I mean, the thought experiment isn't about the logistics of redistribution, it's about the sheer amount of wealth. These counterpoints amount to saying that actually redistributing wealth like that would have terrible unintended consequences, which I agree with, and I think just serves to underscore that there is much less total wealth than most people think there is.
It's true that most people are more interested in absolute quality of life than they are in the relative status granted by inequality, but the one implies the other.
You can make a case for less inequality, of course; but now we're quibbling about the price, as it were.