>

While that's a good statement to make, in current scenario, it's like saying that high murder rates in Mexico isn't due to the gangs but due to guns
Yesterday was CEO jackpot day in Belgium.  Yesterday CEOs of a BEL-20 company made as much as the average Belgian does in a year src.  While CEOs might not be te biggest sources of inequality if you compare them to billionaires they most certainly contribute to it. >

Billionaires are bad because they own the means of production and exploit the labour of everyone that works for them to a much greater extent than others. CEOs aren’t as bad, but they still exploit their employees and their class interests align with billionaires in maintaining private ownership over the means of production. 
If a working class revolution was ever a realistic possibility, most CEOs would be on the side of capitalism against the working class. They have too much to lose. >


when the real inequalities are due to existence of billionaires

This is wrong. Billionaires usually start with an idea. The result of the success of that idea is increasing the total wealth. They get a large cut of that increase.
Think of the major inventions and how they made us better off. 
It's a misconception to believe that wealth was and always has been a pie and that if someone gets more everyone else gets less.
I'm deciding to make this short because i don't feel like writing too much but that's the simple way to put it. >

Most CEOs of large companies. A company worth $100mil isn't paying its CEO 9 figures annually >


A company worth $100mil isn't paying its CEO 9 figures annually

No they aren't, but they do pay them with stock.  Famously, Bezos only took $85k as a salary from Amazon. >

I'm taking about total compensation, obviously >

inequality is due to money, not the owners. there is no world where the capital stabilizes all of the beholders on equal ground