"What about the poor?"
This is a phrase commonly heard when one presents the idea that the private sector is perfectly capable of handling the needs of the poor instead of the mandatory "service" provided by the State. It should be noted that churches, charities, other private endeavors provided this service for the poor long before the State got involved and continued to do so until not long ago, despite what has been propagandized.
It is to be expected that a society would want to take care of those less fortunate and is perfectly exemplified when the poor are one of the first concerns noted by the detractors of a system that no longer espouses the use of force to take from those who have to give to those who have not.
Since we can all agree that the poor are to be taken care of, why then would this universally held value evaporate once this service is removed from the endless list of State responsibilities? Do we only help the poor because we have no choice? You cannot collectively (and correctly) identify the notion that there is a moral obligation to care for those in need yet at the same time believe that this responsibility goes away once it is no longer compulsory.
And from a fiscal perspective, the society will have more money to help support the poor if it is no longer being robbed by the parasites in the government. Private companies have a financial responsibility to use funds efficiently, but the State lacks this incentive since the market signals of profit and loss no longer apply. What happens when a State agency does not perform the duty or provide the service for which it has been commissioned? The State demands more money!
To paraphrase Walter E. Williams: To take from a man without consent to give to another man in need is theft. But a man who gives to another man in need is commendable.