My interpretation, though I do not understand the greater context of this character, is that he is referring to homelessness in general in the first panel, but dealing with a homeless person in the second. Which is to say, that ignoring the systemic problems which result in homelessness does not preclude acts of charity for the rich to make them feel better/tax write offs/a genuine belief in doing good/image rehab. The rich get whatever benefit they sought from the exchange, the specific recipient of their charity gets a hopefully life-changing boost, and down the road a landlord evicts a family after raising their rent 100% over a few years, thus replenishing the pool of the underclass. In fact, by demonstrating these acts of philanthropy, the wealthy provide ammunition for ideologues who want to gut social welfare by pointing to these generous acts of the elite.

So, I don't see the split or twist that occurs between the two panels that others have commented on. To my mind, both of the panels tell a consistent story. A wealthy man is determined to ignore homelessness when he sees a beggar. He then gives the beggar a pittance and continues along his way, wilfully ignoring the systemic issues that allow homelessness to occur (and which, as a wealthy fat cat type character, perhaps he could do something about if he had the will to do so).

Idk if that was the initial intent, but it's my headcanon now.