When someone is fighting equality with no hedging in their argument, that's usually a sign that they haven't considered what happens if they achieve what they are arguing for.
I'm not arguing that extreme inequality is good. It's bad in the same way extreme equality is bad. Once you recognize both are bad and why they are bad, you're more free to explore where you believe the balance point should be.
My personal view is that the problem isn't that we have a power law distribution (1/x). My view is that a distribution of 100/x is preferable to one of 1/x. The difference in equality from the top to the bottom can be extreme so long as the distribution between the two contains lots of people fairly evenly spread out and there is the possibility for someone to move up and down on that distribution on their own volition and effort. This produces a society that will produce productivity benefits that over time improve the conditions of those worst off.
This is a straw man. No one is arguing equal distribution of all wealth. Any sane observer is arguing the historic levels of inequality are a cause of many undesirable social issues.