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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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!).

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.

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 🤷🏼‍♀️.

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.

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.

What’s your solution?

The that will require some radical law changing.

Good luck with that happening.

you continue to blame single parents

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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!).