OP, I think your friend is repellent, sorry.
People who commit benefits fraud make it harder for legitimately struggling people to get the assistance they need.
- They drain more than their fair share of a finite, critical resource
- They legitimise the 'bludger/willfully dependent' narrative that neo-cons etc. require to reduce and restrict assistance programs
- They increase the number and difficulty of the absurd bureaucratic hoops that legitimately disadvantaged, needy and vulnerable people often have to jump through in order to recieve help
It would be one thing if she were legitimately struggling or, say, in debt due to inequitable circumstances, or her children had additional needs that wouldn't be met under her legal entitlement, but she is gleefully milking the system for 'fun money'.
She is almost certain to raise her children hobbled with the same self-inefficacy, compromised ethical framework and shameless, gloating entitlement that she is currently displaying.
...Leaving aside the illegality of OP's friend's actions for a moment, I find it bizarre that so many people are arguing for excusing such shameless, gleeful dishonesty and greed on the basis that 'people should be focussing on tax evasion committed by corporations and the wealthy, that's way worse'.
...As though people can't abhor and argue against both.
It's an entirely spurious argument - it's rather like those curious sorts who argue against charitable giving to international charities and welfare entities that work in impoverished nations on the basis that 'we have people here that are poor, why should I donate to (overseas charity) when I can donate right here? (but who never actually contribute anything whatsoever to improve either situation).
I'm always pretty suspicious of these sorts of arguments, because they seem to have, by and large, one of two motivations/outcomes:
- Self-absolution (and/or acquittal of those in whom we are invested)
- Nullification or suppression of social energy/outcry/efforts that might otherwise lead to social/cultural change.
Shaming and redirecting those who argue against or object to a legitimate wrong or injustice on ethical (or, indeed, personal) grounds more often than not prolongs the (inequitable) status quo.
The message that unjust or deceitful enrichment at the expense of the less fortunate is wrong has to be true across the board, for everyone, or it's not true at all.
Whether it's a corporation reaping all the benefits of capitalism and bearing virtually none of the responsibility/burden.
Wether it's a billionaire whose use of social goods versus contribution of social goods is wildly disparate.
Whether it's OP's delightful friend, who doesn't require a financial and services safety net meant for struggling, disadvantaged and vulnerable people but nevertheless gleefully decieves in order to avail herself of it, for fun money, because she's convinced herself she deserves 'extra', regardless of who it impacts.