pay than older generations previously too - auto enrolment is an important one and student loan is a big one too.

I know lots of women with one child who would love more but financially it’s not possible for them. It’s less about those who don’t want children but enabling those who do want more to be able to have them. I agree there’s an overpopulation issue but god help us in 20/30 years time when numbers entering the workforce are severely reduced compared to huge numbers of pensioners. I suspect by the time I retire the state pension will be means tested, the triple lock will be a distant memory

I think a lot of these threads basically boil down to posters seemingly having a complete inability to empathasise with anyone's circumstances or lifestlye stage other than their own.
They are in the maternity leave years so think this should be an absolute priority to the detrimnent of any other sector of society.
When they are pensioners they will see things differently.

If it's unaffordable, why has a year off becone the norm?
You could go back when your enhancedMP runs out, but most don't.
There are options.

I think people have taken this thread the wrong way - I dont think OP meant money from pensioners should go to MAT pay just used it as a comparison of what needed to live on.

i can’t agree with people saying we don’t need a year off - well maybe need is the wrong word but I think it’s preferable for a parent to do most of the looking after for as long as possible. My mum was able to be a SAHM in a five bed detached on my dad’s mediocre salary.

i feel a bit salty that the choice of being a SAHP is off the table for most average earning people and then having a baby puts you in debt if you haven’t got savings.

god forbid you need those savings to buy a house or something. Or pay for IVF.

it’s a tough one and I do think th government should help families to be families - it’s not the only important thing of course, pensioners, sick pay etc all important.

we have to get out of this ‘it’s us or them’ mindset and try an do what’s right by our society. There might be no magic money tree but working I eduction I’m sure as eggs the government spaff hideous amounts of money on bollocks before they’ll raise smp or something else useful. paying for their subsidised lunches / second homes / bla bla bla

Because a lot of childcare providers won’t take under 1s.

@gototogo out of interest, who looked after your LO when you went back to work?
Did you want to take a year?

I had a hard recovery post birth as it was so traumatic - took 6 months at least. had I been forced back into work I’d have then been on the sick so I’d have been better off haha. But seriously it’s another reasons for mat leave going for longer - I had lots of medical appointments for the year.

This. I get so fed up with the anti-pensioner brigade on MN.

We do, I have saved all my life, by working and paying into the NI scheme and work related pensions. It doesn't just get paid because we are retired, we have earned it by our own hard work.

You can say the same argument about parents to be, many are not living off a pittance, they have an opportunity to save too and have assets and having kids is a life choice.

But for both parents and pensioners, there are those on the breadline and that is wrong. But you can't compare one against the other as the circumstances are totally different. They sit in completely different policy categories, are designed for different life stages, and are funded/justified in different ways. When people mash them together, the debate just becomes emotional rather than logical.

• Becoming a parent is voluntary.
• Reaching retirement age is universal and unavoidable.

Public policy treats unavoidable life stages differently from chosen ones. That’s why pensions are structured as a universal entitlement, whereas maternity pay is conditional on employment history.

• State pension is based on National Insurance contributions over decades.
• Private pensions are built through personal saving and employer contributions.

It’s not a “gift” or a freebie — it’s deferred income.

This “current wealthiest age group” is a misleading and attention grabbing.
There are some wealthier pensioners — often because of property booms or generous final‑salary schemes that no longer exist.
But there are also:

• Pensioners living solely on the basic state pension
• People with no private pension
• Older people in fuel poverty
• Carers who never built up NI credits

Likewise, there are new parents who are financially comfortable and others who are struggling.

Both groups contain people on the breadline. That’s why comparing them as if they’re homogenous “rich vs poor” blocks is flawed.

And what most seem to overlook is that the purpose of the payments is different:

State Pension

• Replaces income after a lifetime of work and potentially several stints on maternity pay
• Universal, predictable, long‑term
• Designed to prevent poverty in old age (and it clearly fails in that respect for many)
• Retirement is not optional for many - if you have a hard physical job as say a labourer, you can't sustain that in older age.
• How many women say they don't want to be older mothers so they have the energy to look after their children - newsflash that applies to all areas of life for pensioners, many do not have the energy or physical health.

