Is there any justification for inequal distribution of wealth? Other than wealthy wanting to retain their position and others want to raise theirs?
To me it's pretty clear that in politics there are "hidden" biases beneath political ideologues. That they upheld some advantages, while "giving an impression of some benefits". That is, "vote us and get this", but "we also retain our position".
Some right-wingers argue for "freedom" and justice, while also perhaps hiding that "let us retain our position as the wealthy". Some left-wingers though feel that they have "something to gain" and argue that they should gain. In both views it seems that the inequal distribution of wealth is not a neutral thing. That it's not a good thing, because of this dichotomy between interests.
The naive view is that inequal distribution of wealth is natural, because people are differently productive. It's also an ideal, because in practice wealth can be acquired through unethical means as well. Also, inherited wealth is unearned, in a sense. It feels weird to justify that someone should earn inherited wealth, while others are okay being poor.