Obviously, people don't make that argument, and the implication is that they don't really want to be tied down to any actual existing real world situation. By extension there's no level of wealth inequality they would accept. Then one must wonder why not? Perhaps they just enjoy watching the left riot. Alternative explanations welcome.
People aren't taking to the streets rioting - wealth inequality is at acceptable levels
People are taking to the streets rioting - wealth inequality is at unacceptable levels
Yes I know, that is trite, and circular, but maybe there is something in it. No-one is going to be able to define an exact acceptable level of wealth inequality, but your argument is an asymmetrical standard. I could just as well argue that your view says it is ok for the top 0.1% of people to have 99% of all the wealth while everyone else shares the other 1%. Would you deem that acceptable (assuming we live in the real world and not a fantasy of no scarcity)?
This has, of course, not convinced the government to stop increasing debt. This is people's reaction to merely slightly reducing the rate of debt increase.
The problem is not even that the debt is too high, but because the state's demand for new debt just for this year is too high at the interest rates they're offering.
Leaving aside how moral this is or isn't, and the practical problems (like destroying businesses, and the fact that capital can't actually be sold at the price it is valued), it would block the state's ability to lend, which would immediately force the state to save 20 times more than what the protests are about.
Actually doing what every party is screaming they want to do (pay for the state using the rich's resources) would cause an immediate disaster. But this is France, that doesn't mean they won't do it.
"The majority is poor" fits precisely the definition of wealth inequality, obviously not a good outcome.
Seems like you're arguing in favor of poverty. (Note, this is your argument redirected at you, not mine)
Both are true. The difference between a billionaire and a person living paycheck-to-paycheck is extreme and billionaires are getting richer.
If there's a small minority of the population that are so rich that they cannot meaningfully even spend their money (e.g. billionaires) and at the same time there's a sizeable percentage that cannot afford to eat regularly, then that's wealth inequality.
It's not so much about making everyone equal, but ensuring that almost everyone can provide for their basic needs (e.g. housing, food, medicine).