So what you are saying you are anti-progress? Almost everything is first paid for by the rich. That's not a bad thing.
There is effectively no reward for the rich to make this technology broadly available. There's every incentive to keep their workforces and consumers ignorant and short-lived.
This was also the attitude in the 1700s and 1800s there were several revolutionary wars to fix it.
Anti-aging treatments won't stop bullets.
I think it might make things more egalitarian. A hard working genius born to poverty only has 80 years to work their way into the upper echelons. Removing senescence means such people will have more time to rise to elite positions and demonstrate track records of competence and merit.
I don't agree that anti-aging would be restricted to the richest. One simple reason is that anyone with the know-how could make vast wealth by making anti-aging available to the masses.
Social Darwinism? You can do it today, just stop providing medical care for the poor... wait, this is already happening in the US.
We heard that with the Internet too. And 25 years later: while certain metrics like poverty and standard of living have improved globally, things have gotten worse in Western countries. Why do you think something as Holy Grail-esque as anti-aging tech will be any different?
What about reduced training costs because you can keep your existing expert staff instead of needing to constantly hire fresh but clueless youngsters?