Maternity leave for primary earner

lovecake

nikki2804 wrote: »

Suddenly realised that my employer actually has a good maternity package!

If your household income falls below £26000 you will be able to claim child tax credits. For the time you are off you can deduct £100 pw from your income i.e. when I claim my income would be £9000 - (39 weeks at £100) £3900, so I would only declare £5100 earning plus my partners income. Hope that makes sense?

Is that how you work it out? I thought you had to calculate your wages as a whole for the tax year with the drop in your wages, but exclude the first £2500 of the drop, because they don't count that?

E.g. This tax year I will be on my normal wages before I start mat leave for 2.5months = £3038; then will be on 90% pay for 6 weeks = 1640.70; then on £135.50 a week for the rest of the tax year (39 weeks) = £5284.50. So my income to be declared would be all those added together + the £2.5k = £12463.20 (plus my partners income)

Why do they have to make it so complicated??? :rotfl:

nikki2804

I just always deducted £3900. Told TC how I reached the figure, thats what they entered on my claim. Didn't make an awful lot of difference to my award unfortunately.

Its been a while since I claimed (just over the threshold for 1 child) so it may be worth calling and asking them.

bigmomma051204

We have a similar problem - we desperately would like to have a second (for me, my hubby is step dad to my 1 son) child but as hubby is self employed and i am the higher earner, we would be pooped really!!

Its a funny old situation that people who work for a living and earn enough money to support their children can't because of the childcare costs etc when child is a baby BUT those who don't work and rely on benefits often have 3+ children. Of course, this is a big part of the problem these days and why unfortunately the benefits system MUST be changed (and yes, i know people will hound me for saying this!)

But its the old thing of people who work paying the price for those who refuse to. :cool:

Takeaway_Addict

jtr2803 wrote: »

But most employers who only pay SMP will be able to reclaim 92% or 100% of that money from the government so it's not 'costing' them much at all, even if they have to pay another person to do that job, yes I am excluding training periods and recruitment costs etc.

Not every chooses to have a high mortgage, in some areas a home to raise a family is costly by default, here a reasonable 3 bed would set you back around £220k, my other half would only just be able to cover the mortgage on his own salary, let alone the additional bills without my wage. Even on our current monthly rental we would struggle.

I know there is no one size fits all solution but it is a shame that some people who try to do things the 'right' way are those who usually end up struggling, or having to put off having children for such a long time because of it. I completely understand having a children is a choice but I do feel more could be done to ease the financial burden.

As you say not all companies can claim back SMP, as far as I am aware only the smaller companies can do this.

And I agree about easing the financial burden but not at the direct cost of the employer where the person is on maternity. Do this and you only heighten the possibility of discrimination against women.

It would be fairer to charge all employers a set % (ie 0.1%) a bit like NI or tax to cover maternity/paternity/adoption leave etc and then for that person to claim their pay from the government. This way the good companies don't have to pay anymore than the discriminatory companies.

Takeaway_Addict

pippa80 wrote: »

If an employer is only paying statutory maternity pay, then they are not paying for someone to do the job twice. The government refunds employers the statutory pay so they are not out of pocket.

You can already split the maternity leave and pay after the first 20 weeks. OP this might be a possibility for your family, as your OH will receive statutory pay and you will be bringing in more from your salary once you return. Information here on additional paternity leave:

https://www.gov.uk/paternity-pay-leave/leave

Sorry but this is wrong, not all companies can claim it back. plus there is the cost of training, advertising etc

But that is just part of running a business and should be factored in by employers.

cherylypop

Hi,

I'm on maternity leve at the moment-I got 90% pay for 6weeks, 50% pay for a further 6 weeks and then onto the £500 or so SMP. I also earn more than my husband. I thought it would be a real struggle, and its only in the last coupleof months I'verealy felt we've had to be really careful (around month 6-7 of maternity leave). We just tried to squirrel away some money once we found I was pregnant. I've found since we've had our little one we spend far less anyway-without trying. We didn't realise it but pre baby we frittered money away-on clothes, nights out, weekends away, dinner out because we didnt want to cook etc. Now with baby we don't go out anywehere near as much-it's a real treat when we do-so don't need the new outfits in the same way. We are lucky to have supportive family who bought various bits and pieces for him, and still buy him clothes etc, but also wedont spend a fortune on clothes etc because he only wears most of them a few times, or some clothes never. People give you so much stuff, and there are lots of shops with cheap babyclothes, as well as charity shops, nearly new sales and ebay. There are so many free and cheap things to do with babies-sure start centres and local play centres (where the babies are free).

Unless you really can't afford to take any hit in your wages don't let money put you off having a baby-I sometimes think of all the lovely holidays we could be going on etc pre baby days but none of that is worth a fraction of the joy/love/happiness a baby can bring you...

Scorpio33

Now you are aware of the issue men face when having kids. Ignoring the SMP / SPP issue, it feels just wrong going back to work after 2 weeks after baby is born, even though the baby will be left with your other half. Then when you do go back, it is difficult to leave on time to spend time with your new family.

The only thing I would say is that traditionally, SMP is as other people have stated, with SPP being 2 weeks. Now the rules have changed, for people in a situation like yourself whereby, you can elect which person takes the statutory parental leave. So your OH can claim your SMP, whilst you can go to work quicker. That would work better financially, and is what men face every time they have kids - and do so, as it is what works better financially. May be an issue with him working self employed however.

I understand your wanting to spend time with family, and if you can take more time off and be ok financially then do so - unfortunately that is a choice most men do not have.

msb5262

Interesting thread...
Another factor which is sometimes forgotten in the rush to get back to work is that working in itself costs a lot once you have a child - somebody has to care for the child, whether it's a parent or a childminder/nursery, so the cost of that should be part of the planning. Easy to forget - and of course if childcare costs are offset against pay, some people find that returning to their previous working arrangements isn't such a clear cut "win". I think there's a big element of knowing the difference between the price of something and its value...

Lunar_Eclipse

Spendless wrote: »

Even with 10 year daughter, she was due 6 days before they changed paid maternity from 18 weeks to 26.

I thought I was fortunate enough to have 26 weeks paid maternity for both of mine, now aged 11 and 13, but perhaps there was a decrease in the amount paid between 18 & 26 weeks - I can't remember!

That aside, I was also the main breadwinner who returned to work on a part time basis and then not at all after our youngest, having been back at work for only about 6 months between the two. Our solution was to save like mad before we were hit with the substantial income loss. DH's salary was not enough to cover our household expenses (huge but typical South East mortgage) but our years of planned savings just about covered the difference during those early years, with a fairly frugal lifestyle (no overseas holidays or regular meals out.)

Lunar_Eclipse

msb5262 wrote: »

Interesting thread...
Another factor which is sometimes forgotten in the rush to get back to work is that working in itself costs a lot once you have a child - somebody has to care for the child, whether it's a parent or a childminder/nursery, so the cost of that should be part of the planning. Easy to forget - and of course if childcare costs are offset against pay, some people find that returning to their previous working arrangements isn't such a clear cut "win". I think there's a big element of knowing the difference between the price of something and its value...

True. I think it's often beneficial to return to work after a first child (if only to break even but keep your skills current for long term earning power), but an absolute killer to fund childcare for 2+ children for most people.