It's an interesting analogy, but many of the objections to redistributive policies are grounded in property rights, which the analogy fails to represent. From that perspective, it's more like there are two beds, one of which doesn't belong to you, and you're saying that you need to chop the legs of that bed down to make sure it's not higher than yours, because it's impermissible for people to have beds of different heights. If you want to argue in favor of redistribution, you first have to make the case that inequality is so fundamentally damaging to society that reducing it trumps protecting private property rights. That's the heart of the disagreement on this issue.

If you can get past that (no small task), then you wade into the thicket of trying to measure and evaluate inequality (income? education? life expectancy?), justify whose inequality merits special treatment (blacks? women? asians? gay hindus? native american transgendered wiccans? where do you draw the line?), and implement a practical rebalancing mechanism that actually addresses the problem without creating a host of unintended second-order side effects.

Unfortunately, I think this issue probably defies simple analogies.