Statutory Maternity Pay

• Short‑term support during a temporary work absence
• Not meant to replace full income
• Designed to protect employment, not fund parenthood

They’re structurally different tools.

Now if you had framed your argument as “families need more support,” that’s a different debate - And it’s a fair one.

But it should be framed as:

• childcare affordability
• cost of living for young families
• parental leave reform
• employer responsibilities

Not as “make maternity pay equal to pensions.”

That’s like saying “raise disability benefits to match student loans” — the categories don’t map onto each other.

Agree. It's really odd! It's a universal benefit. We will all receive it. I cannot for the life of me understand the level of stupid you have to be to want pensioners to have less when they will be one sooner or later.

Yes, women have been giving birth for thousands of years unless you are giving birth to the Messiah it is not some sacrifice it is a choice, we get told constantly womens sole purpose in life is to have children like it is some miracle and everyone should worship them just for shagging and producing a child

Yes - we can get the money from the magic money tree.

Many pensioners have paid off their mortgage

I would make Maternity and Parental benefits substantially better than they are now, but only for one child. Anything more and you pay for it yourself.

The government are planning to spend a shit load of our money on arms, so they’ll be looking to make us pay for that somehow or other. Not that we got a say in it.

I generally agree that this country has prioritized pensioners over the young and this is reflected in the amount we spend on older people rather than encouraging people to have children and providing well for children. It’s an unfortunate byproduct of the fact that pensioners vote. It would be much bettter for the country if they reduced pension spending and increased spending on encouraging births and education.

There are surplus humans in the planet already. Far, far too many of them. We don’t need more of them.
Also if predictions are correct about 80% of white collar work will be replaced by AI in the next 10-20 years meaning those ‘workers’ you are all considerately churning out will become another burden on the welfare state.
I pay more tax per year than many people would pay in a lifetime. I paid more last year than my pensioned parents paid in a lifetime but it’s all they have to live on. Some kind of reform is needed including assisted dying and means tested pensions/benefits and dissuading births.

Most of the pensioners also had children. No free child care and smp was 18 weeks.

It comes down to whether you believe having a baby is good for society or a personal lifestyle choice. The world really doesn't need more human beings.
I chose to have one child and to save up the money necessary to keep me and ds until I returned to work. I took a mortgage holiday.

Let's be honest, babies are expensive and long term. If you have insufficient funds to cover such a short period, should you really be having a baby you can't provide for?

Err, today’s young will have less as pensioners, for one thing the age you qualify has increased despite no change in healthy life expectancy.

Healthy life expectancy has increased significantly since the state pension was introduced in 1908. It has only stalled very recently.

I'm 62 and was originally told I could retire at 60. However, I've looked after my health, and am far fitter than my dm was at my age. I am perfectly capable of working longer than she did. Lifestyles have changed since the 70s. I find the extended work years sensible.

Sorry that's nonsense. Most nurseries have a baby room.
Most women don't WANT to go back before a year (some think they should get more) which is fine, but you can't expect to be paid for basically having months off work.

So how do you know that?
I know it fits the current rhetoric of your generation being shafted for your entire lives but you are stating with such certainty something you have no idea will happen.
On one hand, MN is convinced pensioners are untouchable and no govenment would dare even tackle triple lock yet on the other hand everyone under 40 is convinced they will not get a pension. Which is it?

A lot of people can't, hence very low birth rates. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the OP, but there is not much incentive to have children and this has an impact on things like the ability to pay pensions.

I agree with you.

I would start subsidised child care later - at one year - and increase and lengthen the SMP to one year.
My reasoning is that, from my observation, many babies love being cared for by their own parents.

Then parents have a real choice to design their baby's care to suit what the their child would prefer rather than to suit parents' or society's need for workers.