Perhaps one measure of acceptable is:

People aren't taking to the streets rioting - wealth inequality is at acceptable levels

People are taking to the streets rioting - wealth inequality is at unacceptable levels

Yes I know, that is trite, and circular, but maybe there is something in it. No-one is going to be able to define an exact acceptable level of wealth inequality, but your argument is an asymmetrical standard. I could just as well argue that your view says it is ok for the top 0.1% of people to have 99% of all the wealth while everyone else shares the other 1%. Would you deem that acceptable (assuming we live in the real world and not a fantasy of no scarcity)?

Except the riots on the streets aren't about wealth inequality, they're about a proposal for reduced government spending. Why? Government spending has been supported by constantly taking out new debt, and now both issuance of new debt is sputtering and increased interest payments are due.

This has, of course, not convinced the government to stop increasing debt. This is people's reaction to merely slightly reducing the rate of debt increase.

The problem is not even that the debt is too high, but because the state's demand for new debt just for this year is too high at the interest rates they're offering.