following this line of logic would mean that /anyone/ having more capital than you is evidence of wrongness, including social capital.
Yeah, pretty much, it's wrong to hand disproportionate power to individuals without checks on how that power is used to influence society, and we have very few such checks on extremely large amounts of money.
It's not evidence of wrongness, but money is power. Especially in a post "Citizens United" world. My point is that saying that the vast income inequality being discussed does no harm to those at the bottom is inaccurate. At the very least it reduces the ability of the average person to influence their own government.
There's a difference between 'having more capital' and 'having absolutely absurd amounts of capitals'.
If you look at income distribution graphs of the last few decades and the political influence those in the highest percentiles wielded, it's not entirely unfair to question whether this might make the life of the average citizen "worse".
Are you sure about that? What if he spends that money supporting political figures and economic policies that make your life worse?