But the issue is that $2.5 million of after tax income isn't bad. Even though it's unequal. Even though not everyone will make it. I don't know how else to p

But the issue is that $2.5 million of after tax income isn't bad. Even though it's unequal. Even though not everyone will make it. I don't know how else to put this. Suppose people said "fat inequality is a huge problem - some men have lean, fit bodies with 10%-12% body fat whereas other men have 40% body fat." In point of fact, while it is not desirable for everyone to have 40% or more body fat, there is no problem with the inequality itself: some people will always devote more of their lives to fitness, eating on strict diets and a lot of exercise; which is what it takes to achieve 10-12% bodyfat. THE INEQUALITY IS NOT AN ISSUE. Obesity is an issue NOT because of the inequality, but because of the direct effects of obesity. Poverty is an issue NOT because of inequality (NOT because of the fact that Brin has $39,000,000,000) but directly because of the direct effects of poverty. In short, inequality of wealth or income is a red herring. It is like trying to make America healthier by fighting "inequality of fitness" and fighting against some people having 12% bodyfat while others have 40%. (In this case you have to read in the opposite direction -- a 40% bodyfat is objectively worse -- but you understand what I'm saying. It's not the inequality that's bad. Not everyone will get to 8% bodyfat even if this is possible or somehow desirous.) I hope you see, and don't misinterpret the distinction that I'm pointing out. If you have questions follow up and I will clarify what I mean.