I heard a Christian say this on the BBC today. Is this paraphrased from a bible verse?
And whether it is or not, could a society thrive while embracing this view?
No. The Bible has quite a bit to say about the rich, the poor, money, etc., but I can’t think of anything that sounds like the thead title, or really, anything about anyone having a “right to” anything, in the Bible.
As for the statement itself, at first it strikes me as naive, or maybe a non-sequitur: What does rich people having slips of paper with pictures of dead presidents on them have to do with poor people not having enough to eat? If the rich people had food while the poor are starving, there might be something wrong with that. But if all the rich people have is money, maybe they don’t have food because they gave the food they did have to people who needed it more than they did, in exchange for those pieces of paper with the dead presidents on them?
At any rate, a lot depends on why the poor people are starving. I’d also want to know what the rich people were doing with their money.
Maybe it’s kinda-sorta inferred from all that talk about passing camels through the eye of a needle, or something like that.
Certainly the Bible says a lot about caring for the poor and hungry, but I haven’t yet found anything that matches the sentiment quoted in the OP. Here are a couple verses that are sorta kinda close:
Isaiah 32:6 “For fools speak folly, their hearts are bent on evil: They practice ungodliness and spread error concerning the LORD; the hungry they leave empty and from the thirsty they withhold water.”
I Corinthians 11:19-22 “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat; for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing?”
The Rich and the Kingdom of God
Matthew 19
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
There is Acts 4:
Sure. All Western Democracies function under that basis. You don’t find people starving in the US or any other 1st world country. If they were, they would be fed from some sort of welfare payment.
“If any will not work, neither let him eat.” This is not just a quote from Soviet Constitution of 1936 
Why just the rich? Do middle class have no right to money as long as the poor are starving?
On the contrary, the Bible strongly defends property rights (Thou shalt not steal is a direct command from God after all) while combining it with charity for the poor.
Consider that most of the starving poor today is in Somalia and North Korea.
Sure, but how many who don’t work, don’t work because they will not?
All Islamic societies always have embraced it, and they’ve done their share of thriving.
Not necessarilly, an Islamistic who advocated some socialistic policies was condemned for this (it should be noted this man, Sayyid Qutb inspired Zawahiri and the Muslim Brotherhood),. http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Religion_Reformers_in_Islam/ref-51.htm
But all Islamic societies have embraced Zakat and it’s one of the Five Pillars, practically compulsory. Sometimes officially compulsory, I believe, though I’m not sure on that point. But it’s certainly based on the idea that the rich have no right to money while the poor are starving. Mohammed was an orphan taken in by an uncle, he thought a lot about the needs of the poor and what good charity can do.
And I believe Mohammed also decreed Ramadan fasting to remind all Muslims that there are people who cannot eat and drink whenever they please.
At least you used the past tense.
Western Democracies have them beaten in the embracing and the thriving.
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/hunger-and-children-in-america-a-slow-and-steady-starvation.html If only that were true.
It is true. That child, and any like him, is suffering from parental neglect. There are social programs in the US that will prevent any child from starving as long as the parents take advantage of them and don’t squander the aid on something else.
which is why nobody has ever starved in Islamic countries. For instance Islamic Somalia has no famine right now because other, wealthier Muslim countries would feel like having no right to their wealth without rescuing poor starving Somali blacks.
Incidentally, starvation was also a common cause of death during Armenian and Assyrian genocides of WW1. They didn’t just shoot or hack to pieces all the Christians, plenty of them also died due to starvation during forced marches.