And yet oddly - whilst you pretend minimum wage is plenty to live on, you attack anyone living comfortably in a house that’s big enough to work from, or who can afford a computer, or a garden. It’s a strange world view - where exactly your level of income is the right amount, and anyone with a higher income is undeserving and don’t know how lucky they are, and anyone worse off is a scrounger.
And yet I haven't said anyone worse off from me is a scrounger, nor have I said anyone better off is undeserving. But then you've proven yourself to be absolutely terrible at reading words on a screen for quite a while now so I'm not surprised you've managed to get this wrong. As I've said many times, I hope to god you aren't analysing any important data because you're ******* awful at it.
For clarification Dopey is a midget. The above statement doesn't mean that I think anyone shorter than me is a midget
It was my impression that there was such a system in place. But perhaps I'm wrong or it's not routinely enforced. I think unfortunately you are always going to have some people who try to cheat the system, whether that be benefit fraud, tax fraud etc. However, I am not convinced it is as widespread as is often suggested. And personally I would be reluctant to make further restrictions in relation to benefits if it meant someone in genuine need could be more likely to miss out.
I agree, I think the collateral damage is a real issue. As well as the fact that more stringently administering benefits isn't free - the snooper squad's wages have to be paid, and as such policing benefits more attentively might not deliver huge savings, or could even be a net loss to the welfare system.