Maternity pay ... need help

123457

Comments

  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    On your first point - discrimination is awful I agree. My reference to 'having your cake and eating it' is to women who think that having a child should not affect anything. The simple truth is it does and it will. Childcare is a long and time-consuming business - how can you expect the same career as someone who doesn't have a child? While your focus is on your child, anyone (man or women) who does not have the same commitments will go higher and progress faster. You can't have everything and those that do shortchange someone/thing somewhere.


    Your second point - unfortunately you are completely wrong about my views being outdated. The research is in. Women score way higher than men on agreeableness, which is why women are great at child care and tend to take jobs in the care sector (teaching etc.). Men score way higher than women on aggression and tend to do well in competitive jobs and do well in STEM vocations. I'm not assuming women are more caring than men, they are, it's been proven.


    Your point on scenarios is valid, however it kind of fits in with my point of why women can't have the same 'prospects' as those without children, men included. I use prospects loosly but remember...equality of oppotunity is key...we all have the same opportunity to have a career, however if we sideline this for another pursuit (in this case children), we should expect that oppotuntity to then decline. Child rearers don't have the resources to keep up with non-child rearers, nor the time. Simple maths really.


    What a lot of women want is equality of outcome. Regardless of the decision to change focus from a career to child, you want the same outcome as someone who doesn't. That's not right, nor will it ever work.



    I'm still on rule 1 :) must get through that book soon
  • MissHG
    MissHG Posts: 12
    First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Statutory mat pay is paid from the government. As is maternity allowance.
    So given she’s worked and managed to buy a house and save £10k while doing so indicates that she’s probably not even going to make a dent in the money she’s paid into the government whilst on maternity.
    Good luck with everything OP. Hope everything works out nicely
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    MissHG wrote: »
    Statutory mat pay is paid from the government. As is maternity allowance.
    So given she’s worked and managed to buy a house and save £10k while doing so indicates that she’s probably not even going to make a dent in the money she’s paid into the government whilst on maternity.
    Good luck with everything OP. Hope everything works out nicely



    So sorry I must've missed the bit when taxes are considered a savings account one can dip into...
  • MissHG
    MissHG Posts: 12
    First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    I’m just saying the pitchforks aren’t necessaryily needed here.
    Not enough is done to help mothers who work or intend to get back into work.
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    MissHG wrote: »
    I’m just saying the pitchforks aren’t necessaryily needed here.
    Not enough is done to help mothers who work or intend to get back into work.



    Hold on, that's quite a statement.


    Firstly Mothers get protected maternity leave to care for the new-born, with pay. (and still accumulating annual leave).
    They are protected from redundancy during this period too.


    Secondly why should the employer, or the state, help anyone who makes the very personal decision to have a child. (that's aside from the benefits which get paid, which is a separate debate).


    Why don't people sort out their own problems themselves and not burden everyone else with their choice to breed?


    - an no those statements aren't pitchforks, they aren't sexist, they aren't anything offensive. They're questions that get ignored because they're difficult to answer.
  • lulu_92
    lulu_92 Posts: 2,758
    Rampant Recycler I've been Money Tipped!
    Forumite
    edited 8 January 2019 at 7:50PM
    Comms69 wrote: »
    Hold on, that's quite a statement.


    Firstly Mothers get protected maternity leave to care for the new-born, with pay. (and still accumulating annual leave).
    They are protected from redundancy during this period too.


    Secondly why should the employer, or the state, help anyone who makes the very personal decision to have a child. (that's aside from the benefits which get paid, which is a separate debate).


    Why don't people sort out their own problems themselves and not burden everyone else with their choice to breed?


    - an no those statements aren't pitchforks, they aren't sexist, they aren't anything offensive. They're questions that get ignored because they're difficult to answer.

    So, should nobody ever have babies ever again? Or just allow the wealthy who don't need to claim SMP to conceive? When shall we start the mass sterilisations and vasectomies?

    /sarcasm
    Our Rainbow Twins born 17th April 2016
    :A 02.06.2015 :A
    :A 29.12.2018 :A



  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    lulu_92 wrote: »
    So, should nobody ever have babies ever again? Or just allow the wealthy who don't need to claim SMP to conceive? When shall we start the mass sterilisations and vasectomies?



