Best friend compared her inheritance to my benefits

Cara707.

They are different situations, but they are not different processes' both have received money they did not earn through work.

We can happily debate whether or not OP needs money more than friend, we can happily discuss if benefits can and should be higher, we can happily discus how having to survive on benefits is rubbish, it is!

But needed income and 'unearned' as in not directly earned income are different.

I think most people here aren't suggesting that OP doesn't absolutely need income in a way that her friend may or may not, we don't know friends financial situation, we only know she works full time (which is not necessarily an indicator of financial security!).

Friend maybe financially insecure in other ways we don't know about, and less help is available.

I can't speak for now, but rightly when I was growing up, parents with children who needed financial help from the 'rightly' state received more.

We don't know what friends financial situation maybe, OP may not even know the extent. We can say oh she has mortgage so she must be financially secure...... But I bet we could all think of friends who have a mortgage and are financially struggling, the two are not mutually exclusive.

No, if she had a DH or a contributing ex, she might be able to survive without benefits or even live a luxurious life as a stay-at-home Mum with a nanny and a cleaner or any other possible life circumstance that brings much less judgement!! (yet involves much less work and much less of contribution towards society!).

It's not just because she works two jobs (house-job and part-time job) to contribute both work and to provide new workers (her kids in the future) to society, who will in turn contribute to society.

Yes, they're totally different situations. I agree with you completely OP (I'm currently childless but can understand you must be exhausted and feel like life is treating you poorly and that your friend has really lucked out!).

The basic question is not whether the OP's friend is lucky.

It's whether OP receiving benefits is like receiving a lump sum gift.

Which is why people are saying that OP is lucky to get benefits. She has literally asked them to critique her friend's comment.If she'd wanted an echo chamber of her own views, then posting on AIBU was a bad idea.

She didn’t choose to be a SINGIE parent.

the basic question was this: is the OPs friend lucky?

YES!

im willing to be my last pound that is the SINGIE mim hadn’t revealed she’s stuck on benefits there wouldn’t have been this uproar about her ‘getting free money too’ blah blah blah.

Anyone receiving a lump sum which means they can put a deposit disn on a house is lucky. And far luckier than many who gave to continue to rent Becausd they’re unable to save to get the deposit together.

This thread is chock full of mental gymnastics being performed so people can point the finger at the single mum on benefits.

looney tunes insane.

The benefits aren’t child related. That’s what child maintenance is for.

Have you been on benefits as a single parent? Chasing down an absent father costs thousands - no one (legitimately) on benefits has thousands to spare

But the OP and her friend have made different choices in life. The OP chose to have 3 children and most people realise that children cost money.

It’s not an easy get around though. You are proposing the state spending more money chasing, prosecuting and fining absent fathers. All this costs money. If you hadn’t noticed, the state doesn’t have a magic money tree.

How about any mother who wants the absent father of her children to be traced, prosecuted and fined pays for it out of her child related benefits?

My point is - you can’t have it all your own way. Either you accept that we have socialised absent fathers and the tax payer funds his children’s needs. Or we go down the more individualistic USA route where the absent father is held responsible but the state (taxpayer) doesn’t pay to house and feed his children.

Please explain his there is no difference? Explain how the OP can now carry on paying for daily expenses (like her friend) AND have a down payment for a house (and a mortgage that’s agreed) where the mortgage will likely be less than rent, and over the years that property will appreciate in value whilst the loan in it reduces (unlike paying rent where one never ever gains anything NOF reaches yhd finishing line either a paid for secure home).

Explain how a monthly top up to cover the basics is the same as receiving a lump sum on top of earnings/begs its to pay the basics.

You are BOTH getting money for not working. No difference.

Sounds a great solution. The state are quick enough to chase me aggressively for my tax as a small business owner. I would be terrified not to pay it. Prison.

The state stepping in as daddy substitute letting men off the hook is utterly unacceptable.

And what's wrong with punishing men who abandon their children?
Anyway, this is an easy get around. The resident parent still receives all benefits regardless. The state pursue the absent parent for payment (HMRC could do it, treat it like none payment of tax) and proper payment, not £50 per week while the mother is paying £500 a week in nursery fees. Any money the state recovered is split 50/50 with the parent, fines for none payment could be included in this. If absent parents pay voluntarily no fees for collecting added. If parent is on benefits money is first paid to the state who then send 50% to the other parent with no reduction in benefits, thereby clawing some tax payer money back. If not on benefits resident parent gets the whole lot with no state deductions.

It sounds like whatever was said has hit a nerve what whatever reason. On both sides.

Maybe bring it up when you next meet so that you can laugh about it and move on.

