I personally believe a certain level of wealth inequality is necessary for a lot of the good things that have happened in human history. That said, your whole article is a straw man fallacy.
You took the weakest form of the wealth inequality argument and ripped it apart, without addressing anything that actually has some teeth.
For instance, in the US, we talk about wealth inequality within the US. Economies are still mostly local (US consumer spending and government spending is the overwhelming majority of US GDP, something like 85%), so saying that wealth inequality should be applied globally is a straw man argument cause its not a reasonable argument. We talk a out reducing inequality within our own economy, and we don't need to talk about reducing inequality elsewhere because out economy has relatively little impact on other countries' citizens compared to its impact on us.
Further, you failed to address most of the most compelling inequality arguments. A big one (imo) is that our state of wealth inequality forces many in our society into the corporate hamster wheel even if they have the intelligence and true potential to be so much more than that. They could be great entrepreneurs themselves or artists or whatever they're incredible at, but because their family has little to no wealth, and because income inequality is really bad too (you never even mentioned this which is far more insidious than wealth inequality), they're often stuck working a job that takes up a ton of their time and doesn't pay well enough to escape and do what this person is meant to do.
And to top it off, the segment about redistributing Elon's net worth is comically poorly argued. Elon is just one guy, and the wealth inequality argument is not about just one guy. The total wealth in the top 1% of the US is about $14-15T according to my Google searching. If you redistributed that 14T across all households evenly, that would be $110k/household, or about $57k/adult. That's a non-trivial number, compared to just Elon's wealth.
So bottom line, your article is entirely based on a logical fallacy and seems to be driven by your emotional attachments to wealth and inequality over actual fact and logic. I say this as someone who is writing a story right now about the benefits of wealth inequality. So I'm not some far-lefty who doesn't know what they're talking about or disagrees completely with wealth inequality.