As usual, people commenting on what they do not understand, nor want to.
Whole passage: Jesus had just spoken to the rich young man who claimed to have perfectly kept all the commandments (a lie) and wanted to know ***what good works** he could do to assure getting into heaven. Christ told him, **in that case,** give away everything he had— at which point the rich young man turned away.

he states It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter into heaven …. his disciples are bewildered, because in their culture a rich man was assumed to have been blessed by God for his righteousness (as Abraham, Joseph, Israel, Isaac, Job had been….) IF anyone could get into heaven by good works, a rich man could. They asked “who then can possibly get into heaven?”

Jesus THEN said “With man it is impossible; with God, all things are possible.” Salvation was to be a gift of grace— paid for on calvary by christ’s sacrifice, and given freely to rich and poor, Jew and Gentile alike.

It was not a commandment to buy heaven by giving away all your possessions.

As to Ayn Rand— she was blind on many things (as most human beings are.) But she bloody well pegged the folly of liberalism and subjectivism right on the nose. That “charity” by coercion is not charity. That simply doing things “for the greater good” or “For the children” did not make them, in and of themselves, good things (the Comtean notion of morality) and in fact enabled most horrific evils. That if a society wishes to protect minorities from persecution, it must start with the smallest minority– the minority of one, the individual.
That she rejected Christianity out of hand is a tragedy. But hardly surprising, as she had escaped from the Soviet Union where the unspeakable evils of socialism had been wrought in the name of “compassion and charity” and Comtean morality— and she came to the free world only to find that the great majority of churches were now preaching Comtean morality right from the pulpit!