What you describe is tyrannical and exactly the sort of thinking that has produced some of the greatest horrors of the 20th century.

Why do you presume equality is a good thing? A person who provides half the value should receive the same compensation as someone who provides twice? Someone who sacrifices his life for another deserves the same honor as the loser rotting in front of his game console? Ugliness should receive the same awe and admiration as beauty? Foolish the same acknowledgement as wisdom? Falsehood the same ascent as truth? That one has more should be a reason to hate him because another has less? The better should always be favored over the worse. The notion of equality is inherently unjust and mendacious, obliterating all of the particular facts about any given individual that merit different responses. It is, as a rule, an expression of the gravest envy and the more virulent pride. It mediocritizes human beings and alienates them from themselves and proper self-understanding, instead of inspiring them to do and be their best, and accept who and what they are with humility. It seeks to "keep warm", whereas "the hard truth is that to achieve what is truly good for individuals and society requires the discipline of suffering, and that those who blind themselves to this are not the friends of mankind, but its enemies". Egalitarianism, despite its glorified name, is an expression of an extremely parochial and domestic pettiness common among human beings. Feeding it is the last thing you want to do.

Now, just because I totally reject the idea of equality, doesn't mean I don't think there aren't problems with the way things are. Radical individualism is at the heart of many of many problems today. Human beings are not self-sufficient, atomized, solitary beings. We are thoroughly social beings. That means we need others to live and to become who we are, as a statement of general fact. That doesn't mean we're entitled to whatever we want or even need from other human beings. It just means that human flourishing requires the social, and the social does entail certain obligations toward one another and to society and the human race as a whole. Isolated, individuals become easy to manipulate, and for oligarchic regimes, this is perhaps convenient (slavery is illegal, but there are other ways to accomplish similar results). The basic unit of society is social, but the individual as such is not a social unit. It is the family that is the basic unit. The march of radical individualist liberalism has been a succession of blows against the family, resulting in the alienation of individuals from the the family and, consequently, society in general. It is within family that human beings learn to be independent and strong. It is chiefly through the family that they develop into adulthood to be able to start their own families (not everyone has this privilege, and that's fine; there are other ways to live out one's familial nature). It is the family that is the locus of procreative power, of growth and regeneration. Society is but extended family. Destroy the family, and you destroy society and ultimately the individual.

So we have before us a toxic brew of entitlement on the one hand, and individualistic alienation on the other. Paradoxically, the individual is denigrated in the process. Fix the family, and you fix society and the individual.

(And in all the noise being made about equality vis-a-vis material goods, it is important to understand that poverty, not inequality, is the problem [0].)

[0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/09/poverty-no-inequali...