My first thought about some of the "transfer payments" attributed to the uppermost percentile of income earners, though, is that it is an "apples to oranges" comparison which obscures the situation rather than exposing it for rational analysis.
A payment for which the government (a.k.a. "the people") ostensibly receives something tangible in return (low income housing credits, agricultural subsidies) is categorically different from a payment for which there is no return of something of putatively equal value (Social Security, welfare, Medicare). [admittedly, some people would make the collectivist argument that feeding and sheltering the poor is a tangible benefit, but that would require a tortured interpretation of the concept of paying dollars and receiving equal value in return] Although they both suffer from the same defect in that the benefit, tangible or otherwise, goes to someone other than the one who paid for it. Arguably that also applies to things such as construction of roads (if they are paid for out of general revenues - that objection would seem to disappear if they were financed solely through tax levies placed on actual users of roads, airports, etc. in proper proportion), and so both agricultural subsidies and low income housing subsidies are deficient in that regard.
But I am still troubled by lumping together such distinctly different types of transfers under the same category. For example, it would certainly cost the government substantial sums to provide low income housing directly rather than through surrogates - either way, money is expended and something tangible is returned. That is distinctly different from Social Security, Medicare, welfare, etc.
Another troubling flaw in the practice of lumping together those disparate things under the category of "transfer payments" is that the use of the "per capita" measurement is grossly misleading on its face. For broadly-based transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare, and welfare, there are large numbers of recipients, and so the concept of "per capita" is probably meaningful. By contrast, lumping together transfers such as low income housing credits and agricultural subsidies that go to a small number of recipients in that top quintile along with payments such as Social Security that go to large numbers of recipients makes the "per capita" measurement effectively meaningless. In fact, it is clear that those two categorically different types of transfers are being lumped together precisely for the purpose of using the "per capita" statistic to mislead readers, instead of to enlighten their understanding. In effect, statistical trickery is being perpetrated on the reader by the misleading use of a meaningless "per capita" measurement. It's an insidious misuse of statistics - that kind of manipulation should be obvious to any person with a high school education, however it requires application of critical thinking skills which require more effort than many people are willing to invest when reading an article or listening to an argument.
So, I believe that recognition of that fact rather convincingly takes all of the air out of your argument that the poor are getting a raw deal. I do think that you have a supportable argument about the unfairness of the agricultural subsidy, however, and you may or may not have a sustainable argument about low income housing credits.