In the United States, there is a prevalent attitude in mainstream society that social mobility within Capitalism makes it meritocratic, and so someone who works hard will be able to receive an education or pursue a career and make a living. Often times, conservative people point to the examples of abuse of the system, in which there is little incentive to work while guaranteed a living wage, and perceive an irony in giving aid to those who are unemployed, while those working who "deserve" their "meritocratically distributed" wage are the ones paying for it. Latin American oligarchy and the European upper classes often share similar sentiments backed by similar logic.
The largest flaws in this argument are of course, the advantages one may lack as a result of economic background, the inherently authoritarian hierarchy of the capitalist system, etc.
I think when confronted with such opinions, one should (instead of discarding them) express the idea that we must look past such petty remedies to understand the more deeply rooted problems, and eliminate the need for systemically perpetuated poverty in the first place. Using the word socialism right off the bat might not be the best idea to someone obviously opposed to that idea, but agreeing that it is a defunct system and that structural solutions must be implemented is a start on opening people's minds, and like the title of another thread states, we can't just preach to the choir (though careful not to waste your breath.


.
