The better analogy is you have 10 people in a room and only a few of them are producing anything yet they are forced to give a portion of their production to everyone else in the room.
Now, he could build one house with his bare hands but then he would have one house to sell. OR he could hire another 4 people, build 5 houses and sell them all. Clearly in the second scenario he'd make far more money and create more. But in the second scenario, who are the "makers" and the "takers"? Maybe our hero had the creative drive so he deserves some extra credit, but surely the workers also did some making.
The idea of "makers" and "takers" that animates the Randian world view doesn't really make practical sense. To make something at scale, no matter your personal genius, you need lots of others to join you in that enterprise. And to have what you made be worth anything, you need a lot of people to buy it.
Bottom line: everyone is a maker and everyone is a taker, thinking about taxation in those terms doesn't hold up to moral or practical scrutiny.
Rand was constructing ... essentially Russian novels against the concept of collectivism. It's not particularly complete work. It's essentially propaganda.
And like it or not, her side in the debate mostly won. But that has nearly nothing to do with our present state of affairs - the headcount of Randians among SiVa is probably higher than in the economy at large.
Many wealthy people produce nothing, but society owes them by virtue of who they are.