Did anyone suggest it was? That seems like a very weak straw man of the very many sensible arguments from multiple angles, for why vast wealth inequality is a bad thing for society, including the members of the society with the extreme wealth but surrounded by poverty.

You can have a large wealth gap, while still having a high bottom standard of living. A great example of this is Sweden https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E0dWHCnic8

Supplying handouts does not affect the wealth gap - giving the needy some real capital like own housing, shops, etc would actually contribute to that goal. Handouts don't help enough because the money is spent on their necessities (which was the point), and obviously that means the money immediately flows to the rich ones that supply those items (housing, food, etc).

Reducing the wealth gap is crucial, I think you're severely misunderstanding.

Let's imagine this in the most extreme form in a thought experiment. An identical twin is stranded in the desert. You have the means (water, transport) to save one of them. Is it better to save one (which one?) or leave both to die? (I have not settled on a firm answer so far.)