Increase in maternity pay- the (yes, you guessed it) Mail's take on it....

[littlelamb]

As if more proof were needed that the Mail is women hating tripe, it's take on the proposed rise in maternity pay ought to do it here

I think it can only be a good thing. I am currently on maternity leave, the final 3 months of which are unpaid, after 9 months of recieving very low pay. I know many who are forced to return to work earlier than they would really want becaus ehtey just cannot make ends meet on maternity pay. But rather than a good thing, this is being played as a burden 'saddled' on the taxpayer and businesses. Nice

well given your current situation i'd hardly class you as objective opinion.
why not state the reason you believe people on maternity leave should receive more money? surely being "forced" back to work is a misnomer.i mean any of us who want a pay check from our employers are "forced" to go to work. and in reality no one is forcing them, they have a choice. one involves going back to work and receiving a pay check, the other involves not being "forced" back to work and not receiving one.

Wow - I hope those proposals come into force.

I'll state the reason I'd like people on maternity leave to receive more money: I don't want to be poor.

I'm 37, educated, in a good job etc and if I'm right, the nation needs women like me to have kids. But I don't want to live on benefits - which is the current level of SMP.

As for the DM saying that the bill would be paid for by 'the taxpayer', that would be the recipients of SMP then wouldn't it, and their partners etc, as well as everybody else.

I've paid tax since I was 16 ffs. I'm not asking for a freebie!

What MorrisZapp said.

As a society we need to show that we value parents and that entails making sure maternity / paternity pay is enough to sustain a reasonable standard of living.

I like these proposals but a good start would be for SMP to be paid for 52 weeks. Women feel they are 'forced' back to work when the SMP ends.

In lots of the discussions about maternity leave and pay there seems to be an assumption that women on maternity have never contributed anything - lots of the 'why should the tax payer have to support them, they chose to have kids' stuff. I would imagine that the vast majority of pregnant women / mothers have paid tax since leaving school / college / uni - same as everyone else.

And without pregnant women, where would all the little taxpayers of the future come from?

Maybe if the government stopped bailing out the fat lazy fuckers in the banks, who couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery with my tax money, there would be more for those who choose a longer Mat leave (Im not one of them), or for those needing NHS treatment.

I really think the taxpayer is 'saddled' with more problems that a bit of extra maternity pay for those who want it.

Well exactly Juwesm.

I'm a teacher and have had to remind some of my less than sypathetic colleagues that if people didn't have children the schools would all be gone in 15 years time and they'd be out of work!

'zactly.

I've got far more urgent concerns about the way that my tax quids get wasted than paying for SMP.

The DM are the first to moan about people on benefits having kids, yet anybody with a job would think twice before going on SMP.

Yay!

I particularly like the picture with the article of smiling, happy pregnant woman, clearly incredibly smug and sniggering at all the money she has just fleeced 'The Taxpayer' out of. I know I sit at home daily rubbing my hands with glee at the thought of my £117 per week!

There's 20 quid child benefit on top of that. Just enough for a litre bottle of gin and a lemon or two.

Quotes from Daily mail comments:

"All these new rules will put businesses off employing women!"

"Good, Pregnancy is not an inevitable consequence of being a woman, given the contraceptives available so why do the rest of us have to support those who do not act responsibly towards their employers and workmates?"

Do people really think like this? So, NOBODY is allowed to get pregnant?

What we need is parental pay, where it is equally accepted for a bloke to take time off to look after his baby.

I saw this yesterday while I was in the newsagents getting my breakfast.
I must admit my first thought was "oh my, where is that money going to come from!" given the economy at the moment.
But, I do agree it is a great thing if it happens, maternity pay sucks. I had my little girl when it was 6mths paid maternity, and was skint by the end of it, and it took some time to get back on our feet when I went back to work.

(and I have a good maternity pay package which was 6 weeks full, 14 weeks half, 6 weeks stat pay, so I can imagine how hard it can be on nearly all the weeks being stat pay)

I have so much to say about that article, and the typical view of daily mail. But, do know, my articulate skills have just been replaced only with [anger], afraid that is all I can say that makes sense!

