Is there potential evidence you could imagine that would change your mind about that premise? I agree with GP that inequality is fine if the basic needs of everyone are met, I also go further and agree with Paul Graham that inequality is a sign of a healthy economy (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;inequality.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;inequality.html</a>). I also find nothing wrong with inherited wealth because I love my heirs and want them to have an easier life than I did, I want them to have some silver lining if I pass, I&#x27;m in this for more than just myself. I thought about it for a few minutes and one piece of evidence that might make me reconsider your side is if you could show rising inequality (in an environment with an absolute basic-needs-met floor or not) leads to falling access of the basics like food, shelter, knowledge, and useful technology like penicillin. That would be a potential downside to increased inequality that I would care about -- I don&#x27;t particularly care about the potential downside of increased inequality leading to increased envy since you don&#x27;t treat envy by giving in to it.