The needs of those who don't have resources are converted into claims on those who do. Productive people have been punished for their virtues. The policy perhaps discourages production and therefore makes us all poorer. But that is not the main issue, which remains the forcible transfer of possessions from peaceful people to welfare recipients. That question seems to lead to a confrontation between two ethical notions.
Charity is elevated from a virtue to a justification for one's life.
The other notion states that someone's need is not a claim on your life-that you have a fundamental right to live that does not have to be validated by service to others. These principles conflict at the ethical level, and it is not my purpose to sort out the matter here. The principles do not conflict, however, at the political level. Neither principle can be used to justify coercion. Even if you believe that people morally owe the poor support, it does not follow that government should enforce the alleged debt.