Tzedakah - Rambam 7:3

Questions:
1) The most glaring question is the contradiction from the beginning of the Halacha to the end of it. The beginning tells us that even if a wealthy person loses their money, we are resonsible to return him his lifestyle, and yet the last line of the Halacha specifically states that we are not responsible to make a por person wealthy?
2) The Halacha begins with basic nessecities which seem to be objective, but then switches to a seemingly subjective way of looking at “his lack”. Is this lack objective or subjective?
3) The last line of Rambam seems entirely redundant. He starts off the Halacha telling us that we must give according to what the poor person lacks. Clearly, the alternative thought is to give what we feel like giving, or perhaps what we feel the poor needs. There certainly was never a thought to make him rich! If so, why does Rambam need to come back and tell us that we are not commanded to make him wealthy, when did we think we needed to to the extent that Ramabm needs to tell us not to?
Explanation:
Rambam is beginning to dscribe the details of the broad definition of Tzedakah he offered us in Halacha 1. There we met this concept of “what is befitting the poor”, here Rambam defines that as “what they are lacking”.
However, this breaks down into two categories of lack - objective and subjective. The objective list of needs are the first items mentioned: clothes, furniture spouse. These are clearly societal or a need that arises by nessecity of a Mitzvah such as having a spoouse in order to fulfil the Mitzvah of having children. These seem to fit into th physical needs of a human. The latter example of the horse and driver is an example of subjective needs and lacking. This seems to depend on human psychology.
We are adaptive creatures, we decide our needs based on the way we have adapted physically and psychologically to a given environment. The objective list seems to describe physical adaptations, whereas the subjective are psychological adaptations.
Therefore, a wealthy person who has lived this way for some time (perhaps if he was wealthy for only a short time and then lost his wealth, we would not view it this way) has adapted psychologically and items which are otherwise luxuries have now integrated into his standard of living as needs. Whereas the first list of needs are examples of physical adaptations and are therefore generally observed across a society. This makes them somewhat objective.
Rambam mandates an awareness of these subtle psychological needs just as much as we intuit being aware of physical needs. This is an astounding idea far ahead of its time! (In truth the idea is not Rambam’s, it is from the Talmud ust as a majority of comments of Rambam are sourced in the Talmud).
This explains the seeming redundancy of the outro of this Halacha. The issue with the wealthy person who lost their wealth has nothing to do with restoring wealth, we are not at all commanded in such. Therefore we are not commanded to - for example - buy back stocks or shares that he lost. Rather we need to get him the horse and driver. We need to accomodate psychological remnants of his wealthy days. So we’ll get him a horse and driver because this has psychological implications in terms of honor and prestige. This is in contrast to buying him a large house which may be simply a matter of comfort and ease as opposed to a psychological adaptation to an environment. Thus, Rambam certainly needed to state the final line in order to correct this mistaken way of interpreting the case of the wealthy indvidual who lost their wealth.