I do not understand the argument Elizabeth Anderson is making. In fact I agree with the Hayek quote she cites, but I don’t see its import. Let us assume you have the most generous welfare state in the world: How is that relevant to the measurement of income/wealth inequality?
To be concrete: Sweden already has a famously generous welfare state, yet in 2000 the Wallenberg family controlled roughly 40% of the value of the Swedish stock market (In contrast, Bill Gates’s 50 billion is less than one percent of the more than 10 trillion dollar U.S. market). Is that still unjust inequality? Are we better off taxing such families or opening up the market to further competition?
What measure of inequality do Kenworthy and Anderson wish to observe that would lead them to say, “Ok. No more needs to be done”?
And I agree with Lane Kenworthy that absolute equality is undesirable, so what measured inequality would lead him to say, “We have gone too far?” Should we trust Congress to decide this? Or a select committee perhaps? Does any country do a good job of dealing with measured inequality (as opposed to merely enhancing the welfare state)?
Even if I were to concede that such a redistribution might make sense, what tools do we have for deciding which measures tell us what to do?
 Anderson also says I stack the deck to only include stories where people get what they deserve. But I specifically cited a case where someone received $1M in a lottery and someone else got a scholarship but had no financial wealth. That has nothing to do with just deserts. Why should the former be taxed for the latter?