Oh, and as a taxpayer myself, I have no problems with paying for better maternity payments. We are, afterall, bringing up little future taxpayers ourselves.

I agree with cory....it takes two parents to make a baby, and if these issues were viewed as a joint responsibility, then it would make for a more equitable society all round.

I can also see MayorQuimby's point too though... it's easy to divorce these issues from the reality of the workplace. At the end of the day, all of us who want to receive a pay cheque from our employer have to go to work, whether we are single, coupled, have children or don't have them.

Interesting that of the three comments in response, two are supporting working women etc and one is clearly mad "I would love a paid year off" umm looking after a baby isn't a year off love it's harder work than working by far IME.

So many things about this.

If it went into law I'm sure the govt would foot the bill. There is no way they could pass the additional costs onto businesses, at least not small or medium sized ones. I can't see there would/could be any difference to them.

By far and away the largest employer in the country (the govt - NHS, teachers, civil servants, etc etc) already gives a better deal than this in most cases. As well as quite a few private companies (although I've not been fortunate enough to experience this!).

if employers are disocuraged from hiring women then those women will just have to stay at home on benefits, which will cost the taxpayer even more money. So a bit of a false economy there then. Another reason I believe the govt will foot the bill.

It's a lot of kerfuffle over not much IMO.

I have always thought that the government's focus on extending and extending the paid period of maternity leave (first to six months, then nine and then planned to be extended to 12) missed the vital point that many women cannot afford to live on SMP. From April, this will be £123 per week. That is significantly below the national minimum wage for a full time employee (which no one can really live on anyway, hence the need for all the tax credits, etc). What forces a lot of women back to work is not the end of SMP, but the cumulative effect of months of receiving payments at such a low level.

It seems to me that what will really help the poorest working women, the ones who need it the most and who don't have generous company schemes, will be extending the period of 90% or 100% pay at the start of maternity leave, to at least allow those women that time free of worry. After more breathing space of that sort, surely they are more likely to return to work confident and motivated - hence benefiting the economy through their productivity and the taxes they pay?

It is typical Daily Mail rubbish to suggest that this will put employers off employing women. Some employers are (sadly) already put off, but that is because of the length of maternity leave, not the pay. That much is obvious from the quote from Mark Prisk - who doesn't even refer to the money, just the absence from work. Small employers can recover more than 100% of the cost of SMP from the government, and larger employers approximately 90%. The DM says it is "not clear" if that will still apply". I think what they mean is "we haven't specifically been told it will, so we are going to assume the worst".

As for whether the economy can afford it, firstly it's all relative and the cost is very small compared to, say, bank bailouts. Secondly, it needn't cost that much if you focus on increasing the period that is paid well, rather than just increasing the period that is paid. Thirdly, it is actually the countries which provide for decent social support networks and benefits that seem to be weathering the economic storm the best. The income gap between the richest and the poorest actually seems to make a country cope less well (even leaving aside any moral arguments).

And breathe....

FGS, working women are taxpayers!! This sort if attitude really pisses me off.

Just reading back my post, I didn't mean it was right that the length of maternity leave puts some employers off employing women, just that it was a different debate...

I think the economy long term needs more women to have children to pay for the pensions of our generation. One of the benefits of paying tax is a better society and most people would agree that if a Mum wants to stay at home for a year or so the baby will probably benefit. If you are worried about Tax you could read about the tax avoidance schemes highlighted in the Guardian recently. www.guardian.co.uk/business/taxavoidance

I would prefer the £117 a week statutory maternity pay to be extended to 52 weeks rather than 18 weeks of full salary. That way then far more women would take a year off to be with their babies. Also in someways its easier to employ someone for a year than it is for 18 weeks. I also think there needs to be more help for women who are only entitlted to maternity allowance.

If more governant money would put into providing high quality wrap around care it could free up more opportunities for women. Many women are trapped on benefits because of the high costs of childcare. Or they are stuck in low paid jobs because of lack of childcare.

For example I am stuck in a very low paid job because my son's after school club finishes at 5pm. The reason is that the after school club is not ofsted registered and they are put off by the excessively high costs of registering.