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?
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.