Wealth inequality in the United States is at historic highs, with some estimates suggesting that the top 1% of Americans hold nearly 50% of all wealth, yet determining the optimal distribution of wealth in a society has proven to be an intractable question, in part because differing beliefs about the ideal distribution of wealth are the source of partisan friction between policymakers who shape that distribution. We take another approach to determining the "ideal" level of wealth inequality: Following the philosopher John Rawls (1971), we assessed Americans' beliefs about what level of wealth inequality they deemed just. When respondents chose between three wealth distributions - a perfectly equal distribution of wealth, the wealth distribution in the US, and the wealth distribution in Sweden - the US distribution was preferred far less than both Sweden and the equal distribution, with fully 92% of Americans preferring Sweden to the US. We then asked respondents to estimate the current US wealth distribution and then to "build a better America" by constructing their ideal distribution. Respondents vastly underestimated the actual level of wealth inequality in the US, and constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. In addition, Americans exhibited striking consensus: Even the wealthiest and most conservative respondents desired a more equal distribution of wealth.