Best friend compared her inheritance to my benefits

Horrified you should allow envy and downright jealousy to get in the way of a friendship. If she invested it it would probably produce less income than you are getting and taxable too. To get the amount you are getting in benefits from invested capital there would need about half a million to be invested. I have always lived off either my salary or investments I had from saving every week in a building society. When my son was little I did home typing and babysitting. I have never had benefits. Just be grateful.

Free money is free money. She has had a lump sum and you get it each month. Same thing.

You both use the free money differently. She has purchased a house so its a long term asset. Your free money is spent on family but no long term asset.

But its still free money.

It may have been uncomfortable for you to hear but is it really worth bad feelings and potentially losing a friendship over?

The difficulty is that working part time while raising 3 children is seen as a luxury for some. Others have needed to work full time and more to keep boat afloat.
So OPs situation is subject to varying perceptions

The point would be fewer children in poverty, and also the option for the (usually mother) to have enough to pay for childcare to be able to choose to work, reducing the need for claiming benefits and putting something back in.

No I’m not an absent father.

My view is that socialised provision for children is better for the children than an individualistic approach. My point is that you seem to think the state has a bottomless pit of taxpayers money to fund your ideas.

Did you choose to have children with a man who became an absent father, by any chance?

Cara there are some cruel posts on this thread.

But many people are answering the question do you think a gift for a house and recieving a state benefit are the same.

Many have said they think they are both unearned, some have perhaps worded in the not the best way 'free money'. Very few have used their post of make comments on OP as a person.

They've shared their thoughts and asked questions that are generally answered with the blanket, so you want all poor people to die do you'

Which sorry but they don't. They want to go explore the question. That's not cruel. If you don't want to discuss the question in your post, then don't post it on an online forum, where people will share their opinions via written communication which leaves no room for subtle meaning, intonation etc...

Spice maiden, I can't say remember for certain.

But the vast majority of people here have said no such thing. People have simply suggested that benefits are unearned income.

Nobody has slated op for needing top up income, we responded to a question that was is my friend unreasonable to say benefits are the same as inheritance.

You have responded to many reasons claims by saying we hate people on benefits, we hope people on benefits starve, we think people on benefits are scum.

The vast majority (I want to say no-one) but can't in good conscience say that without re-reading this entire thread. We stated our opinion that both form unearned income.

Many have openly said friend is lucky.

Nobody has said people and or children who receive Benefits are parasites.

You may interest it that way, but nobody has said it.

You might want to go and read up on the legal frameworks that the state has to play within.

He read the application.

No I'm not. But your view is short term, defeatist thinking. Are you an absent father by chance who just doesn't want the clout of HMRC forcing you to pay for your kids ?

It’s just some of us pay absolutely shed loads of tax. Sticks in my craw that we are subsidising these useless “.fathers” who are not financially supporting their numerous offspring.

I didn’t mean you.

and I agree with you.

The uk is Orwellian and MN seems to have more than its fair share of pigs. I’ve been here the best part of 20 years and it’s gone from a nest of vipers to down right nasty, sneery and vile.

Yes, you're right @spicemaiden . There are loads of cruel posts on this thread (I hope you didn't mean mine was as I fully support the OP and I'm on UC myself!). Sadly I think cruelty is a major part of our neoliberal society- survival of the most privileged (whilst trying to maintain the illusion that we live in a meritocracy!).

I’m not the one saying that the state should track, prosecute and imprison absent fathers.

Im actually replying to the posters who think that the state should pay to track, prosecute and imprison absent fathers AND continue paying child related benefits. My point being that those who shout and scream for the US system should be careful what they wish for.

There is no magic money tree.

Ok, in your first post you said her children WILL contribute in the future but now you have changed that to MAY contribute but added in the word hugely. No one believes that you can see into the future, so all we have to go on is a guess, based on the outcomes for children who grew up in a similar situation to them. And we don’t have all the information required to do that because it’s unfair to ask the OP to provide it.

And you are confident that the state keeping 50% of anything collected will cover the costs to the state of tracing and prosecuting these men?

If the state kept 50% of what was collected there would be very little to give to the children, in most cases.

I work full time in a front line position helping the most vulnerable in society.

if I was a single parent managing to still work full time my wage would be still low enough to be eligible for benefits.

My children are clearly nothing but worthless parasites (or would be if I was single according to many posters on this thread)

the smug bastards on here are truly vile

It is not a 'benefits household'. OP works and her children need support to boost that income from the state. They may well contribute hugely in the future.

Yes as a general rule the wealthy do stay wealthy and the poor do stay poor. This obviously means that people whose parents need income support/universal credit are more likely to need it themselves. We need to address the wealth-poverty divide, not blame people who find themselves on the wrong side of it.

No it isn't a choice between the two options. The state can chase down absent fathers (keeping 50% of anything collected) while at the same time continuing to pay benefits so children don't starve in the meantime.

The that will require some radical law changing.

Good luck with that happening.

you continue to blame single parents

What’s your solution?

How do you know her kids will contribute in the future?

Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Children who grow up in benefits households are more likely to end up on benefits themselves.

My response was to the posters who think that the state should pay to track down, prosecute and fine their absent ex AND continue to pay them child related benefits (and they are child related benefits because they wouldn’t be paid to a childless person in the same situation 🤷‍♀️).

You can’t have it both ways. Either you accept that absent fathers child support has been socialised and their children’s needs are funded by the state, via the benefits system. Or you prefer a more individualistic system where the state holds the father responsible but doesn’t pay any child related benefits to the mother.

The state isn’t a bottomless pit of taxpayers money.

This ⬆️. I don’t understand it really, it doesn’t make sense to me that CM is not taken into account. I am a widowed lone parent but can’t claim benefits as my DP left a relatively small amount of life insurance. I have a friend who is divorced and receives a large amount of child maintenance every month and also receives benefits. She has a much better lifestyle than me 🤷🏼‍♀️.