    Hold on, you're not actually answering my question.


    So i'll do the courtesy of answering yours, and perhaps you'll do the same?


    1. Obviously people should have babies; that wasn't my point at all. But should others be compelled into supporting those personal choices; and if so, what other choices should we support? The poster suggested more should be done - such as what? More money, from where? More time off, more cost to the business; and the economy?


    2. No 'allow' about it, but certainly I think people should have children when they are in a financial position (amongst other criteria such as committed relationship, good maturity level etc.). Again i'll go back to the point these are personal choices; you aren't compelled to have children (and I have 3!).


    3. Nothing about enforced sterilisation or any other permanent form of birth control; that would be completely inhumane. I do find it interesting that you would just to an extreme (and illegal example)
  • System
    System Posts: 178,077
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Community Admin
    lulu_92 wrote: »
    So, should nobody ever have babies ever again?


    This is the classic leftist argument reply. Comms69 didn't say anything of the sort, you're putting words in their mouth.
  • LilElvis
    LilElvis Posts: 5,835
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    lulu_92 wrote: »
    So, should nobody ever have babies ever again? Or just allow the wealthy who don't need to claim SMP to conceive? When shall we start the mass sterilisations and vasectomies?

    You obviously read a different post to the one I did. Comms stated the facts - that a pregnant woman/ mother has numerous employment rights and benefits at a substantial cost to both the employer and the State. Certainly nothing contentious to warrant your hysterical overreaction.
  • lulu_92
    lulu_92 Posts: 2,758
    Rampant Recycler I've been Money Tipped!
    Forumite
    I was focusing on these two points, and there was also a massive element of sarcasm in my post, apologies if that wasn't clear (I'm used to reddit!)

    "Secondly why should the employer, or the state, help anyone who makes the very personal decision to have a child. (that's aside from the benefits which get paid, which is a separate debate)."
    Having a child is a personal thing, of course, but seeing as a lot of people have children it isn't exactly a new problem for an employer. Regardless of it being personal choice there is some amount of procreation needed to carry on the human race. Seeing as we cannot place a limit on how many children are born every year, or specify who exactly can reproduce, we can't dismiss this fact even though the population is far from dying out at the moment.

    However, most people can't sacrifice 100% of their salary to have children. With wages not rising in line with inflation, and the cost of things like rent being astronomical, a lot of people can afford the cost of a child on a reduced wage, but to remove one income completely can cause more problems.
    (We were lucky that when I was on mat leave we were on an interest only mortgage so only paid £200pm for six months to free up some money)

    What amount of time off would you suggest is adequate? I had just over 10 months off, using my annual leave accrued to add to the end of my mat leave. I don't think that is unreasonable, but it would be nice to be able to have a year off on SMP. The employer gets the money off the government anyway, they're just the middle man in the transaction. From a leave perspective, yeah it is annoying when someone joins a company and goes off on leave within a year, but it happens, whether enhanced or statutory maternity packages exist or not. Unless you police when a woman can carry a child and how often, that isn't going to change

    "Why don't people sort out their own problems themselves and not burden everyone else with their choice to breed?"
    This is something I actually agree with, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the OP who has saved £10k and has been with her partner for many years. SMP is an absolute pittance so of course you will try to get the most out of it as you can. The 90% pay for the first six weeks certainly helped us out. And circumstances do change. We saved £5k, then my husband lost his job a month before I gave birth. He got another job very quickly, but this meant he was not entitled to any paternity pay or shared parental leave, so he used a week's holiday, as that's all he had accrued. I'll also add that we had twins, and you don't get any more SMP for that, even though you have 2x the essentials to purchase.

    You can be as prepared as you can be, making sure you aren't being a burden, then life throws you a massive curveball.


    I'm just reading this thread and getting a very anti-child vibe. The OP seems to be going about this very responsibly and she's getting a lot of unnecessary flack for it. There are some good points, but I don't think she's being unreasonable in what she is asking.


    P.S. I'm not a leftie ;)

    P.P.S excuse the wall of text!
    Our Rainbow Twins born 17th April 2016
    :A 02.06.2015 :A
    :A 29.12.2018 :A



This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards