It's difficult to argue that this isn't at least a big part of the problem.

The mathematically ideal solution may be something close to Partial Common Ownership[0]: you self-assess what your property is worth, and you get taxed based on that number. However, that number is public, and if someone wants to buy your property at that price, you must sell to them. This system encourages optimal allocation of resources and penalizes hoarding.

[0] See Glen Weyl's fantastic book "Radical Markets". Full chapter here: https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s11222.pdf

I'd say it's the ultimate result of any economic system that rewards property ownership above all else.

There is more to it than that. Another possible explanation is simply the Pareto rule (80/20 rule) where most revenue/consumer spending is going to the top 20% brands/companies etc. This is occurring for obvious reasons - those top 20% have better products/marketing/technology and so on so of course wealth is going to flow to those top 20%. So even if you did re-distribute the wealth then the top 20% would still end up with the wealth because the consumers would simply spend the money on buying products/services from the top 20%.