Who would hire a woman worker - Maternity pay to Treble !

Cleaver

leveller2911 wrote: »

Does the taxpayer NOT support families anyway? Why is the state pension so low?,why will most of us have to work until we are 70?,why is there a shortage of funding for research into cancer,heart disease etc etc etc.
Its not a perfect world by any means I just think the money could be better spent.

What on earth are you blithering about? There is a very odd thing on this site of comparing apples with pears. You're effectively saying, "Why don't we cut maternity pay to fund research in to cancer". On many, many levels it just doesn't work in this way.

Someone has a baby, they spend some time looking after it funded by the taxpayer. This enables them to bond with said child, organise their life, then return to work and continue to pay their taxes so someone else can have a go. There's no problem at all with this arrangement.

mewbie_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

Its not a perfect world by any means I just think the money could be better spent.

Not looking for an argument, but after watching Comic Relief and the plight of those less fortunate I think that spending some tax money enabling mothers to spend time with their kids is quite possibly the best value money we could spend.

Now if you want to compare that spend with say propping up the banks, or playing soldiers in Afghanistan, ID cards, etc. go right ahead.

Really2

leveller2911 wrote: »

Does the taxpayer NOT support families anyway? Why is the state pension so low?,why will most of us have to work until we are 70?,why is there a shortage of funding for research into cancer,heart disease etc etc etc.
Its not a perfect world by any means I just think the money could be better spent.

Because we do not have enough young workers and to many old people.

Good point but are you arguing for assitance for familys:)

leveller2911

Really2 wrote: »

What you mean like keeping a job open after a car/motorbike accident or smoking or consumption related time off work (all lifestyle).

It is easy to judge other but I do not see statutory maternity as a drain on resources.

It's like compassionate leave should we abolish that also:)

Where do we draw the line ? 6months,12 months,18 months? at what stage do you think it does become a drain on resources?.As you asked, keeping a job open for someone after an accident ,YES of course I do, If someone gets p1ssed every night, fails to show for work, then NO sack em on the spot.

I will add, im not an employer and yes I do have children..

Cleaver

leveller2911 wrote: »

Where do we draw the line ? 6months,12 months,18 months? at what stage do you think it does become a drain on resources?.

Where do we draw the line for maternity? 39 weeks. Under statutory pay you get 6 weeks at 90% of your pay and then 33 weeks of £117 a week.

So even someone earning, say, 70k a year costs the taxpayer around 8k. And if you earn 70k a year, you'd pay 8k taxes in no time anyway.

leveller2911

Really2 wrote: »

Because we do not have enough young workers and to many old people.

Good point but are you arguing for assitance for familys:)

So it doesnt have anything to do with the high taxation?, raid on pensions etc, its just because "we don't have enough young workers".......Im not judging anyone either..WFT credits or "assistance for families" is a double edged sword, for one thing it encourages employers to pay the minimum wage and NO more, then its subsidised by credits, its a totally flawed system..... we are getting off thread here so I wont reply unless its to do with the thread.......unless you fancy starting another thread???:D

Really2

leveller2911 wrote: »

So it doesnt have anything to do with the high taxation?, raid on pensions etc, its just because "we don't have enough young workers".......

Since the state pension came in life expectancy as increased greatly.

Most coulples now claim a pension for 20 years each after retirement.

That was definatly not the case years ago.

So infact we are actualy supporting the current pensioners.

The truth is the goverment gets more back in tax when that child goes to work than what they pay out to support it. (still within thread )

SingleSue

Cleaver wrote: »

Where do we draw the line for maternity? 39 weeks. Under statutory pay you get 6 weeks at 90% of your pay and then 33 weeks of £117 a week.

So even someone earning, say, 70k a year costs the taxpayer around 8k. And if you earn 70k a year, you'd pay 8k taxes in no time anyway.

Blimey, didn't realise it was that good...def had mine at the wrong time! :rotfl:

We had 6 weeks at 90% and 8 weeks at £40 (SMP, can't remember the actual figure now) or something and had to finish work before the 32nd week of pregnancy had started or we lost some of our allowance (e.g. you worked your 32nd week and so you was only then able to get 5 weeks 90%, 8 weeks £40)

My SMP ran out before my son was 4 weeks old.

* Or something like that anyway....I know that I was forced to go back into a part time job when eldest was 4 weeks old (and against medical advice) as money then became extremely tight. My old company would not let me come back until I was cleared by the doctors and only full time, so I took anything I could.

leveller2911

mewbie wrote: »

Not looking for an argument, but after watching Comic Relief and the plight of those less fortunate I think that spending some tax money enabling mothers to spend time with their kids is quite possibly the best value money we could spend.

Now if you want to compare that spend with say propping up the banks, or playing soldiers in Afghanistan, ID cards, etc. go right ahead.

I wouldnt disagree with what you say, I still think there is finite money and bigger priorities..Maternity is good, but being paid for it is not so good, the money could be better spent...
As for Afganistan, propping up banks,ID cards etc Im with you there 100%..:D ps I sponsored a dog with "dog trust" respect to me:D , also give plenty to charity so I can hold my head high..lol

Sapphire

mewbie wrote: »

Not looking for an argument, but after watching Comic Relief and the plight of those less fortunate I think that spending some tax money enabling mothers to spend time with their kids is quite possibly the best value money we could spend.

Now if you want to compare that spend with say propping up the banks, or playing soldiers in Afghanistan, ID cards, etc. go right ahead.

If people can't afford to bring up children, then surely they shouldn't have them? They don't have to have them – it is a lifestyle choice.

Personally I wouldn't begrudge my money being used if it went on conservation measures and trying to prevent severely threatened and persecuted species from becoming extinct by whatever means possible. There are far too many humans on this planet because we selfishly and unthinkingly continue to procreate 'because our parents did it'. We are destroying the Earth (and at the same time our own species).

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I'm actually amazed that anyone would want to bring more people into the world, given what is facing us. :cool: