Our economic systems in the West may be far from ideal, and certainly create huge imbalances between the richest and the poorest that we would do well to address for many reasons. A significant part of that imbalance comes from our company structures, where the workers creating the value often receive relatively little compensation, while founders, investors and the most senior staff receive most of the benefit.
That said, I don't think your argument that no-one is worth a huge amount of money is inherently a strong one. My favourite example of this is JK Rowling, who is arguably the most successful author in history and reportedly worth around a billion dollars today. That money was earned primarily from the success of the Harry Potter books she wrote, which have sold almost half a billion copies worldwide. That's a lot of happiness she's created for a lot of people, and personally I don't begrudge her being heavily rewarded for doing more good than most of us ever will in our lifetimes.
The position is not as clear cut in the case of Paul Allen, since he didn't almost single-handedly write the software that generated the vast amount of value Microsoft has produced in the world over the years, and there is a much stronger element of the founder/investor/senior vs. employee argument I mentioned before in his case. But given how much value Microsoft has generated over the years, if you're going to criticise Allen's wealth I think you need more than just a blunt "no-one deserves to be that rich" argument to be convincing.