What is the origin of development of the idea in political/philosophical thinking that money/wealth is somehow special as far as the idea of "fairness"?
What are the reasons cited by that development for why wealth is considered somehow special among other things as far as being singled out as needing to be equalized/made fair?
Originally, this clearly wasn't a "thing", since in both ancient times (even in Athenian democracy, never mind various kingdoms/empires) there was no concept that there should be "fair"/"equitable" distribution of wealth. In Middle Ages it was the reverse, e.g. the most high aristocracy was exempt from taxes (e.g. hochadel vs. ritters in Germany).
That clearly changed sometime before the start 20th century and the rise of Progressivism, with the opposite view being a majorly held political view around the world by its end (the only modern political movement that opposes this idea is Objectivism and/or libertarianism - even most right wing/conservative movements support the concept of progressive taxation, with the only beef from conservatives/rightwingers being the degree of progressivity).
However, what puzzles me about this is, that money is treated specially even though it's NOT the only thing that affects and differenciates people. As a matter of fact, it's not necessarily even the most important thing - for example, see Maslow's hierarchy of needs where plenty of things have importance above or equal to money.
Or the fact that from evolutionary biology/evolutionary psychology perspective, access to reproduction is the most important resource any human would care about.
Yet, nobody ever discusses "fairness" or "equitable" access to those arguably more important non-monetary resources.
My three favorite examples:
it's 100% clear that some men gather a hugely disproportionate share of sexual favors from women (Walt Chamberlain or JFK being the equivalent of financial 1%). As noted above, that is a LOT more important to a human than money, yet there is absolutely ZERO notion in any of political or philosophical modern thinking of fairness as far as this area. (please don't cite problems with implementing such equality as a reason - I can come up with numerous possible solutions that may be intrusive, but not hugely objectionable or offensive to modern sensibilities).
It's also clear from research that tall men, or good looking women, have significantly unfair advantage in the workplace (higher wages/more power/better career). But nobody ever objects to this as being unfair and in need of addressing.
People with great talent for sales, persuasion and demagoguery have a clear advantage in selling the ideas advantageous to them (leaving aside whether you agree or disagree with the content of their ideas, a debate between G.W. Bush or Nixon, vs. Bill Clinton or JFK, is 100% preordained on who would win the audience, no matter what the positions they take in the debate).
please cite any opinions stated to classical thinkers/writers in areas of political science, law or social science etc..., not simply state your own personal reasoning
UPDATE: there were several attempts to prove that my thesis is incorrect and there are indeed efforts to equalize fairly things that aren't money. While I'm open to an answer that takes such a tack, please note that any example must be clearly and demonstrably NOT about money, as follows:
a specific non-monetary attribute very specifically and targetedly being denied to those who have that attribute in abundance; making pains to NOT only do so from the rich people who have that attribute but even from those who are not wealthy.
A perfect case of a poor example here would be ADA. Yes, it attempts to ease the life of the disabled. NO, it does NOT do so by "taxing" the abled equally - merely by taxing the wealthy (whether abled or not) - either when taxes pay for it in case of government entities, or shareholders pay for it in case of private ones.
and grant it to those who have a lack of attribute, again independent of wealth.
In other words, granting the benefit to only the poor under assumption that the wealthy can purchase said benefit is contrary to the point of what this question is asking.
 I was challenged to provide an example of ensuring "more equal" access to sexual favors. I added a couple of them to SamIAm's answer as comments