Brings to mind Graeber's article on "bullshit jobs".
Orwell is saying that to see someone suffer is in line with our ethics; someone who suffers can be ethically reasoned to have earned what dues come their way.
Compare the beggar in orwell's quote, if you will, to the injured war veteran who benefits from a fundraiser. He has suffered, so we consider it worthy for him to benefit through community actions.
Why is he worthy of the benefit? Because he suffered. I am not worthy because I have not suffered as he has. The beggar? Suffering.
You are thinking very stringently if you are interpreting the quote as a 'literal' trade, broken toe for dinner for a week
The injured war veteran, at least according to the official fiction, suffered in the course of benefiting the community. Whether they succeeded is up for debate, but the intent to benefit is seen as evidence that gifts/support/etc. won't "enable" them.
If everyone only used what they needed, we'd all have plenty of resources to dedicate to the communal good.
> Beggars do not work, it is said; but then, what is work? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, bronchitis etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course — but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout-in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering.
EDIT: On a side note, I agreed halfway with what you're writing but the second half of your comment seems a bit more unclear/I'm not sure what you're discussing there. Could you clarify what you mean?