There is a large difference between an individual stealing to feed themselves (less of a fraction of theft than women getting abortions because of rape and not as birth control).

I'm aware. I'm just using that as an example. If it's 'theft' to take part of the money of a billionaire, does it became less wrong if that theft is done to feed people who would otherwise starve?

armed robbery by the state to give to whoever sociopathic bureaucrats deem "deserving" is not charity.

It's not charity, it's distributing goodies to their own supporters.

People that support using the state to rob people, to force others to "be charitable" rather than doing it themselves, do not actually have such altruistic motives

Of course not.

I know you're a eurofag so you don't understand american taxation - there are enough holes in the system that the middle class pays more taxes than the rich,

Sounds very much like the system here. There are few European countries where the marginal tax rate for the middle class isn't about 50% in income taxes alone.

Using government to control economics has never worked, and never will. It will always be corrupt, so the solution has always been keeping government as minimal as reasonably possible.

You say corruption like it's a bad thing. It's a good thing for the people who benefit from it. The fact that it doesn't work for you and me is immaterial to them.