I agree with your moral and ethical claims that the poor (working or not) should be helped. However, I'm not too sure that Government is the best/most efficient entity to tackle the problem. I expect that private, tax-exempt non-profit organizations do a better job due to specialization in addressing specific niches (food, housing, medical care, etc.). Private philanthropy, like private business, will almost always operate more efficiently than an equivalent government entity. So, instead of giving up a certain percentage of my income to help the government combat "insert cause here" I'd much rather donate to a charity/organization of my choosing. I believe in moral absolutes, and I believe that most people are aware of their desires to help their fellow human beings; enough to donate money, time, and themselves. At least, this is what I've observed in my own life.
The main issue with defining "fairness" (which implies justice) is not with coming up with a suitable definition or implementation using ethics and morality. It is with the prevailing moral system itself. Western society seems to be increasingly adherent to a relativistic moral system. The concept of "fairness" is an inconsistent moving target from person to person, and consensus on what is "fair" is difficult to obtain. Then it is subject to change over time. This is why I'd rather "welfare" come from the private sector (non-profs, good neighbors, etc.). "Fairness" would then be left for the individual to determine. At least I can "choose" to donate to organizations which share the same philosophy as me.
