You believe “we” must help the poor. By “we” I suppose you mean the government if you don’t trust your fellow citizens to be charitable.
The government helps the poor by giving them stuff, either in kind or in money, to enable them to consume goods and services like the rest of us who earn our own way.
Before any of us can consume anything, something has to be produced. We’ve uncovered here a fundamental law of life: production must precede consumption. Production doesn’t just happen on its own. There is no production fairy. It we really want to help the poor we need a dynamic economic system of production. The system that produces the highest per capita GDP is the one that will best help the poor because that will give us the necessary production of goods and services that we need to help the poor.
If we care about the poor, socialism is the last thing we want. Zimbabwe has an annual per capita GDP of $722. That all that’s available for helping the poor, which is everyone in the country. Zimbabwe doesn’t practice free-market capitalism. At least not in the open because it’s illegal.
Neither does the United States, at least not very much. But the little bit of free market capitalism we do have is a terrific engine of production giving us an annual per capita GDP of $51,729 in 2012. That enables the United States to help its poor a lot more than Zimbabwe can with its measly $722.
Just think what we could do if the many obstacles our government imposes on free-market capitalism were removed. Maybe we could eliminate poverty altogether. [Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” hasn’t even made a dent in poverty in the 50 years it has been in existence] Because it produces the most for everyone, free-market capitalism is the most benevolently moral economic system there is. If you want social justice, you should want more free-market capitalism.
During the 1960s Hong Kong had unlimited free-market capitalism. Poverty was non-existent. Everyone willing to work or invest his capital got his fair share of the production.
When I was young we used to have a saying on how to determine what you were worth to your employer. All you had to do is look at your paycheck. If you thought you were worth more than you were being paid, you demanded a raise. Sometime you got it, sometimes you didn’t and then you looked for a better job. If you actually were worth more than you were being paid, you likely found that better job.
Compare that to socialism where lots of workers are worth way more then they’re being paid and lots of other are worth way less. Both are stuck where they are. The low-worth crowd might be happy, but the high-worth have to either be someone’s slave or go John Galt without the net worth that John Galt had to sustain him.