To think that living off a trust fund or parental income is no better than living off benefits.....

[Ravenspeckingearly]

.....in terms of the example you set your children.
I’ve crossed paths with a few of these types lately.....grown adults who do nothing except the school run twice a day (both parents do both trips) and spend the money that drops into their accounts on a monthly basis. Surely it just teaches their offspring that adult life is all about the gym and lunching? Can you teach your own children about ‘adulting’ if you’ve never had to do it yourself?
I know a couple of other adults who have trust funds or are heavily supported by parents to live a very affluent life, but they also have jobs, mostly in highly competitive professions.
Thoughts please.

For all the comments, votes are 50/50. So a lot of people agree with you OP.

It's just a personal matter what these people do with money etc,and doe's not require people commenting,or questioning about this matter.

Depends on the circumstance.

For instance, a local business couple separated and the business sold, they divided up their properties into his and hers. She lives ''on the farm'' which is Trust owned (might have been while they were in business too) while he has several rentals and lives with his newer GF in hers.

Whilst there is nothing wrong with that, rental and grazing incomes go back to the trusts, Dad earns cash now for his ''building work'' and it means their children were eligible for low-income household assistance inc University education and accommodation costs.

(The GF's children age also made that couple eligible for low-income benefits.)

Business couple Mum was on study benefits while she did a pt course and the children at school, fitted in between going away in the family camper while the rural tenants kept the property running.

So, my line in the sand is drawn when public funds start supporting lifestyles and if it wasn't for the age of the children, they wouldn't have had an opportunity to claim various low-income family benefits when they did, while income sources were directed back to family trusts.

That is when I have a problem with it.

I know someone in this position. This is a couple who came from a humble background, worked hard all their lives, and made money. All his money went into a Trust of which two relatives are the trustees. He has a lovely home. If it needs repair or he wants anything they buy it for him. However he had reduced his own income to a level where he and his wife are eligible for state benefit, free prescriptions, etc. I would call that excellent financial planning to keep his money our of the grubby hands of the tax man.

Well, at least they are leaving jobs for people who need them. There are many things in the world I could get more exercises about.

A trust fund lounger is totally diferent from someone on benefits.

I have been on full benefits three times in my life, most recently from October 2020 until Feb 2021 due to Covid redundancy. Does that mean that I am not showing my kids a good example?

@MabelPines

What is the point of gathering more money if you have more than enough already?

Working because you love your job fair enough. But if someone doesn't love a job why should they spend their life working in a possibly meaningless role when they don't actually want or need any more money?

Spot on.

This

There are thousands of people who can't find jobs - so if those who don't need to work don't want to then that leaves more opportunity for everyone else.

Give me a trust fund and I would retire immediately!

If the trust fund or other source of income is large enough to sustain the children's generation as well then is there a problem? Will the kids ever need to do anything else?

If I had a lot of money I'm not sure I would want to work in a demanding position.

Surely you'd have to do something to give your life meaning? Like focusing on your caring responsibilities, on a basic level. If you were fit and well, and had particular talents to hone, that would be fantastic. You could set up a non-profit, or run a charity. Or go into politics!

The thing is, people with plenty of money seem to find it the easiest to make more of the stuff. I can imagine making a career of wafting about at celebrity parties in nice frocks...and then, BAM! I've been asked to design a clothing collection, or a make-up range. Put on a nice white suit and give a talk about women's rights...you get invited on the telly and start taking paid-for charity trips to the Sudan or something. Then I'd probably snag myself a really rich husband, sell the wedding photos, get it all paid for. The next few years would be spent sharing my interior design challenges with posh magazines, and renovating a chateaux or two...I'd be all over the media pouring my curves into nice swimsuits with my branding on them. I wouldn't go on Loose Women though; you'd have to draw the line somewhere.

One should do something meaningful with one's life, if the privilege exists to do so. Meaningful doesn't't always mean paid employment.

I don't think there is anything wrong with either of those. You don't necessarily need a job to teach children about "adulting." Do you think the same about SAHPs?

It is a double edges sword because often as a result they lack the motivation to achieve anything in life for themselves as it has all been handed to them. Only those who are motivated will seek out charity work or something they deem worthwhile to keep themselves busy. Each to their own, if I could live off a trust fund I would use it to do all the things I have always wanted to and that wouldn't necessarily involve working in a 9-5 job.

What kind of lifestyle do YOU lead OP to have "come across a few people like this" lately?

My thoughts are that you are jealous or bitter.
Yabu

God I wish I had a fund to support me being a SAHM. My kids and I would love it.
Mind your own business, you just sound jealous

I think you have a very narrow view of 'adulting' and what counts as setting a good example for children. Lots of people are able to enjoy a fantastic standard of living without partaking in the traditional world of work that you seem to find so virtuous. There are people with huge passive incomes, people that own businesses but no longer play an active role in running them, people that have won lots of money etc. I'm not really sure why you think these people should be encouraged to compete with people that genuinely need a job to survive in order to prove their not lazy?

Are you talking about the aristocracy or royal family? Is that who you’re having a dig at?

Not your business, Raven.

YABU because you are making massive generalisations. Having independent money does not prevent parents teaching their children the value of money. How do you know if they volunteer, donate to charity or contribute to the economy in other ways? Sure there are some loungers but it's no fairer to say all trust fund recipients are lazy and bad parents it is to say all benefits recipients are. In any case this money doesn't last if it just gets spent. Twice in my family history before my parents were born a large fortune got spent rather quickly! It made my parents (comfortably off through hard work but not rich) much more careful with money.

If my xh was on benefits, he would have to pay CM. As it is, handouts from parents do not count so he is not obliged to pay a penny.

I’d happily live off a trust fund or parental contribution. Sounds magnificent.

If I didn't have to work, I wouldnt do so just to prove a point.

to keep his money our of the grubby hands of the tax man.

The "tax man" gathers money to pay for things that we all benefit from, education, NHS, benefits, infrastructure etc.
The person with grubby hands in this situation is the one artificially lowering their income to not pay tax, yet happily received other peoples' tax into their pocket.

@AcornAutumn

I actually prefer these rich people to live from their money rather than take a job someone else needs to pay bills. Unpopular opinion, I'm sure.

As for what you teach your kids, my parents were very hardworking, didn't have any effect on me.

This is a really good point actually.