Whatever your moral position is, government benefits to low-income workers are a subsidy to their employers.

If the government awarded benefits only to the unemployed, many low-income workers would find preferable to quit their jobs if their employers didn't increase their wage. Since employers need employees, employers would find preferable to increase their employees' wages enough that they don't need government benefits.
The net effect would be a redistribution of wealth from employers (especially those who use lots of low wage labour, like Walmart) to the government (and hence to taxpayers).
On the other hand, increasing government benefits to low-income workers would redistribute wealth in the opposite direction: from the government to Walmart-like employers.
Note that neither policy significantly affects the welfare of low-income workers, since their effective purchasing power remains approximately the same.

Therefore, if you think it is morally preferable to redistribute wealth from Walmart to the taxpayers, support unemployed-only benefits (and/or minimum wages), if you think it is morally preferable to redistribute wealth from the taxpayers to Walmart instead, support guaranteed basic income and/or other low-income workers benefits.