Do you mean to say “inherent evil” or “inherent injustice”? There are plenty of people who believe that it’s simply impossible for one human being to actually be “worth” thousands of times more than other human beings are. Given that assumption (with which you undoubtedly disagree), they see any multimillion dollar salary as proof that someone is not being fairly compensated. Watching all of the executives walk away from the subprime mess with severance packages equal to the entire net worth of a small town only serves to confirm the suspicion that at least a few executives are getting paid more than they’re worth. Learning that CEOs’ salaries are set by boards of directors that are made up of other companies’ CEOs doesn’t do anything to discourage this sort of suspicion.

Of course, there’s a better argument for wealth redistribution, namely the view that sees anyone with a $1 million salary as someone who has the strongest interest in continuing to see our country run smoothly – They’re the ones who have the most money that could be stolen, who send the most stuff across our nation’s highways, who need the most educated workforce to work for them, etc. It wouldn’t make sense for these people to pay for all of these things individually (I believe the word here is “externality”), but it does make sense for all of these people to pitch in with a larger share to maintain the world in which they have been so successful so far.

I will concede that human nature being what it is, the attitude that sees wealth redistribution as a remedy for injustice is probably much more common than the attitude that sees wealth redistribution as a way to preserve an environment in which the rich can get richer. However, I would still warn against assuming too much about what philosophy lies behind any given person’s position on any political issue.