Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents. For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. (Matthew 25:28-29)
Obviously your copy must be defective.
Actually, I think an agricultural analogy may be a good one: suppose some people in a society are better at farming than others. Dividing land and seeds equally among people regardless of their skill at farming will result in a lot of land and seed corn being given to people who cannot use it effectively. If those who are better at farming are allowed to use their extra production to buy land from those who are less adept, that will enable them to produce even more the following year. Allowing farmland and seeds to be accumulated by those who use them most effectively will result in a substantial increase in agricultural production. By contrast, if such resources are continually redistributed so everyone--regardless of their skill at farming--gets a "fair share", production will stagnate.
The same principles apply with modern economics. Those who are best able to identify what investments will generate the most wealth will inherently become more wealthy than those who are not. Further, the more wealth such people have to invest, the more wealth will be generated as a consequence of their investment. Raising tax rates is often recognized as bad because it discourages those who could create wealth from doing so. Less appreciated is the fact that taking wealth from those who would use it most effectively to generate more will impede wealth creation even if the taking is done in such a way that the wealth creators don't see it coming and can't alter their behavior to avoid it, since the wealth creators can't invest money they don't have.