We allow wealth and resources from dead people to do the equivalent, when that could do far more good if redistributed. One $million cash-rich person dying mig

We allow wealth and resources from dead people to do the equivalent, when that could do far more good if redistributed. One $million cash-rich person dying might lose a pair of useful kidneys but children are dying from dehydration through diarrheal disease that's relatively easy to treat and that persons cash could save more than 1 or 2 people, probably 100s (or more) ... so why is the moral equivalence not made. Surely taking someone's stuff by default is less imposing of a state than taking someone's flesh by default?