Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Still not clear on logic in terms of why would one population of woman pay tax and the other not? Self emplyed v salary based

I can understand if temp or not earned enough. That makes sense. But the former?


Keef - surely a gd thing for mrs keef if it meant she didn't pay tax on her mat pay? Or did they wiggle out of paying her a much better internal company package?

Dunno what Mr and Mrs Keef's take on it, but Mat. Allowance is paltry (I get around ?200 a month) which is nowhere near what I was earning in my temporary contract. It also only lasts for 9 months. I would rather have had a guaranteed job to go back to and paid tax on my Mat. Pay...

I AM going back to work, but out of sheer luck- my previous boss seemed to love me and gave me first refusal when my replacement left, otherwise I'd be up a certain creek without the proverbial paddle.

My maternity allowance (self employed) is ?500 a month?


and i think stat maternity pay for salaried people is about the same?


but one is taxed and the other isn't


still not clear as to why but your posts suggest it's because most people on Maternity Allowance are generally worse off in terms of support and so therefore they're exempt from tax


i still think it's slightly odd/unfair though

The amount you receive for Maternity Allowance is based on your previous earnings. At the highest end, it will be the same as SMP.


I'm glad MA is not taxed. As a self-employed mother, for me to take time off work means several months of not earning anything, plus losing several clients who will go elsewhere and sometimes not come back, so it has longer term ramifications for me to be out of work whilst bringing up baby. For someone on SMP, at least you know when you go back to work it will but at your full salary rate, but for me, it took a long time to get my business going again. I'll obviously face this problem each time I have a child.

it is basically a disaster being self employed and having a baby. you lose badly.


Compare with being employed where, as has happened for many of my friends, some women get six months to a year off on full pay, plus protected bonuses (a bonus for not being present in the office??). and then get statutory mp when the employer's cash ceases. plus various paternity allowances etc blah blah blah. they also generally get private health free or heavily subsidised.


I pay the usual whack of tax plus heavy national insurance. I use private healthcare and education so I cost the country nothing there and I lose out on eg nursery vouchers as self employed, by definition, cannot do salary sacrifice. Health and education are my choice so I suppose that's hard cheese but the rest of it? I feel like I am supporting everyone else and getting next to nothing back.


Oh I forgot, they are actually remarkably efficient at bin emptying in my street. hurrah.

Not totally a disaster. The benefits for me are spending more time with my daughter as I don't have to commute, I save money on nursery as I can do my work later in the day when she is asleep, so it works out pretty well.


new mother, I can see that it's a bummer for you as you are paying lots of NI and tax :(

Dunno what Mr and Mrs Keef's take on it, but Mat. Allowance is paltry (I get around ?200 a month) which is nowhere near what I was earning in my temporary contract. It also only lasts for 9 months


I don't think it's usual to get any form of mat pay beyond 9 months including SMP. I too work for the NHS - known for being one of the more generous employers and after 6 months I'll be receiving maternity allowance alone (not SMP as I've recently moved trusts) and any leave after 39 weeks will be unpaid. I don't know how it exactly works out but I've been assured that my take home pay including mat allowance will work out the same as if I was receiving SMP.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...