Ironically, it is exactly the 9.9% you mention that are beneficiaries of what I define "Political Markets" - operating in positions of labor which are likely controlled by legislative practices, i.e. where compliance necessarily creates pseudo-monopolies for goods and services. Compared to Jeff Bezos, who has accorded more food on the tables for people you would identically label as "abstract". How then is your moral argument sound, especially after the fact of his compounding returns of earnest efforts at wealth creation?

Morally speaking, it is nobler to be in the position of a Mr. Bezos who actually risked his life to prepare more food on the table for people than those who are in effect riding on the coattails of previous generations. They are all "obscenely rich" compared to where the average human mortal resides right now. Given all of their advantages, what do they do with it? What work do they do that will stand the test of time, let alone 25 years?

Hopefully a "moral" argument for the independent decision making of individuals and how they create honest wealth is demonstratively absurd.