Thank you for asking, as I think that most people mean to focus on these exact questions, but instead get confused by all the campaign rhetoric and start to define progress on this issue or the lack thereof by how much less than make than some billionaire, which then causes them to lose sight of the actual problems and solutions.
With an Olympic athletic, if you have the same start and finish, the fact that a superstar, whether because of incredible hard work, pure natural athleticism or some combination of those factors, gets to the finish line three times as fast as the slowest competitor, is not a problem, and we don’t need to slow down the superstar in the name of reducing “athletic inequality.”
In general, economic outcomes should work similarly. If you and I have access to the same educational tools, but you, either because of incredible hard work, pure natural instincts or some combination of those factors, end up being way better than me at something, then I believe you should be rewarded accordingly. It also doesn’t mean that I should be cast aside, as my contributions can still be important and valuable, but I also think that I should take responsibility for the choices that I make that get me, or do not get me, to a certain point.
In other words, if a person has always disliked schooling, and/or was otherwise unwilling to do what it’d take to become a cardiothoracic surgeon, then I do not think that the latter should be asked to give more of his/her income to the former just because the latter now makes a lot more. On the other hand, if a person has always wanted to become a cardiothoracic surgeon, was always willing to work hard to get there, but was forced to become a carpenter because, for instance, he/she did not have access to the same educational tools, could not afford to go to (a better) school, felt that he/she had to drop out to support his family, etc., then this is something that we should continue to try to fix.