You're either under the mistaken impression, or have constructed the impression as a strawman to argue against, that any of the concepts and states which we're talking about are absolute and don't exist in a state of flux. But measures of strength, intelligence, and power vary by context, and the goal is not the impossibility of absolute wealth equality (which cannot exist in an energetic economic system). Since money is a fungible asset that can be used to rent or even purchase access to higher levels of strength, intelligence, power, and other inequalities, wealth is an outsize target for reducing inequality broadly. Unless you think a world with locked-in hierarchies is better (and you argue like you do), then reducing wealth inequality clearly allows the world to become less corrupt by giving people a tool to reduce, or even upend, existing power deltas (the source of corruption).
>And you suggest that reducing wealth inequality will make the world better. I don't know, I still believe that aiming at reducing poverty is a better goal.
They're the same thing. You only refuse to see it because you expect your personal wealth to fall. You jealously guard a dysfunctional status quo for illogical and selfish reasons.