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.

Whilst being old isn’t a choice, it’s a predictable outcome of not dying young.

Why didn’t these impoverished pensioners provide for their old age? Given the evidence of average life expectancy in this country, it should hardly have come as a shock that they would need money to fund their retirement. So there were reasons they couldn’t or didn’t earn enough to save. Same as there will be reasons some new parents find it hard to get by on SMP.

I thoroughly agree with the OP. The pension has been bloated by the triple lock, at a direct cost to the younger generation who now can’t afford to reproduce.

And state pensions reflect that. Currently £1k a month, the state pension covers food, utilities, council tax, clothes & shoes, transport, comms and a (very) small amount for emergencies & leisure.

Because retuning after 9 months is a breeze..

If having a higher fertility rate matters, then we need to improve conditions for mothers, especially new mothers.

DH and I earn roughly the same, so when I went on maternity leave we noticed an almost 50% drop in income, it was hard. When my SIL went on maternity they didn’t feel it as hard because she earns less than half what my brother does, so they still had 2/3s of their usual income, the drop was less. Worse though, I also know people for whom it’s the other way around, the mother is the breadwinner. One friend has only statutory pay and they lost 75% of their usual income. She ended up having to go back to work at 4 months. Because bills are bills, you could have a £1000 mortgage or a £2500 mortgage. But the bank still expects that amount even if you are on maternity (mortgage holidays aside), if your council tax is band D, it doesn’t matter that your income has dropped and it’s less affordable. We looked at additional benefits and, were we renting then our rent would have been covered, but no help because it was a mortgage. We just needed help to make it through. Then when I was back at work there were 5 months when nursery was more than my income. People don’t downsize in order to make it through maternity leave, they haemorrhage their savings or have to go back to work early or go into debt. I don’t know what the answer is though.

YANBU. In the grand scheme of things an extra £45 a week for SMP probably wouldn't be a huge coat either.

Agree in principle but dislike pitting groups against each other. Would prefer equatity across the board. I would like SSP to be the same, and for disabled people to get the same protection during redundancy etc. Pregnant than Screwed has actually done loads to protect protect women and new mums in law and the same, unfortunately, cannot be said for disabled people. But that's not to say I want higher protection for disabled people at the expense of another group iyswim.

So how do you know that?

That healthy life expectancy hasn’t changed for years? Google if you are unsure.

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

How presumptuous, I’m middle aged! What do I have no idea will happen? Pensions are less generous for future generations due to closing final salary etc. The age of retirement for the young is already 68….

Housing which is the big one, far less social housing & far more younger people will be renting in retirement.

Carers Allowance is £83 per week. And to qualify you need to provide care for 30 hours per week. A person who's worked all their life and develops a very serious illness or disability that prevents them working recieves only £140 a week.
If you are looking at disparity between SRP and other benefits, then there are other groups that would need to be considered and levelled up. People will not want to pay the extra taxes this would require.

The idea that you cant possibly think something has gone wrong for young people & young families unless you are young yourself is completely stupid.

No, I don’t believe the government should go out of their way to fund other people’s lifestyle choices. Whether that be maternity or otherwise. It’s a life event that you should plan and prepare for as much as possible. But then I also think people should adequately prepare for their own retirement too.

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.

What about people who can’t have children or are circumstantially childless? You think they should be punished for that by not getting a pension? And the childfree by choice? They have all been paying for the pensions of others via NI?

It's obvious that I wasn't talking about a healthy 66 year old.

Life expectancy has increased. If you are talking specifically about 'healthy life expectancy' that's irrelevant. You're getting paid your pension whether you are healthy or not.

The main key change is that a lot of today's pensioners, particularly the women, will have little or no private/work pension to supplement what the state provides. It was in the 90's I think that auto-enrolment came in. That will ensure that a much larger percentage of the population will have a work pension in addition to what the state provides. So anyone who retires now or in the future should be better off than those in the past. (Unless you didn't work or opted out in which case thats your own silly fault).

Life expectancy has increased. If you are talking specifically about 'healthy life expectancy' that's irrelevant. You're getting paid your pension whether you are healthy or not

Since I mentioned healthy life expectancy I thought it was pretty clear I meant healthy life expectancy.

