The ruling class sought to appease its people by taking money from the largest landowners and most successful businessmen and giving it to the rest of society.
Nope. In actual fact the rich and officials were generally officially exempted from taxation, and where they weren't they could usually bribe their way out. The rich generally got richer throughout this period.
But the effort had irretrievably harmed the economy and habituated the poorest and even the middle class to taking gifts and free stuff, and diminished their work ethic.
Nope. The Roman Empire never even vaguely resembled a welfare state. The greatest taxation and oppression fell directly on the poor and middle class. While free food was handed out in the capital for much of this time, to keep the populace from rioting, which would endanger the government, this benefited only a tiny percentage of the population of the empire, most of whom lived elsewhere and were taxed at high rates to provide the free food.
And the rulers, in their indulgence and eagerness to please the citizenry, had amassed for the empire incalculable debts that it could never repay and now could barely even service.
While the empire indeed had trouble paying its way, it's probably not accurate to say they amassed great debts. The credit/banking system of the time just wasn't developed enough to allow this. There was nobody to borrow from. Instead the government tried to pay for its needs by devaluing the currency, instituting price controls and seizing private property. This smacks of Venezuela, Argentina and even USA. It's got a lot more relevance to today than talk of amassing debt.
Also government funds did not go to please the populace, they went mostly to pay the military and for attempts to bribe barbarians to fight each other rather than invade the empire.
IOW, there aren't a lot of similarities between the last days of the Empire and America today.
You forgot about the bread and circuses for the masses during the Holy Roman Empire period.