We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Who would hire a woman worker - Maternity pay to Treble !
Comments
-
Once again someone forgetting that women who go on maternity leave have probably contributed tens of thousands of pounds in tax.
Not the ones I've come across.
I think that you find that the 2nd time the person in question was more than likely required to pay back any money that they received during maternity leave other than the SMP.
No, they didn't pay back the money.
Instead of aiming your resentment at hard working and tax paying individuals who are doing something to keep population at a level to support you in your old go and do something useful like grass up a benefit cheat.
I am not 'aiming resentment at hard working and tax paying individuals' (see my above post). I will be supporting largely myself when I eventually retire. I don't know any benefit cheats – and am too busy working to look for them. :cool:0 -
So you are implying that those who breed are 'less fortune [sic] than' myself? :T
No, that all those disgusting people below your status in the world who have the temerity to use PUBLIC SERVICES paid for by YOUR TAXES. You don't have kids yet have to pay for SCHOOLS - its an outrage really.
Perhaps you could go and buy somewhere like Sealand and live there hoarding your money happy in the knowledge that not one penny of it will be wasted on someone that isn't you.0 -
Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »No, that all those disgusting people below your status in the world who have the temerity to use PUBLIC SERVICES paid for by YOUR TAXES. You don't have kids yet have to pay for SCHOOLS - its an outrage really.
Why are those who breed 'less fortune [sic] than' myself, or 'below my status in the world'? Are you implying that there is something degrading about breeding? Why would that be, I wonder?
Your responses are irrational: please refer to my original post on this matter.0 -
lostinrates wrote: »As someone else not convince that we have things right ATM, I'd like to say I in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM, villify parents or children, and am happy to pay my state share. I too believe in the sentiment 'children are the future ' and I think their needs in the present are paramount.
Apologies if anyone thought my comments were a personal attack, I can assure you they are not directed at anyone in particular, just that section of the population that seems to think that working parents get it all their own way.
I have to admit that was me a few years back, when I was young and stupid
but since I have had children, I realise that my colleagues were not going on an extended holiday, they were leaving for a never ending, 24/7 unpaid job in which they would recieve no training but would be assessed by uncle tom cobley and all!
The real tragedy is that the cost of living forces so many couples out to work when one or other parent would much rather stay at home full time. In my own case it wouldn't have mattered if it was me or my Husband who had the better paid job, just as long as it paid well enough to cover all the bills. As it is, he rushes home from his paid job, to take over the childcare from me so that I can rush out to my paid evening job. We decided to have the children and neither of us felt it was right to put them in full time childcare. These sacrifices you have to make when you have children. And society as a whole benefits. If the family unit breaks up, society breaks up - and then where will we be??SMILE....they will wonder what you are up to...........;)0 -
fedupfreda wrote: »Apologies if anyone thought my comments were a personal attack, I can assure you they are not directed at anyone in particular, just that section of the population that seems to think that working parents get it all their own way.
I have to admit that was me a few years back, when I was young and stupid but since I have had children, I realise that my colleagues were not going on an extended holiday, they were leaving for a never ending, 24/7 unpaid job in which they would recieve no training but would be assessed by uncle tom cobley and all!
The real tragedy is that the cost of living forces so many couples out to work when one or other parent would much rather stay at home full time. In my own case it wouldn't have mattered if it was me or my Husband who had the better paid job, just as long as it paid well enough to cover all the bills. As it is, he rushes home from his paid job, to take over the childcare from me so that I can rush out to my paid evening job. We decided to have the children and neither of us felt it was right to put them in full time childcare. These sacrifices you have to make when you have children. And society as a whole benefits. If the family unit breaks up, society breaks up - and then where will we be??
Freda you have put to gether what I have been trying to say on a number of posts.
The truth is most of the people who do not have children will not change their veiws untill they have children.
