[null and void]

I believe the U.S. have a “final safety net” for those truly incapable of fending for themselves.

Why is this the responsibility of the All Powerful State?

This was done quite well and efficiently by private charities before the government muscled its way into the sector, shoved the charities motivated by kindness aside and displaced them in large part by heartless rules and Byzantine bureaucracy.

Money freely donated to help the unable is charity.

Money seized at the point of a gun backed by the full force of draconian IRS agents to support the unwilling is not charity.

Yet many people when asked to donate by a charity, shrug and say no under the grounds that they are already 'doing their part' because they pay taxes to pay for the welfare safety net hammock...

[Pecos]

I agree with the sense of your question completely. The problem is that the all-powerful state will never give up taxing us to death. Therefore, in my next-to-ideal world, a safety net, not a hammock, tied directly to a person's efforts to remove themselves from it, would work.

I also agree with the remainder of your sentiments. My initial post was trying to address one small part of the overall problem.