When talking about this kind of inequality we usually mean financial inequality. Given a society where everyone at least has the possibility to have a home, ha

When talking about this kind of inequality we usually mean financial inequality. Given a society where everyone at least has the possibility to have a home, have food, and live a decent life (i.e. not do 16 hours of work per day or be applied a different legislation for different people), I don't care how inequal we are or how many hundred or thousand times more an executive makes than the employee with the lowest salary. "Fixing" a society by making it more "equal", mainly to shrink the income distribution, doesn't magically help the poormost. Any "fixes" to the wealth distribution are likely to sift down only to the nearest classes in the continuum: the acquisition of any wealth extracted from rich would be a task easiest for upper middle class. Humans are likely to always form into a number of "lower" and "upper" groups: if we can't do it with money, we do it by some intangible property such as ancestry or nobility. Compared to those, I much prefer money. Conversely, a person doesn't need much: we only need to guarantee some minimal standard of living, should a citizen wish to receive it, and we can afford that if we wanted. There's no reason to try and take on the impossible task of "fixing" inequality: unless we gave an equal salary to everyone we would still have some people who form the poormost group. The only thing that does matter is how well the poormost are doing. We can fix that if we want. Compared to them everyone else is doing just fine, equality or inequality, more Porsches or less Porsches.