Usually advocates of progressive tax systems are more concerned with inequalities in the access to food, shelter, education, and health care.

I am neither the smartest, best athlete or best looking by multiple degrees of magnitude. Why I should be the richest by multiple order magnitudes is a complete miracle to me.

Yes, there will always be inequality. Yes, that is a good thing. But that is no excuse to the current level of wealth disparity.

There isn’t “extreme” inequality, there is higher inequality though. Btw, if you were to lookup the root cause for this you’d find the government and the fed printing money that pushes up equities.

Inequality in all its forms is not bad per se. Economic inequality is bad because (1) on a moral level, it is grotesque that some people have so much while others struggle immensely (and we can do something about it - money can be transferred, looks cannot), and (2) money amplifies the political voice of those who have it, undermining the concept of democracy - especially when they use that voice to direct benefits of the political system to themselves, at the further expense of the have-nots. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else, as the saying goes.

Plus, the sheer magnitude of inequality is immense in the area of wealth. It follows an exponential distribution; those other things you mentioned follow a normal distribution.

> money amplifies the political voice of those who have it

This is an underrated point; capitalism with billionaires is crony capitalism.