Really amazing.  At least if she were a Marxist, it would be explicable rational behavior under capitalist conditions.  But this is someone who purports to believe in morality and moral obligations.  It reminds me of Thomas Nagel's remarkable concession in his review of G.A. Cohen's If You're a Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (that I've discussed before):

I have to admit that, although I am an adherent of the liberal conception of [justice and equality], I don’t have an answer to Cohen’s charge of moral incoherence.  It is hard to render consistent the exemption of private choice from the motives that support redistributive public policies.  I could sign a standing banker’s order giving away everything I earn above the national average, for example, and it wouldn’t kill me.  I could even try to increase my income at the same time, knowing the excess would go to people who needed it more than I did.  I’m not about to do anything of the kind, but the equality-friendly justifications I can think of for not doing so all strike me as rationalizations.