Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
Try to make sure that "deserving cases" got the money that was due to them. However, I would have a problem deciding what a deserving case was and certainly wouldn't trust a Government to come up with a fair definition as to what constitutes a "feckless" individual - based on the prevailing mood of fear and mistrust these days, it wouldn't be a fair one.
But my question was based on the premise of there being an infallible method of sorting the honestly needy from the idle. It will never exist which is why the question is hypothetical and just a moral one.

The point is how would society deal with those who do play the system whether they be 60% of those claiming aid or only 2%. up until now no one on here has even attempted to address it.
Tuerto even suggested that no such people exist actually saying that poor people don't Drink. Well that is a totally new one on me and I bet Mr Wetherspoon is grateful it isn't true.
Sludge defects the argument by trying to change a narrative that doesn't suit his outdated dogma, but still won't address the question and instead starts talking about those in social housing which actually has nothing to do with the question.
All we have is usually shit left v right dogmatic mud slinging which is just a smoke screen for people who claim to be caring but don't like the implication of the question, and the questions it raises in their own minds.
It could be that the money save from the lazy could be used to help the needy more. If you withdrew all support from the scammers would the get as job or turn to crime?
Could they be safe in the knowledge that the state will keep giving them handouts?
Should a person who has scammed the system for years who then wins the lottery be made to pay back all the money he/she has taken from the state?
How would you deal with it? That's the question