If we grant arguendo that this proposition is true, it still leads nowhere, because the question of acquisition on the part of the person who did not earn the money is far more problematic. By what moral imperative are those who lack things entitled to take from those don't lack?
The answer, in both the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Objectivist worldview (which are worlds apart) is, oddly, the same: the man lacking means has no moral claim on the man having them, in fact in the more "charitable" worldview he is explicitly COMMANDED that he may not covet what another possesses.
> By what moral imperative are those who lack things entitled to take from those don’t lack?
If we are talking stolen property - and to a great degree, we are - that moral imperative is simple justice.
I could drop here name after name after name after name of Americans who have stolen enormous sums from other, poorer, Americans.
See, while it’s not right for the poor to steal from the wealthy, it’s quite a bit less right for the rich to steal from the poor.