Judging by your comment history, you appear to live in the US.
As a brit who grew up during her time in power, I want to say the Thatcher was a vile, vindicive. and spiteful person who blighted countless lives in my country and community. Using her as an exemplar of morality is abhorrent.
Talking about ideals is nice and all, but unfortunately we live in reality. Bob can't help Chuck over there unless Bob can afford to be charitable.
Put another way, you need both will and power to do something. Just wanting to be charitable never helped anyone, you also need the means to be charitable.
...which very few people have, because that ability has been disproportionately allocated to a few people who often choose not to be charitable.
The power to take charitable action does not require vast resources to be concentrated in a few individuals, and in fact concentrating vast resources in a few individuals often prevents charitable action from occurring.
It doesn't take "vast resources concentrated in few individuals" to effect charity, but a given individual needs to have most if not all of his own needs and desires satisfied first before he can start giving to others.
The Good Samaritan helped because he was doing well in life and could afford to help someone out. If he was a beggar he wouldn't (read: can't) help. The Good Samaritan is remembered because he had good intentions and money to turn his good intentions into good actions.
I'm no Christian, but do you get it that the parable of the Good Samaritan is allegorical? It's not about a historical "remembered" event, or about money as a necessary precondition for moral behaviour, or about "will and power" [1] as you put it upthread. It's about how compassion displayed by a member of an excluded group, despite their being oppressed, to a member of the parable-teller's group demonstrates our universal vulnerability and mutual dependency.
Thatcher was so inured by her own harsh, judgemental worldview that not only couldn't she properly recognise the point of the story, but her misinterpretation actually contradicts its essential meaning.
[1] were you intentionally referencing Nietzsche there?
Here's the thing everyone seems to not understand or deliberately ignore: The Good Samaritan can't be compassionate if he isn't sufficiently well off first. No one can be.
Whether the Good Samaritan wants to be compassionate to someone is irrelevant, he could be compassionate because he could afford to. Without the means, his desire to be compassionate would end as just a desire and we wouldn't be here talking about him.
>were you intentionally referencing Nietzsche there?
As Margaret Thatcher once said: "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well."