The idea that the business-owner is a thief is one of many odd things that people seem to believe despite that belief having little or no basis in reality. In reality, anyone who starts a business is more akin to a philanthropist than a thief.

Before any capitalist can make money, he must first spend money to reward people for their labour, whether intellectual, physical or otherwise. This labour will not necessarily bear good fruit. In fact, depending on where you live, it may bear rotten fruit more often than not, and even in the best circumstances it's not unusual for prudent, sensible business ventures to die out due to unprofitability over time. And yet in spite of that the business owner spends money to keep the people working for him fed, clothed, sheltered, and otherwise capable of maintaining what we might call expected living standards.

The people who work for a capitalist are being unfairly rewarded for labour that may or may not be producing valuable goods, yet. The capitalist is the one who pays them for essentially nothing in return, hoping that he will recoup his losses in the future.

The argument that the capitalist exploits the worker seems absurd to me. Reality points us in precisely the opposite direction: The capitalist is essentially an occasionally profitable philanthropist, someone who gives away money and is sometimes (if he is smart and lucky) rewarded for his bets.

But on a philosophical level rather than an argument about the reality of business ownership, the argument that you make of "disproportionate monetary payment" fundamentally assumes that everyone deserves equal income. That is an unqualified assumption, and once we look past that assumption the whole spiel you're spouting just falls apart.