>The original assertion was: "And then nobody needs to work because society (ie the 'enlightened' ones) have determined a comfy standard of living that the gub-mint will pay for.
>
>It's the "nobody needs to work" that I objected to. The fact is that the vast majority continues to work regardless, including in the US where the quoted employment rate is >80%. Of the unemployed minority claiming welfare and not working, some are in that state through no fault of their own (particularly at the moment) and some will be unashamed bludgers but my response to the latter is "so what." Always society will be subject to leeches, particularly at the top and bottom of the financial spectrum. We can waste our resources trying to block them but such people often possess a low cunning that allows them to weasel around any barrier. So rather than risk allowing the truly needy to suffer, perhaps we should grit our teeth and accept that every dog carries a few fleas and Rover (by which I mean society) is much happier if he gets a flea collar and a regular wash rather than a constant onslaught of disinfecting and sluicing to prevent any flea ever taking a bite.

The original assertion ("nobody") was exaggerated for effect, i.e. hyperbolic. You've succeeded in proving it's not literally true, for whatever that's worth.