First, studies show that nearly everyone, including the very poor, spends maybe 10% of their income on "luxuries", i.e. things that are not strictly necessary for survival but make life worth living. The poor are criticized for this and it's used as a reason to cut what little help they get, even when their poverty is a direct result of the wider system.
So I don't think total puritanism is a good idea. In historical crises some "luxury" has often survived, and not just for the rich. People had radios in WWII for public announcements, but they still broadcast music. But at the same time, food was rationed to ensure that the poor weren't priced out of the market.
However, there's a difference between low impact leisure for everyone and the ridiculously polluting luxuries of the rich.
Fixing inequality is important. Billionaires are a policy failure. They have too much impact on our politics, and way too much impact on our emissions.
As @Glamazon pointed out, we need to provide first and foremost for everyone's needs. Not turn them into a market failure to punish the poor.
I agree that we need to reduce total energy used. For instance we can severely restrict flights, ban cruises, reduce the number of cars. However we cannot abandon technology entirely, and arguably many things are technology that you might not think of as technology. Medicine is a need, not a greed, and it requires some sort of technological civilisation.
And in some cases, cutting demand requires solving a bunch of related problems and a certain amount of building, e.g. housing, harassment, new cycle lanes, new train lines, more dense housing, making cities more accessible without a car, etc.
Another example of appropriate technology: we can greatly increase the efficiency of heating (with heat pumps) and of transport (with electric buses, more bicycles etc). But this will result in an increase in total electricity use in the short to medium term. It's worth it because the systems it replaces directly use fossil fuels and are incredibly inefficient. But it does mean we need to build renewables, storage, interconnectors etc.
The point isn't to abolish all luxuries, potentially as a trojan horse argument to justify doing nothing since the rich's right to fly is somehow the same as the poor's right to an occasional supermarket beer or movie.
The point is to prioritise everyone's needs over the greeds of the few (and that will mean some amount of lifestyle change for most of us), live within the physical boundaries, and minimise the material cost of the transition to a more sustainable society.
breadandcircuses