You're not wrong if you align with categorical imperative views on ethics. If however you see the scaled utilitarianist perspective (disentrenching systemic -isms and gaining more equality), then perhaps you'll conclude it is a more muddy landscape than simply "immoral". FWIW, I don't disagree with you. Consider it's not as simple as we want it to be.

I’ve learned most people tend to have different intuitions on giving vs. taking, even when arithmetically they are equivalent. It depends if the narrative is zero or positive-sum.

If people perceive that some groups are getting extra at the expense of others then that is seen as wrong, but if those in need are given communal surplus that is seen as just. In the circumstances of historical injustice you have competing claims that overlap depending upon which details are in focus.