That is why it will always be seen as "more fair" for others.;)0 -
Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »Its effectively one week. As with Maternity Leave the statutory rate paid in week two is a crippling loss of salary if you have a decent job. All the guys in my office (myself included) had to take the 2nd week off as annual leave as we couldn't afford the take it as Paternity.
Again, when I had my children, there was no paid or unpaid paternity leave ....if you wanted to be with your wife in the early days, you had to use your annual leave. We were in the unfortunate position of having a rather horrendous first labour and delivery and because it was a planned date, my husband took a week of his annual leave to cover the day of delivery and a few days for when I was out of hospital (he was planning on going in on the days where baby had been born but I was still in)...by the time eldest decided to make an appearance, hubby had used up a fair amount of his arranged holiday time leaving only one day left for when I came out. Luckily his boss took pity and allowed him to take an extra day or two unpaid.
For my last one, paternity leave was available but it was unpaid.We made it! All three boys have graduated, it's been hard work but it shows there is a possibility of a chance of normal (ish) life after a diagnosis (or two) of ASD. It's not been the easiest route but I am so glad I ignored everything and everyone and did my own therapies with them.
Eldests' EDS diagnosis 4.5.10, mine 13.1.11 eekk - now having fun and games as a wheelchair user.0 -
Here we have the crux of the problem.......It was only Recently I found out Sir Alan Sugars views on this very point are quite controversial.
Consider the following....
You own a small business, you have two possible prospects for a job, one male, one female both recently married. Which one do you choose?
Obviously you're not allowed to ask if either intend to have children, I've not doubt that would be sexist.....
It's a no brainer if you ask me....the cost of people not being present can outweigh their salary considerations in multiples.
It's a simple operational decision, it isn't sexist. I have nothing personal whatsoever against women of child bearing age. What I'm interested in is employing someone who isn't go to go on extended leave and threaten the operation of my business. That isn't unreasonable.
Much as I hate to say it, I agree with Sir Alan.
What I also see are working parents who haven't got the correct backup if one of their offspring is ill or the school closes for the day, as they then just take a day off without warning. It's their co workers who then have to pick up their slack.RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
Well, i'm not sure what type of women you know but the vast majority of working women pay tax.
Once again someone forgetting that women who go on maternity leave have probably contributed tens of thousands of pounds in tax.
Not the ones I've come across.
I think that you find that the 2nd time the person in question was more than likely required to pay back any money that they received during maternity leave other than the SMP.
No, they didn't pay back the money.
It's common for employers to add a clause in employees T&Cs to protect themselves from this happening. Any employer who loses out by this type of person only has themselves to blame.
Instead of aiming your resentment at hard working and tax paying individuals who are doing something to keep population at a level to support you in your old go and do something useful like grass up a benefit cheat.
I am not 'aiming resentment at hard working and tax paying individuals' (see my above post). I will be supporting largely myself when I eventually retire. I don't know any benefit cheats – and am too busy working to look for them. :cool:
By supporting yourself I can only assume that you mean that you will be able to fund a reasonable quality of life during retirement. Good on you. However, your need for state support may be a lot greater than you'd think should be become seriously ill.0 -
Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »Its effectively one week. As with Maternity Leave the statutory rate paid in week two is a crippling loss of salary if you have a decent job. All the guys in my office (myself included) had to take the 2nd week off as annual leave as we couldn't afford the take it as Paternity.
When I had my children, husbands didn't get any paternity leave and use to take 1 week from their annual holiday entitlement.
Why do fathers get two weeks given to them now? I can understand one week being given, but two seems excessive. It's not as though they are having to recover from the trauma of giving birth or that their bodies need time to rest after adapting to carrying a child for 9 months. RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
MissMoneypenny wrote: »
Why do fathers get two weeks given to them now? I can understand one week being given, but two seems excessive. It's not as though they are having to recover from the trauma of giving birth or that their bodies need time to rest after adapting to carrying a child for 9 months.
Helping and being a farther. Belive it or not we now play hands on roles and like it.
Parenting is not just about a mother either.;)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards