"We" do not share the same precise needs. We may share general categories of need, government-provided social services not among them. While within a context in which such services exist one is at a prohibitive disadvtantage without them, this is due mostly to the fact that one will end up paying the taxes anyway. Unless one is incompetent at providing any value to any person who can provide a value, without those taxes one is at no such disadvantage and use their competence at providing such value in exchange for what one needs.
Now, certainly, the incompetents need government sponsored, tax funded "social services." But why would a competent person have any concern about that? Or why should someone who has no concern about something be forced to?
Social service programs have proven to be successful to keep persons in poverty from starving and suffering. The more of them the government initiates, the less crime there will be, and the positive effects outnumber the negatives.
It is of very little interest to keep people who have not earned food from starving and suffering. It can hardly be called a positive, it's essentially neutral to slight negative if a charity does it (depending on how much it costs them), and it's a large negative when it's done by taxation.
"Reducing crime" by paying off the criminals is known as tribute and encourages people to invent new crime waves to "get reduced." Also, you cannot reduce crime by eliminating a crime that is done some of the time and replacing it with a crime (government theft) that is done all of the time. If you are defining crime in purely legalistic terms of course then your definition has no place in a debate about what ought to be the law in the first place.