I do judge non working people or those that do the magic number of hours (usually sixteen) and let others keep them instead of doing more.
I think this is a really unfair comment. Ok, so people who choose not to work despite being able to is a bit of a drain on public money. It really isn't as big of a problem as the media likes us to think, but I agree that it is morally wrong.
However, some people who work 16 hours in order to qualify for tax credits may not have any other choice. They may have an illness or condition that limits the hours they work and 16 hours is really pushing them to their limits. Because of the eligibility criteria for PIP they don't qualify despite clearly being in pain or discomfort, so they have no choice but to force themselves to work 16 hours in order to survive.
Or they may be a newly divorced single parent who cannot afford a full time job as the childcare costs are astronomical, and there are no 'decent' jobs available with part time hours. The logical choice is to work 16 hours in a menial job and claim tax credits to top up the family income as any other scenario doesn't work or leaves you poorer.
Or, they're studying and relying on tax credits to feed their children while they focus on getting better qualified and increase their employability.
My dp and I rely on benefits to keep us afloat. I hate the idea that people like you are judging us because we do so. Dp works full-time for a charity and he loves it. I'm a self employed gardener and work 16-24 hours a week, depending on how bad my mental health is. I'm autistic, which is never going away, and have had to accept that, despite a degree and being fairly intelligent, I will not be able to function in a high stress full time career. My main role in life right now is to stay well and be a good parent. If I worked more I would break and be no good to anyone and cost the state more.