> But my question is, why does it matter that everyone profits equally?

It does matter for democracy. If rich people spent all their money on blackjack and hookers, it would be fine. But they don't, lot of it is spent on lobbying and keeping the social control over others. (And even if well-intentioned, it's irrelevant, because it still robs others their agency. Munger Hall is a good example.)

It's unlikely you can have ultra-rich without ultra-poor. That's why there should be limits to riches too.

Putting limits on something is quite different from having everyone share in the profits equally. My boss takes enterpreneurial risks that I don’t as a salaried employee, so I don’t expect similar compensation. If I did, both of us would be worse off.

I don't think OP means "profit equally" as literally as you think they do, as simple as that. Honestly, I think even a compromise on limiting wealth would be a giant step forward.

> lot of it is spent on lobbying and keeping the social control over others.

This is a matter of getting money out of politics. Seems somewhat orthogonal.