Best friend compared her inheritance to my benefits

[theusualdrama]

My closest friend, who I have known for 15 years, is currently single, employed full time and has recently purchased her first home after years of renting. She doesn’t have any children. She grew up with her mother and didn’t see her father for over 20 years. He runs his own business and is quite wealthy. On the other hand, I’m a single parent with 3 children. I work part time and rent a small house. I rely on universal credit since my ex doesn’t provide any financial support. Like my friend, I was also raised by a single parent and have no connection with my father. He’s also very well off but has never offered any help or support. Even though, we share similar backgrounds, we’ve clearly taken different paths in life.

She recently reconnected with her dad, who gave her £50,000 to help with a house deposit. I was absolutely thrilled for her, knowing how challenging it was for her to purchase a house on her own without this money. We got together for coffee earlier, and I asked her how the house renovations were going. She filled me in on all the upgrades she’s done and everything. I mentioned how lucky she was to have her father’s support, and I meant that in a positive way. It seems she was offended, as she subsequently likened her inheritance to me receiving benefits for free (her words).

It was uncomfortable after that and we haven’t spoken since. Her comment keeps running through my head, and I’m really surprised she believes it’s the same situation.

AIBU?

@Annascaul The only difference is what the money is spent on.

So for those who think we're awful for suggested that both have received 'free' money. I'm not suggufor.a.moment friend isn't lucky. Of course she is £50,000 is a sum of money that I think most of us couldn't dream of. I don't earn that in two years and I work full time.

Answer a genuine question for me.

Why do you all think we're awful uncaring people for perhaps suggesting that OP is lucky (not in the same way, as her friends clearly) in some sense to be able to work part and receive help from the state in raising her children. (As she has been left in a situation, through no fault of her own).

Are we not 'lucky' to live in a country that provides for it's citizens in times of need? Is it wrong for others to receive gifts that enhance their lives more than someone else's.

Are you suggesting it was wrong of friend to share her news with OP because she's in a better financial situation than OP?

In that case in these situations is it better to never be friends with people who are better off than we are?

If a feckless sperm donor doesn’t step up and take responsibility, then it is “allowing it” if the mother doesn’t pursue him to the ends of the earth. If he’s a shit then he’s a shit, but to not pursue him IS enabling him to be a shit.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I’m fairly certain that plenty of women out there want to hear your plan on how to make a child support dodging man pay up….

Please do share your master plan - share your wisdom and sure fire methods.

If you want to think just scraping by in insecure housing is lucky go ahead.

I know that, but thank you for pointing it out to me. I shall endeavour to correct my writing so that people can better understand what I am saying. I am damned on Mumsnet if I cut/paste the exact words and damned if I don't. There is always bound to be some clever dick who points out the obvious.

It is a risk one has to take when posting anything on here. I don't mind. If the poster's only joy of the day is to point out the wrongs, who am I to deny them that pleasure in their otherwise dull lives.

I was referring to the increased value of property when it comes to selling it. I thought that was obvious. It isn't free money, is it? The children should have a share in the value, if that value increases. Instead, when property is sold, people think it is free money to the heirs. It isn't always the case, if they helped pay the mortgage.

It is prudent to downsize and give money to children if you intend to live 7 more years, but if not, then that gift will be added to the value of the smaller property.

You may not benefit from being given a house 7 years earlier. It doesn't escape the taxman.

The value of the house is then considered as rent, during the parents lifetime, and the parents are charged with paying rent to their child(ren) who have to pay tax on the rental income.

Also, there is a law against selling a house cheaply to avoid care home costs, which were capped at £84K(?). I think Ms Reeves might have stopped that ceiling.

Your life is subsided by the state and her life is subsided by her dad. You both get handouts, it’s the hard truth.

So bitter. This thread isn’t about you, you know?

@llizzie I’m not sure you understand about gifting. You can sell your main residence and give the money you don’t need to DC. There’s no tax involved as long as you don’t die. You should not give the house and continue to live in it. People try and do that to avoid IHT and care home fees, but, as you say, rent is due to the owners. My dc haven’t contributed to my house. I have, however, contributed to theirs. Which is fine by me and DH and me don’t intend to die just yet.

@spicemaiden

I grew up in hous on benefits, we barely had enough money each month. So I do know what it is like to scrape by in insecure housing.

But that doesn't mean I cannot consider that were I to have been born in manu countries. I would not have scraped by I may well have died of childhood malnutrition, exposure or many other issues. And reflect that comparatively I was very lucky to scrape by.

And one could argue that friend is not as lucky as someone who parents bought them a house outright.

In this country and in the world, we are all luckier and unluckier than others.

As others have said, you have both received free money, you probably more than her. You have both made different choices in life which means you spend the money differently.

Receiving benefits is nothing like being given tens of thousands of pounds in one big chunk to enable you to buy a house.

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.

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?

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?

@llizzie

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

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.

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’

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.