Theft is always on topic when discussing morality. :)

Ayn Rand had some ideas you'd probably hate which essentially (from a certain perspective) argued that charity is always harmful in the long run and the virtue objectivism strives for takes a different approach of becoming the best version of yourself which means you'll be able to create so much more value for everyone around you (even if through market-driven means).

As someone who has both received and given, I think they are both needed, but I understand how staying in the receiving side isn't long-term beneficial. Someone making only $10k is not only poor, but most likely their sense of purpose, meaning, healthy pride, belonging, and usefulness to society has diminished and would be in a better place if they added more value that others wanted to pay for with "certificates of appreciation" as Rabbi Lapin calls a dollar bill.

I don't fault anyone for being poor! But I think it's pretty simple to say that's not an ideal state to be in and, if possible, it would be better to be in a different state. The only path I see to getting there involves tending to yourself.

I'm not sure I share your perspective that if a person makes $1 selling something valuable to 1 person, they are moral but if they make $1 selling to 10m people they are now immoral unless they give that money to someone else without an exchange of value (charity). Doesn't make sense to me. Do rich people have a greater responsibility to fund things to improve the world? Why or why not? I think the answer relates more to our feelings and sense of "fairness" and less so with just math. At some, as you said, it becomes subjectively uncomfortable for a small number of people to control a large amount of wealth.