It's worth remembering this next time you hear someone say something along the lines of, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome". If people are indeed born with unequal abilities, then equality of opportunity is impossible.
[1] edit to clarify, I mean “not worth pursuing” past the point of equilibrium. We can improve equality of outcome to a point but then will hit a plateau. Pretending that plateau doesn’t exist is one of humanities biggest problems. It’s a costly lie that doesn’t serve anyone but certain professional groups.
People who continue working to expand their impact even when they don't need to are rare.
Define justifiable. I would agree with “unfair.” Life is not fair. Is life “justifiable” to you? In nature, there are predators and prey, is that “justifiable”?
I like to simplify my thinking too, but your view seems inherently suppose almost superhuman discernment, that you (or other humans individually or collectively) can judge what is justified on a case by case basis without any concrete principals or criteria, and without bias! Doesn’t seem simple to me at all! How to distinguish the bill gateses from the other guys is a problem as old as civilization. There is more law and tax code written on this than you can ever hope to capture in your thinking. Ignoring policy and centuries of human knowledge isn’t “simple” as much as it is ignorance.
The phrase, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome" explicitly acknowledges that equality of opportunity will not yield equality of outcome. In part, because of the unequal distribution of talent that you point out.