There are certainly very wealthy people who use laws to make money, look at the Solyndra scam, and also several companies that use lobbying to create government regulations that prevent competition. I agree 100% that such laws and regulations should be repealed immediately. However, that does not reflect on every wealthy person. Specifically, this thread is about Romney and as far as I know he never abused government regulations or government subsidies to grow his investments. If he has, that would be a potentially devastating issue to attack him on. 

IMO, those whose business success is solely due to their political ties are despicable people who ought to have all of their funding cut immediately. Unfortunately, too many of the ignorant believe that government regulations are designed to help the "little guy" as if politicians give a shit about the little guy. 

That being said, I would love someone to explain to me why income inequality is a bad thing as long as neither party is using government to take from the other. Many critics of inequality just implicitly assume that inequality is bad in and of itself. They pay little to no attention to why there is inequality. All inequality is not equal. Inequality that comes because one party has better political connections than another is bad, inequality that comes because one person produces more than the another is good. 

I have, I read this shit all the time, it is kind of a hobby of mine and as I pointed out, I have observed that those who automatically decry inequality do not differentiate for how the inequality came to exist. They point towards inequality that occurred through force and equivocate it with inequality that occurs through persuasion. 

Because the baseball teams with the lowest gini coefficients also happen to be the teams with the highest salaries. For example, the New York Yankees consistently have the highest team salary but also consistently one of the lowest gini coefficients. They also have three of the top five highest salaried players in the league, but even the poorest players make a lot more than their counterparts. So while income inequality within the team is low, the NYY substantially increase the income inequality of the league in general.

It is very well documented that higher total team salaries is strongly correlated with winning the world series. http://voices.yahoo.com/do-higher-baseball-salaries-translate-championships-472253.html

Given the great disparity in the amounts that different teams have it is logical that a team with limited resources and chooses to pay for a single superstar will have a very large gini coefficient, but they are not losing because they hired a superstar, they are losing because they did not have enough funds to hire a full team of A list players. Papers and books I have read by the proponents of the theory that inequality within a team harms the teams odds of winning fail to take the substantial differences between total team salaries into account as such their data means precisely shit. 

When you look at sports where teams have more close salaries, such as the NFL, teams with high paid superstars are more likely to make the playoffs. It isn't an accident that the short list of the best (and highest paid) QB's in the league is also the shortlist of teams most likely to get to the playoffs. There is the reality that it is a team sport and one player on their own can't necessarily carry the whole team (unless his name is Peyton Manning). It is a decision that every other business has to make when hiring employees, do you pay top dollar for one position and thereby be forced to pay less (and get a worse player) for another position? It is a delicate balance to work out and needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Sometimes you get lucky and get a superstar cheap, Tom Brady was extremely underpaid when he started winning as QB for the Patriots, sometimes superstars are extremely overpaid *cough* Donovan Mcnabb. Plus the reality that your superstar might be injured.

Yet in sports, the trend remains that the best players get paid substantially more than the worst and income inequality increases as the sport as a whole becomes more profitable and decreases when the sport as a whole becomes less profitable. Just like income inequality works for the workforce in general. A company that is extremely profitable can afford to pay huge salaries to key employees to get the best of the best. As profitability fades cuts need to be made, sometimes you have to ditch the superstar, sometimes you reduce the salaries everywhere else, the correct answer depends on the specific situation. 

Sometimes, you can be the New York Yankees and pay for a bunch of superstars plus pay everyone else a great wage, it is always fun to have your cake and eat it too. But like baseball, not every team can afford the NYY salary, not every company can afford to pay top dollar for every employee. Those who can't afford it have to spend it wisely. Sometimes that involves finding employees who are undervalued by the market (like sabermetrics in baseball) and managing without a superstar, sometimes it means hiring a superstar that can make up for the weaknesses in the rest of the team (hiring Peyton Manning). Who is best positioned to make that determination? I say the person who owns the business as they will be the ones who profit or lose the most from the outcome of the decision.