Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?
Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.
No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.
What am I missing?
Successful people are rightly rewarded. They obtain wealth, and the luxuries and power that come with it. This acts as an effective incentive for everyone who has the right opportunities, to try to better themselves.
But it is only possible for successful people to succeed when society provides them with a stable foundation on which to do so.
If there is a large enough proportion of the population who are desperate and starving, prepared to do anything to survive until tomorrow, then anarchy is inevitable. So civilised societies ensure that everyone has at least the bare minimum to survive.
Why wasn't the childhood development of these successful people stunted by a curable disease? Because civilised societies ensure that healthcare is available to everyone, so curable disease is not widespread, whether in successful or less successful people. Everyone benefits, not just the most poor, who 'have not paid' for this healthcare provision.
Successful people can only flourish in successful economies. And a successful economy needs an educated population and workforce. So civilised societies ensure that every child gets a good education, not just the children of those who were successful.
All of this is why those who are successful have a moral responsibility to support these foundations, because they are what made their success possible, and will make the success of others possible in the future.
Adam Smith said:
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.