And it is not irrelevant, when the state pension age moves out you are expected to work for longer. You know all the rhetoric around people of working age who are economically inactive, a significant part of that is because as the state pension age moves out the working age age range increases but it doesn’t mean more of these people can actually work and so instead we see more people having to claim some form of benefits eg disability.

It was in the 90's I think that auto-enrolment came in. That will ensure that a much larger percentage of the population will have a work pension in addition to what the state provides. So anyone who retires now or in the future should be better off than those in the past. (Unless you didn't work or opted out in which case thats your own silly fault).

Why on earth do you think auto enrolment makes future pensioners better off than pensioners today? The schemes are less generous!

It may be nonsense to you, but a lot of nurseries and childminders in my area don’t take before 1. That is when you can actually find a provider because since the funded hours, most have closed down.

“basically months off work” - women helping women again I see. So toxic.

Auto-enrolment was 2012-2018
And if you earn less than 10k you arent auto enrolled. This is an issue for people juggling multiple jobs. I had to argue to be allowed to join a scheme just 3 years ago as I have more than one employer and didnt hit the threshold at any of them. But two employers let me anyway and one held out.

In about 2000, stakeholder pensions were introduced and employers had to offer them to all employees (but not auto enrolled) it was the first time a lot of more junior posts got access to a workplace pension. Again, I was a secretary at this time and i was allowed to join a workplace scheme for the first time. They possibly didnt have to offer them if they had under 5 employees though.

You are presenting a very simplistic view of the state pension system. I don't get anywhere near that amount per week presumably because I'm married. My husband gets even less because he also has a private pension. He could moan because why should he get less when he has paid the same contributions as everyone else (as well as contributions to the private pension scheme run by his employers). He doesn't though because his contributions help others have a basic standard of living.
I know I'm not totally on point, but using £230 as a figure on which to base your argument, is meaningless. I would imagine the number of people who get the full pension are far fewer than those who don't.

The state pension is not reduced because you are married. It is not means tested against a private pension either.

It’s not the answer but save, save, save is probably the best thing to do.

No-one is saying to take the money away from pensioners and we aren't claiming that is what is being said. But that is the point, no-one is saying there should not be more help but comparing themselves to pensioners and what they receive is just totally stupid.

My Mum (born in the late 30's), could not afford to be a stay at home mum, there was no year off, you had your baby and you got back to some type of work. If you were lucky enough to get on the housing ladder (which was rare for working class), you bought a doer upper and had 2nd hand furniture. There was a choice between a car and a home, few could rarely afford both - you just need to be realistic about the income bracket you are comparing with.

There are many pensioners who have worked full lives on low income jobs, with no opportunity to save or acquire assets and they are stuck on basic state pension and can't afford to turn their heating on - this isn't just temporary its permanent so comparing them to maternity leave financing issues, just isn't a relevant comparison.

Both have compelling arguments as to why things should be improved, but comparing like for like is stupid.

I think what you mean is that your dh must be taxed on his state pension because his income along with his private pension reaches above a certain threshold? You don’t get less state pension just because you’ve also paid into a private one - quite rightly!

also unless you are part of an old system, you should be assessed as an individual for state pension. It’s about whether you’ve paid in a full NI record, not whether you’re married or not.

I agree with you though about the basic premise, it makes no sense to compare SMP with a state pension. Maternity leave is by definition a time-limited thing. You can receive SMP for 9 months and then return to work and your salary and also now receive subsidised childcare from 9 months. In my experience, very many mothers choose to take a full year off work which indicates that a) they can afford the additional 13 weeks without SMP and b) they prioritise those extra 13 weeks over returning to work.

Don’t get sick then! I have cancer. Do you know how much ESA I get? £360 per month! 🤣

Don’t qualify for anything else and can’t work because I have too many hospital appointments. My mortgage alone is £1700 a month.

At least maternity leave you can plan and save for and you know it’s temporary.

The irony is without that baby (who is supposedly too poor to be born) the burden of making sure us millennials get a similar pension (we won't) is a burden shouldered by the far smaller pool of our kids who did get to be born.

I don't see why you are making the comparison between the state pension and SMP as they are completely unrelated. The first is paid to people who have paid national insurance for 40 years and have reached an age where they would struggle to keep going in the work place. The second is paid to enable women who have chosen to have a child have a bit more time at home before going back to work. Those who are unable to manage financially get other benefits which top this up. For those with partners on good salaries, a few extra quid would not incentive them to help raise the birthrate.