For what it's worth, I believe the largest welfare program in the US is the Earned Income Tax Credit. Many people with even one or two children receive welfare they barely even realize they're getting.

This could be an out of date stat, but at one point corporate welfare was double individual welfare.

Doesn't Catholicism lean distributist?  I mean, I get that economics isn't doctrine per se (though doctrine influences it obviously) and I get that there could be a range of opinions.  When I was in my late teens I was a hardcore Baptist ancap and I struggled with the merits of taking government money.  I think libertarianism is quite consistent with Baptist theology.  Not so much with Catholic theology (at least dogmatic libertarianism.) 

To be clear, I'm not advocating modern welfareism.  If you aren't willing to work, Paul says you shouldn't eat either.  If you're already working 40 hours a week, like, I see no moral obligation of "oh, I have to work even more so I don't legally take money that was taken from megacorps that hate God and really shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway."  Meh.

(To be clear I'm not advocating utilitarianism or theft.  Taxation isn't theft per se.)

Re taxes:

Taxes under Social Credit
https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/taxes-in-the-light-of-social-credit

It’s my welfare. It’s a refund of the money they took in taxes throughout the year.

MOST beneficiaries of the EITC receive back more than they paid. This quote suggests that amount is 96% of the credit. If that's true, then everyone receiving the EITC is a welfare recipient. EITC is a means-tested welfare that you don't have to apply for and the total amount redistributed from other taxpayers is second only to medical welfare programs.

Budget Treatment of Refundable Versus Nonrefundable Tax Credits
The federal budget counts the portion of a tax credit that offsets tax liability as negative revenue but classifies the refundable portion as an outlay. Most of the EITC is refunded—a projected $63.4 billion out of $66.2 billion in FY 2017, or 96 percent of the total credit (figure 5). In contrast, just 53 percent of the combined value of the CTC and ACTC ($27.1 billion out of $51.1 b illion) will be refunded in FY 2017, because many low-income families cannot get the full—or any—credit and because higher-income families can claim at least some CTC.

I think you mean it's my money that they have had access to at nil interest.

Except that's not true.

-MaterDominici

Except that's not true.

-MaterDominici

Hi Mater, I don't want to derail the thread. Maybe it is that I just don't understand how the US system works. And so maybe we are talking of two different things. It was true for us when we were paying (income) tax - quite a while ago now. Not to worry...

Except that's not true.

-MaterDominici

For many it is true.  Most put more in than they get back.  For some however, they do get more back than they put in. 

This is foolish, in my opinion. Our Lord said we have to be prudent, like the man who makes sure he has wherewithal to build a tower to completion before starting the project. Also, the example of a king suing for peace when he has only 10K troops against the other king's 20K. In a word, PRUDENCE.

Going into the battle of life without legal, offered government assistance is like going into battle outnumbered and naked. Maybe you consider yourself purist or honorable, but I say you're just being a proud stubborn fool. Oh, and I bet anyone who disagrees (the purists) are idealistic, single guys who haven't even met their spouse yet, much less have any kids. (We'll talk to them after they get going on the game of life. They're still on the starting line.) And I can't forget the Baby Boomers. They might have avoided welfare because the economy was so good when they were getting started. Many of them are nice people, but with all due respect they haven't the faintest clue what younger generations have to do to just pay the bills and stay afloat. I'll give you a hint: a father working a minimum wage job is no longer enough to support a family on even a poor standard of living. In the 1970's it was!

Minimum wage job is EXACTLY THAT!!!!  A minimum wage job.  It was NEVER meant to be a living wage.  It was and is meant to be an entry level pay to be used as a steppingstone to a higher salary.  
When I was in high school making minimum wage I knew it was pizza, clothes, and school book money.  Never in my wildest imagination did I think it was supposed to help me buy a car, pay a mortgage, or support a family....pocket money while I got the education and training to earn a LIVING WAGE.
Minimum wage is NOT meant to be equal to Living wage....and it never was.