Stand up for the Unlikely

Let's talk a little about the benefits system. I know it's an old topic, but it's good to clear some things up. Obviously, as a progressive Conservative you can see where I'm going to take this argument, but some people don't agree with me, and I'd love to see a debate forming here.
So let's look at the justification for over half of taxpayers' money going towards the benefits system. Well, there are certain examples of where this money is needed to get people into work, to get them back on their feet and help them into employment, from where they will no longer need the money and so will stop claiming. Likewise, there are those people who need the money for their basic necessities in life, as they physically cannot work, such as disabled people.
However, I'm going to stop the list there, because I believe that there a number of people who need benefits who do not deserve them. Consider for a moment a family where neither parent works because they cannot find a job, and so require benefits to help them survive. All very well, but then who's to say they will continue to try and find a job after they've realised they can cope without doing so. Admittedly, this isn't a high percentage, but all of a sudden it's the incentive which has gone.
Linked in with this is the concept of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It's a concept which we all consider to be good, and worth commending, though one must ask oneslef again: where is the incentive to be rich if you only give to the poor and steal from the rich. Convenient, isn't it, how in Robin Hood, all the rich people are also evil and morally corrupt? Standing up for the rich just a little, it is worth recognising the amount of money given to charity by the rich of this charity, be it through taxes or voluntarily: as a proportion of income (emphasis on proportion) the upper and middle classes give the same amount as the working class. The difference is, that while everyone is being generous, the alrger amount comes from those who worked to get rich.
So what about those who didn't work to get rich, and were born into it? Surely resentment is justified there? Well, hold on a minute - it's not their fault. I do not deny that I am born into a wealthy background, though I do not live my life in any manner other than humile, with the occasional luxuries which my hard-working ancestors have bestowed upon us. Consider that for those with combined family income of £60,000+, tuition fees are free. Why should I have to pay the extra when my ancestors worked hard to ensure I wouldn't have to?
Please discuss.

Socialist Incompetence

Once again, the government has revealed its socialist incompetence with the rise in tax on beer; or rather, as the government would rather, a 'minimum price to combat social excessive drinking'.
There is a list of reasons why this disgusts me, the foremost being that Alistair Darling cares nothing for the future of the British Pub. Already, around 7 pubs are closing every week in the United Kingdom, and along comes a heavily publicised additional setback for every landlord and pubowner in the country. It seems to be utter madness.
Let's look at the pros and hopefully outweigh them with the cons. Firstly, as with smoking, increasing a tax thresold on a heavily consumed and relativiely inelastic good such as beer is a key way of raising money for spending in the economy: a lot of tax revenue for little effect to the consumer. All very well, but this is money which we don't know the future of. Either it will be reimbursed in the same spendaholic fashion that got us into this mess over the next years of Labour government, or it will be accumulating to help pay back some of that gigantic debt overshadowing the country; a debt which, I might add, the government fails to notice the existence of.
Of course, that is the very point. Lumbering the next government with yet another irreversible tax burden.