In general, most real world policies are far from the kind of efficiency frontier where trade-offs between growth and safety net have to be made. Eg the US could replace the subsidies for employer provided health care (with eg a budget neutral tax credit for everyone or more radically a budget neutral slim UB) and improve both efficiency and safety nets.
But, of course, policy is seldom driven by efficiency frontiers amongst its ostensible goals. Politics is harder and more complicated.
Though know I do wonder if a general programme to simplify taxes and close loopholes would have a better chance of passing step-by-step if every such bill came with a budget neutral per-head tax credit. The sound-bite "Senator Smith proposes to give YOU an extra $100 a year by closing obscure loophole exploited by a few corporations!" would certainly do well with the general public?
Lots of people think first that success and wealth are zero sum games. And second, that we have to decide between extensive social safety nets and a dynamic economy.
Just the opposite, of course.
About the second: the trick to get over the apparent trade-off between welfare state and dynamic economy is to realize that we don't have to tax labour nor capital to provide. Taxing land values works just fine.
More discussion on Georgism here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442929
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158398