http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31464897

What a nasty little sh1t you are. Divide and conquer, eh? Lets have all those people claiming benefits over intricate health issues boiled down to a headline and blamed, even though thousands of them are likely trying to get treatment

And let's also not mention the entire welfare bill is a fraction of the amount of money you let your mates evade paying in tax every year.

Doubt that's correct. The welfare budget is huge.

IIRC what is defined as 'welfare' is somewhat disputed. There's an OECD definition but the government sent out a leaflet last year with a pie chart of government spending on it that had 'welfare' as a much bigger chunk than the OECD formula would have - it turned out the government had included (for example) public sector pensions contributions in there, which next to nobody other than them considers to be 'welfare'. There are other questions too - are state pensions 'welfare payments' given they are actually contributory? Is the NHS part of the welfare system?

What is probably unarguable is that the best estimates of the total revenue 'lost' through tax evasion - although the people who do it would obviously and with some justification say they've paid all the tax they were required to - is massively more than the best estimates of the amount of inappropriate welfare payments (e.g. sickness benefit payments to healthy people who are exploiting the system).

Going after the people who are on benefits who could possibly not be and making them go back to work or starve will net the government much, much less than going after the people who have pots of money and wouldn't actually suffer any hardship at all if they weren't allowed to move their money to Switzerland or Bermuda or wherever.

It's politics and therefore not black & white but IN MY OPINION, given the numbers I've seen, the government is going after completely the wrong people.

I seem to recall reading that the bulk of benefit payments actually go to people in work.
It always plays well to go after benefits scroungers but realistically doing so is going after people who, almost by definition, have little if anything more the state can extract.
People on benefits generally don't have access to lawyers and accountants to help them pay as little as possible whereas the people at the other end of the spectrum do have access to those services. Going after people who can defend themselves and their money is difficult, time consuming, and in some cases inimical to ones chances of re-election. Guess which side parties of both sides tend to want to be seen going after. Mind you, that calculus may be shifting, at least on the political front.