>I find it strange that you're just shrugging off the objections as "outrage", rather than trying to engage/address them in any serious way. I think the concept of fairness, and the fact that people might be incentivized to freeload are legitimate concerns. You might not think they're valid, but if you want their tax dollars to fund the social programs you want, it seems entirely reasonable that their concerns be addressed.
Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense without that sense of outrage. Especially if you make the ridiculous economic argument you're making.
Firstly, there are serious housing shortages in many places in the US, driving up prices and making housing unaffordable for many.
What's more, it's really hard to hold a job when you have no place to shower or store your stuff (I know this from personal experience), so homeless folks could be contributing to society (BTW, the data says that less than 10% of homeless folks have drug abuse/serious mental illness issues).
As such, providing most homeless folks with real housing (as compared with "shelters" which are dangerous and often unsanitary) can boost the economy by giving more folks the opportunity to work, make a living and contribute to the community/society.
It's really very simple. As James Ridgeway[1] pointed out back in 1988 or so (I've searched and searched for the Village Voice article over the years, but haven't been able to find it online) when he asked (then answered his own question):
"What do homeless people want?"
The answer being, "homes, mostly."
This is not a new issue, nor is it particularly complicated.
The vast majority of homeless people are willing and able to support themselves, but circumstance (medical bills, lawsuits, layoffs death of a partner/fellow breadwinner) has taken away their ability to afford rent. And given that a majority of Americans[2] (~60%) can't come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense should give you some pause.
Spending some money to get folks to a place where they can once again support themselves and their children (yes, I'm going with the "think of the children" trope, although in this case it seems useful/relevant), so they can earn a living in excess of that expenditure helps the homeless people, the economy where that person resides and the community in which they live.
And since "housing" people in shelters is more expensive[0] than putting these unfortunate folks in apartments, that's another strong reason to find permanent housing for homeless folks.
tl;dr: Since the economics of homelessness and our response to it broadly calls out for paying (at least until folks are able to pay themselves) rent on permanent housing rather than the half-assed measures that cost more, your argument about "fairness" falls really flat.
[0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homeless-shelters-more-ex_n_5...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ridgeway
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-...
Edit: Fixed link references.