Startups are good because they create value (although that particular value is highly subjective depending on what the startup is actually doing; a startup that finds a cure for cancer is creating objective value, but a startup that brings the sharing economy to lawn maintenance is much more subjective, as any value it creates for the sharing economy comes at the cost of value destroyed in traditional lawn care services).
Startups also create income inequality. This is not an intrinsically good thing. It is just accepted as the normal way to reward people for taking a risk on a startup.
Given that, the only reason to argue against reducing income inequality generated by startups is if this reduction actually decreases the overall objective value created by startups (if fewer startups are created, but more of them create either more value or value that is more objectively valuable, is that a bad thing?)
Don't forget as well that there are plenty of ways to create value, and to create companies, that don't involve startups. Most businesses in this country aren't startups.
> Would you really rather have everyone make the same amount of income regardless of what they do?
Literally nobody is arguing for that. That's a humongous straw man, it's the same straw man pg used in his original article, and it's complete nonsense. "Reduce income inequality" does not mean eliminate all income inequality.