To be fair, we all get to judge the morality of others.
But this should be done fairly. It seems from some comments
that if some benefits have a work requirement, that the resulting
reduction in payouts is a refusal to support the poor at all.
Such polarization is merely divisive.
Instead, the discussion should be about how best to help them.
If the work requirements are unreasonable, then that should be
the issue.
One problem with our welfare system I've criticized is that when
the poor begin earning more money, their benefits are cut back by
even more than they earn, thereby keeping many of them down.
I actually like your point on this.
I've noticed for years that there is a lot of work that could be done by the able-bodied that is simply not done because that work is under the control of unions, and they want more money than is considered worth it. One example in my own city of Toronto, in parks all over this city, warning signs are put up saying "warning: walkways and stairs are not cleared of snow and ice." This is because union workers get paid quite a lot of money for outside work, and the city has determined it simply isn't worthy it.
But I notice that in many neighbourhoods, kids get out with shovels and earn some extra cash by shoveling the driveways oft those who don't care to, or who can't, through being elderly or disabled. I think that a lot of people in need would be very glad of the work, and would do that work at a fairly minimal rate. And there is a corollary benefit that goes with that -- a whole lot more people would then use those parks in winter to get some healthy exercise -- which tends to lower costs of medical care and so forth.
But alas, the unions won't allow it...