Why is maternity leave from work 1 year but from UC it is 2 years?

[Bucdynovehbkfdg]

this isn’t a benefit bashing thread, I believe that people should claim what they’re entitled too. I just don’t understand why all mothered aren’t entitled to the same amount of time off with their children.

I’m currently on maternity leave, and obviously we have up to a year off work.

i was just wondering why parents in UC don’t have to look for work until their baby is 2?

But why doesn’t the government make maternity leave 2 years, so that all mums can spend an equal time with their children before returning to work?

there’s 30 free hours from 9 months now, so there’s really no excuse mums of UC to not have to look for work at age 1, the age when working mums return to work by?

Obviously I know it would differ between SMP/OMP/unpaid part of mat leave, but even if the extra year was unpaid some working mums would be able to take it!

it makes no sense to tax a means tested benefit. Your eligibility is based on your existing income after tax, therefore anyone eligible is going to be a low earner. If you then tax the benefit, (yes, even if the amount they get takes them over the tax threshold) you are defeating the purpose of benefit - to help those who for whatever reason aren’t earning enough to live on.

non means tested benefits are usually taxed, and should be, because high earners who can afford to pay tax get them as well as lower earners.

Except that this is not necessarily true that people are low earners ! there was a thread on here a few weeks ago where someone's partner earned something like 64 K and they were still eligible for UC due to rent and childcare costs.

There's a fairly basic fundamental difference between one situation and the other. On UC it is just the mother, and state basic support. For a worker, it is forcing an economic impact on a private business to hold a job open for 2+ years and all the extra related costs on top of that. Scale this up to a country, and the total impact is substantially greater than a parent not looking for work for a bit longer.

There are other considerations. Someone coming out of UC is highly likely to be a lower earner (even if only at first). The state subsidises child care to a huge degree, it probably costs more to get them a job faster than it saves getting them off UC. They are much more likely to be single parents (not all of course, but more likely), and barely adjusted for working themselves if at all. Throwing into work too quickly is potentially more damaging all around to child and parent than for most in work who have part of it down.

It's the practical reality of running a country and balancing everything. Not making decisions for ideals with no regards to that practical impact, because it would be nicer to do it that way. There's lots of things that would be nicer, but just can't be done in that way or to that extent because reality gets in the way.

Yes some might get thousands but would you want the disabled children or their disabilities? We are applying for DLA and then that will lead to disabled child rate and we will more comfortable.I would rather have a neurotypical child!

My second post said that I was specifically not talking about carers and/or disabled children. If anything I think they should have twice as much money as they have now, especially for those who are profoundly disabled and will never live independently!

What? Your employer wouldn’t pay for this. Why don’t you educate yourself?

In that case the issue is that the method used for the means testing is flawed, not that the means tested benefit isn’t taxed.

but a cry of “We Need More Appropriate Methods of Means Testing” won’t get as much support as “Benefits Should be Taxed!” because most people like simple ideas that appeal to their emotions.

maternity leave does have costs for employers as I posted earlier .

You could also educate yourself (ETA) if you think that employers are entirely unaffected by women on maternity leave

Universal credit isn't means tested. Well it is for savings, but only savings.

You can apply for universal credit if you earn £1m a year as long as you don't have any savings etc (obviously theres no chance someone with that money would have no savings or property, its just for the example). You would get £0 every month, but you could waste your time and do it.

Every £1 you earn over a certain amount, reduces your benefit entitlement by 55p. In areas with high costs, it is possible for the amount this reduction goes down by to be less than what you can apply for even if you earn a decent amount.

And fixing this isn't simple, the taper system has huge advantages, and fixing the negatives has problems without making effective tax rates insane, or making people trapped unable to progress because the next promotion and pay rise will reduce their finances beyond what they can do.

Thank you for explaining. I didn’t know all that - I assumed it was means-tested on income like other means-tested benefits.

Yes I’m sure it is complicated to fix as these things often are.

Of course it's means tested. Anyone can apply. Anyone earning enough won't be eligible. 6 months (ish) of a £0 award closes your account.

Pretty sure you wouldn't be entitled to UC if you earned that much a year.

They are different things.
A new mum in a job is on ML, is on leave and has protections.
A new mum on UC is not in work and is not on ML. Having a baby turned her work search requirements off.

A mum on ML will still have her job at the end of the leave.
A mum on UC will be joining the pool of job searchers, pressure from the Job Centre, and subject to sanctions.

Feel free to leave your job and go on UC.

Do you not think working mothers have children who get ill? We don’t suddenly magic support networks out of thin air
what would you do if no UC? Mums with babies all deciding to stay off so not enough tax to fund it?

You wouldn't be entitled to any amount of payment. But your application would be processed, you would have to sign things and have a meeting booked depending on timings, and the amount you should be paid for that month will be properly officially calculated. Then you would be paid £0, and this would end the account. And you could try again pointlessly the next month fresh if you were crazy.

It wasn't really relevant to the overall point, just an example that it isn't the same kind of thing as what people think about with means testing.

You can - wait till your maternity leave ends - resign from your job and claim UC instead - or am I missing something?
I am old enough that we got 5 months SMP and free nursery places did not exist

Well, if they had kids that got ill amd had no childcare or support, they wouldn't be in work would they?
They'd be fired.
You can't pour from an empty pot.
As for taxation, you should look at more appropriate places to find it,
The mega rich perhaps?
The corporations?
What on earth do you want from mothers with 1 year olds with no appropriate childcare?

Who says Mothers on UC don't have a partner or support system around them? If there's free funding for childcare available from when their child is 9 months old then those claiming UC should be looking to work to support their new family. Why have a baby if you can't afford to look after it yourself without relying on others working to fund your choice?
Yes it should be equal that all new Mums get the same time off after having a baby regardless whether you work or claim benefits. It's a lot harder for working Mums to organise their life than a Mum who's at home all day with time to take baby to clinic appointments, playgroups etc. Working Mums have it a lot harder so having 2 years off should be the norm if that's what benefit Mums get.

Because an employer is bearing some burden from it. The taxpayer is bearing all the burden from another.

It may actually be more practical. My nhs team can only advertise for mat leave cover once person has been off for 4 months, and then to start after 6 months, as we don't have budget to pay mat pay and a replacement. So contracts end up up being 6 months fixed term and hard to fill. If it was an 18 month contract then would be much easier to get cover, or we could work it differently, such as a part time cover for a full time post for whole 2 years, so we aren't exhausted covering a full time post for up to a year amongst a small team.

Who is going to pay for this second year or maternity leave?

Well ironically it would probably put more women on UC. Small companies especially struggle to cover someone’s mat leave of up to a year - how many women of child bearing age are going to find themselves ‘unsuccessful’ at interview if it was doubled? Plus who lauds for it?

The only fair way is for UC to allow up to one year.

And with the increased demands for period leave, for special concessions made for menopausal women because we are all perceived to have brain fog and generally be a bit useless, doubling mat leave just makes us look useless!