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

smk77

Running_Horse wrote: »

How much do we value children as a society? Someone will have to work in the future to pay our pensions.

From what I read on here not a great deal..

I'd like to know who exactly these people think is going to assist them through the final years of their life? When they need medical treatment or just some company from a home help. Other people's children...

Bringing up children is hard work, expensive but enjoyable. Why should those people who chose not to have children have their pensions paid by other people's children?

Really2

Really2 wrote: »

Depends if you view that they are bringing future tax payers in to the world.(I agree on the employer bit but there is statory paternity pay that is paid by the goverment)

It is like saying why should younger generations support the old?

Hang on I have already said this earlier.

Have some got selective reading or somthing, or do thet like to pretend to see somthing that is not there?

Tiggergirl

What I always find laughable in this type of article is the undertone of 'Why should WE (ie taxpayers) fund maternity pay for THEM (ie people having children)?'

THEY are taxpayers too you know, and in most cases so will their children in 18 years time. Personally, I am a high rate taxpayer AND have recently taken maternity leave.

For those who don't want their tax being used to support those on maternity leave, would it be okay with you if in the future my daughter decides that her tax should not go towards paying your state pension?

lostinrates

Tiggergirl wrote: »

What I always find laughable in this type of article is the undertone of 'Why should WE (ie taxpayers) fund maternity pay for THEM (ie people having children)?'

THEY are taxpayers too you know, and in most cases so will their children in 18 years time. Personally, I am a high rate taxpayer AND have recently taken maternity leave.

For those who don't want their tax being used to support those on maternity leave, would it be okay with you if in the future my daughter decides that her tax should not go towards paying your state pension?

I agree on your us and them point. FWIW I'm a youngish woman who'd like children. But I see the business angle very clearly, and I'm not sure we have hit on the correct solution yet.

I'm thinking on the hoof a bit, but what about a sort of years of service payment, either at the time, or if need be inretrospect, probably from the government rather than employer so to not lock in the female worker? That way workforce are secured the women's skills justfiying the leave?

Really2

Tiggergirl wrote: »

What I always find laughable in this type of article is the undertone of 'Why should WE (ie taxpayers) fund maternity pay for THEM (ie people having children)?'

THEY are taxpayers too you know, and in most cases so will their children in 18 years time. Personally, I am a high rate taxpayer AND have recently taken maternity leave.

For those who don't want their tax being used to support those on maternity leave, would it be okay with you if in the future my daughter decides that her tax should not go towards paying your state pension?

I agree with you.

But in reality everyones ones NI should pay there pension at the end of their working life (even though it does not obviously:))

I can see the point from both sides equality should mean equal but some will be more equal than others.

Although it is not great for those who do not want to have children they will be unfortunately the ones who will have to be less equal.

Conrad

As a small business owner I would face a stark choice part of which would have a detrimental effect on my families standard of living. Can I tell my little boys we have to cut back to benefit someone who may not return to work (several women from my wives maternity group openly scoffed they had no intention of returning to work despite promises to thier needy employers)

Really2

Conrad wrote: »

As a small business owner I would face a stark choice part of which would have a detrimental effect on my families standard of living. Can I tell my little boys we have to cut back to benefit someone who may not return to work (several women from my wives maternity group openly scoffed they had no intention of returning to work despite promises to thier needy employers)

Although i can imagine you will be made out as sexist for that point.;)

That is the other side of the coin I would say 40%+ of women who have children and maternity do not go back to work or work on less hours etc.

It is a tricky debate and one I wish I kept out of.:rotfl:

smk77

Tiggergirl wrote: »

What I always find laughable in this type of article is the undertone of 'Why should WE (ie taxpayers) fund maternity pay for THEM (ie people having children)?'

THEY are taxpayers too you know, and in most cases so will their children in 18 years time. Personally, I am a high rate taxpayer AND have recently taken maternity leave.

For those who don't want their tax being used to support those on maternity leave, would it be okay with you if in the future my daughter decides that her tax should not go towards paying your state pension?

Very well written post!

I guess the same could be said to those that complain about their taxes paying for others education. I'm ok for them not to pay for my sons education if his tax doesn't pay for their healthcare during old age.

Tiggergirl

Really2 wrote: »

Although it is not great for those who do not want to have children they will be unfortunately the ones who will have to be less equal.

They are equal though, They have the same right to maternity leave whether or not they have children.

Put it this way - if I lost my job tomorrow I would have the right to contributory JSA. If I don't lose my job tomorrow, and don't need to claim it, It doesn't make me any less equal than those who lose their job and claim it.

The only inequality as I see it is that a mother cannot transfer her leave to the other parent.

Really2

Tiggergirl wrote: »

They are equal though, They have the same right to maternity leave whether or not they have children.

Put it this way - if I lost my job tomorrow I would have the right to contributory JSA. If I don't lose my job tomorrow, and don't need to claim it, It doesn't make me any less equal than those who lose their job and claim it.

The only inequality as I see it is that a mother cannot transfer her leave to the other parent.

But what about the covert sexism of that person who does not get a promotion because of a change in the law, like the OP said.

I do not agree with it but I would be a liar if i believed it did not happen.