What Is Scarface's Fairness Argument?

With the notion of general welfare in mind, giving extremely large salaries to actor Al Pacino, director Brian De Palma, writer Oliver Stone, and others like them can be justified with a utilitarian argument, as well as a fairness argument. From a utilitarian stand point, as long as the wealth imbalance helps improve the lives of many, then it is justifiable. The Star System can inspire innovators to improve or invent ways to improve society technologically, methodologically, entertainingly, etc. Specific to this example, the creators of Scarface have provided entertainment to many people, enough to earn roughly $200,000,000. Therefore, isn’t it fair to say their efforts have benefited the many?
Now focusing the fairness argument, those will
For example, while it is undeniable Scarface has brought entertainment to numerous people, it is true that those viewers would turn resentful knowing how much money Al Pacino made? The social welfare argument says they might, as that short time they were entertained does not justify the wealth disparities between them.
Another argument that can be used in this case is against Tony Montana, the virtue argument. Since he made his fortune illegally dealing cocaine, it is fair to say he was not paying any taxes on that money or redistributing any of it back into society. This does a disservice to virtues such as honesty. Furthermore, by skipping taxes all together he does not contribute to collective benefits, for example roads and education.
Given the way that Montana built his wealth, the beneficence argument should be applied to him, possibly more so than those who built their wealth legally. By skipping out on obligations he should have to society (taxes), and all the other unethical choices he made (murder, dealing a harmful substance), he should distribute some of his wealth to charity since he could probably do so without affecting his lifestyle in any