There's one powerful quote that my high school Econ teacher said to me: "In a capitalist society, in order for there to be rich, there has to be poor"
Not everyone can be a lawyer, and flipping burgers at McDonald's or being a janitor are jobs that need to be filled too. If everyone was a lawyer or a doctor or something else, then all those blue collar jobs would be left voided. And then, if everyone had the same amount of wealth by being doctors/lawyers/etc, then people who wanted goods more than the next person would just bid the prices up, and that would just cause more inflation for the few (in this eutopic type of world) who didn't have much money, they wouldn't even be able to survive.
So spreading the wealth would be bad because competitiveness will just drive prices up, leading to others getting paid more, then there's an income gap with citizens. But if all the wealth is in only 1% of the populace, they'll just bid prices up amongst themselves, and for those that don't pay that extra premium, they'll just become "poor". (poor is in quotes because one may have a lot of money, but it's value decreases if prices go up).
Both means reach the same end, and it's not good for the people. Just let people do what they want, and don't screw with their money, and I bet that some sort of equilibrium will be reached