You noticed that what you said put her on edge so it was probably a come back on her side. I agree with other PPs, it probably doesn’t come from a bad place - she’s probably just comparing the fact that it’s unearned money.

I see this a lot on mumsnet.

it’s a comparison with the US system ie chasing the absent dad for child maintenance and punishing him if he doesn’t pay. But what these posters forget is that in the U.K. we have socialised absent fatherhood and the state pays for his children to be housed, clothed and fed. The USA doesn’t pay anywhere near the same level of welfare to single mothers as the U.K. does.

I doubt the mumsnet posters would be calling for the absent dads to be imprisoned for non payment of CMS if it meant losing their benefits. This is what they forget when they say they want the same system as the USA.

It’s still free money.

Other people work and pay tax to the state (including your friend) so that you can receive benefits to pay for your children’s needs. As you are unable to support your three children by yourself. You do sound a bit entitled OP. Not all countries have such a generous benefits system.

A man with THREE children being supported by the state has no business having a car or a holiday until he meets his obligations.

But under the CMS rules it's pointless having the government chase for payment. CMS doesn't reduce benefits entitlements, so there's no upside for the taxpayer.

If benefits were reduced inline with CMS payments, then the (usually mother) Primary Carer would be worse off than under the current system of benefits + CMS. Those parents that currently receive no CMS wouldn't be better off either.

Apart from issuing a punishment beating to the absent parent, what would be the point?

Urgh wish the government works get tough with these feckless loser men that leave the state to fund their offspring. Freezing their passports and driving licences would be a good start. Might focus their minds.

No we're not in other countries and that is a blessing, that's all I'm trying to say.

There will always be those who have more than us, and I'm not saying people can't feel injustice or whatever feeling they feel about that.

People are also well within their right to think out government doesn't do enough and should do more.

I'm merely suggesting that if we look at others and think they have more than me, they should be thankful and consider themselves lucky

Then surely we should also recognise that compared to others and we should be thankful for that.

It doesn't mean we can't want change, it doesn't mean that we don't hate the situation we're in and want it to change.

It does mean we can be thankful we're not worse of than we are!

Thankfulness is not a bad emotion, it is helpful in the face of adversity to say , things are not great, I want them to change, but it could be worse and so I am going to think on that.

You are right I am bitter given that I work on the front line and see the real effects day in day out of inequality.

It’s not about me, it’s about everyone.

It seems you want to sim gif a race to the bottom.

we are not in other countries

we are in an OECD country.

and the government just loves your mentality - ‘I’ve barely got a roof over my head and can’t get childcare so I can work full time abc yhd CMS payments have stopped yet again, but at least I’ve got a good bank so my kids can eat tinned food for three days so I should be thankful’

It’s also a second house with a mortgage on it. That’s not a normal situation. It could be sold but CGT probably payable. It’s not the main residence and could be sold and money given to DD now and the 7 year rule would be fine. It’s what we did with 2 rental houses. Our DDs have the money and we paid CGT. Having an interest only mortgage is poor planning really. Everyone makes their own choices.

@ThisOldThang You can get the house in a divorce if DH doesn’t have a good barrister or is rich! Maybe they didn’t need this house? These days the standard solution is to sell the family house and both parties buy a smaller one, even with DC.

@llizzie

That seems like a very one-sided divorce settlement. Why did the judge award you 100% of assets?

You insist on balling me out. I know. I can read up the law too. You cannot give your house away to your children and hope you live 7 years.

You can live in the house, but you have to pay your child rent and that child has to pay income tax on that rent, whether it is hypothetical or not.

I have left my house to my daughter. It is her due, because when I divorced her father the judge gave me everything, and she was at school. I reckoned that if she had not been at school, the house would have been shared between her father and me.

When I sold that house I paid off the mortgage and bought another without finance. When I remarried, I had that house. I raised money on it, and also a mortgage on the house I have at the moment. When I die, the interest only mortgage will be paid off and whatever is left will be hers, because she invested her share in the house I bought before I married.

I have a financial advisor. We went through it all, fine tooth comb and all.

Satisfied?

It is not easy to save for a deposit and buy a house. Most people commit to a debt over 25 years or so, and to make the mortgage payments, the whole family has to go without things that others might enjoy.

If, for instance, the children don't have holidays, or they have the same car for 15 years, or no technology, then you could argue that the DC paid their share of the mortgage and when the house has increased in value, that is an investment for the family, so the £50K from her DF is not exactly 'free money', is it?

Or perhaps you don't see it like that?

I remember a TV show years ago where they got long term benefit claimants to cancel all their benefits and they gave them the lump sum, after tax, average annual salary. Can't really remember what happened to most of them but a couple set up small businesses, one was a bouncy castle hire company. I remember them being shocked that they had to pay rent and some other bills and just how much that stuff was.