I agree with toccata.
And tbh people turning themselves into marters off the back of comments that are clearly not directed at them is getting really boring.
There are benefits scroungers. Lots of them. Anyone who believes that scroungers (and we're not talking about people claiming fraudulantly, but people who are perfectly capable of working for a living and choose not to and are supported by the state in doing so) are in a tiny minority or do not exist is very naive.
If you are not working because you cannot due to illness/disability/caring for a disabled child/relative/you have lost your job and are struggling to find another one then you are not a benefits scrounger. But you are not helping the attitudes of some people that all people on benefits are scroungers if you then stand up for all people claiming benefits and deny the existance of benefits scroungers.
Equally there are people who do not pay the required amount of tax they should - and again it's not fraud, for the most part it is facilitated by loopholes in the system that enable those with creative accountants and enough money (and by enough money we are generally talking about more money than anyone on here is ever likely to see) to do so. But actually, these are in the minority here. The difference though between the "super rich" and the "benefits scroungers" is that the amount of money the super rich earn is signifficant. But - less than 10% of the population earns over £50000. Less than 5% of the population earns over £100000, and less than 1% of the population earns over £150000. So by taxing the super rich you are not going to gain signifficant revenue. In fact there is evidence to suggest that by taxing the super rich you lose revenue as many of them will leave the country taking all of their money with them. And like it or not, the super rich do contribute - through the products they buy, the property they buy, and the related taxes and vat that is applied to those goods which is signifficant when you consider what some of them spend on material wealth.
By contrast the benefits scroungers, while almost certainly making up more than 1% of benefits claimants, are generally not claiming signifficant amounts of money individually, but collectively their claims most likely do make up a signifficant amount. However, while you will again generate some revenue from ensuring those who are capable of work, work, on the whole, many of them will enter into low-paid jobs, and thus will not be generating signifficant tax revenue either.
Which is why you can't just put the problem on to one sector of society - everything has to give. Yes, the public sector needs to give back something. The public sector is stuffed to over capasity with paper pushers, too much management and not enough administration in many departments. Equally there needs to be a way of making the so-called super rich contribute more, and similarly there needs to be a way of making the "benefits scroungers" take responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on the state to do it, so that those who are genuinely in need don't have to give so much.