Many folks who support a larger role of government in society as a kind of referee in the arena of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have been sold a bill of goods that "charity" equals "government welfare" and thus wealth parity of society. That's why they are/have been such ardent supporters of entitlements for the "lower class". Large portions of the global Christian community have fallen for this as well for numerous reasons. Conservatives do not object to government welfare for those who are in need; we object to large swaths of society who have decided it is their right out of jealousy/apathy/covetousness/sloth, or been encouraged it must be thus (or made to believe it is so/acceptable) by government officials as a form of job security for them and an effort to expand government in general.
That is when democracy becomes authoritarianism and we all lose the opportunity to better ourselves (and I use "democracy" in the broadest sense because the United States is technically a constitutional republic). A citizen cannot possibly have more freedom and opportunity as a citizen to acquire wealth than when its government gets out of the way of commerce; the government receives the most money in taxes when as many of its citizens are successful as possible--therein lies the irony of over-taxation and over-regulation.
The wealthy are obligated to the same morals, ethics, and virtues under God as the rest of us (see Martin Luther's letters "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation", "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants", and "Admonition to Peace", which address both parties equally during The Peasants' War, as good examples of the equal obligations of citizens to each other).
In the original Greek of the New Testament "agápē" was translated as "charity" (check a King James Version of 1 Corinthians 13:1-8), which is now translated simply as "love". It is interesting that what the Greeks considered to be the deepest form of love--"sacrificial love" or "agápē"--was originally translated into the English language as "charity"; "charity is NOT "dependent welfare" or "guilt offerings"--it is the deepest act of love one human creature can give another (or God can give His creation), and this love cannot be forced or imposed or decreed or legislated.
There must be a reason beyond self-fulfillment, self-joy, obligation, and/or being a "good citizen" for there to be true charitable love. If you want to read a superb contrast of the kinds of love, check out CS Lewis' The Four Loves. His words from that book would support St. John Chrysostom's notion that a heart must be changed for good for the kind of charity to exist that sacrifices of itself and possessions.
First Lewis points out this: “There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless - it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable.”
By contrast is this: "In God there is no hunger that needs to be filled, only plenteousness that desires to give.”
The former action is suffocating and ultimately self-destroying--the wealth of such a person will pass along to the state anyway (or hopefully family members who will manage it better); but of the latter, whether one is brought up in such virtue or learns it later by being changed by faith and forgiveness, the person lives with a joy not of this world and cannot get enough of it because his wealth is elsewhere--thus he gives freely and often of earthly possessions. It is the stark difference between Dickens' Ralph Nickleby and Ebenezer Scrooge.
One problem for government is that it cannot get a portion of charity if it does not have a managing hand in it; another is that certain causes it deems to be "charities" would otherwise receive very little for any number of reasons; another is that it gets no recognition for the purpose of advancement of status or ego. Once upon a time, before government or the ACLU felt the need to step into everything, the church and local communities took care of the needs of people. Is the ending of It's A Wonderful Life really just fiction? What about the true story behind The Blind Side? These are just two instances among thousands that have happened and do happen and will continue to happen.