I have found no where in the Bible where it says it is a sin to be rich. Granted there are particular passages (a camel through the eye of a needle, etc.) which indicate money leads to sin, however money in and of itself is not wicked. Wealth being “sin” is more of a communist doctrine than biblical. The book of Proverbs presents riches in mostly noble or desirable terms (unless it is riches in the hands of a fool?).
Jesus said “For the poor you will have with you always, but Me you do not have always.” (John 12:

This passage seems to indicate to me that no matter what is given by “the rich” it will not be enough to alleviate suffering due to poverty.
What do you consider “rich”? The poorest of the poor in the USA would be considered “rich” in Sudan. What do you consider the “floor” and what is the “ceiling” as far as “have” and “have not”?
There is a practical side to every argument. But I fail to see a practical side of “redistribution of wealth” - for that in itself only creates greater poverty: If you take away from those who employ, then they can no longer employ and more go without. (I’m not saying you are advocating communism or redistribution of wealth – this is only a statement for arguments sake.)
The Old Testament spoke in percentages (10%) - for tithing. It didn’t matter if one had more (was "richer") than another. God didn’t require 2% for the poor, 3% for the fairly poor, 5% for the medium poor, 10% for the medium rich and 20% for the rich – just 10% for everyone.
I think you’ve brought up a good subject, Annahavil, – I am surprised there are so few replies to your post.