[edited] OK - I've gone through your comment history, and can see that you would rather people starved to death than give them food, so I'm not sure there's any point in wasting each other's time in continuing this.
It's an excellent question to bring up, though. You note that a civilized society gives people food if they absolutely need it. Do we then want to be a civilized society?
The core assumption is that it is morally correct to distribute value from the taxpayer base into the hands of those whose lives depend on it. In essence, the many are forced to save the few. This force is measured in terms of the amount of money redistributed; if it costs €10 a month to provide basic food to those who need it, and there are 10 taxpayers for every 1 person who qualifies for welfare, the institution manifests as all people in the country being required to pay €1 per month to contribute 10% of saving a person.
So the core question is, then, what is the moral justification for this force? In what way are people obligated to help their neighbors, such that society has moral grounds to force them to help their neighbors if they don't want to?
The real story is, I'd rather less people starve to death than more people starve to death. Mass starvation is the inevitable result of giving the masses free food.
If you feed ducks you get more ducks, until eventually you can't feed them all.
