I don't think it wise to presume that at all. It's little to do with wealth inequality. Especially not in the current mode. Money and wealth can both fairly readily be converted into substantial power. This is without mentioning the power laws that seem to be in place which tend towards winner take all scenarios, meaning there is a gross aggregation of power in fairly singular institutions. And when you resolve to look at the people running the institutions they're also the wealthy - this aspect is obvious, but the reality is that it yields individuals even more leverage over the system. And it's fair to assume they're working in concert, a la the invisible hand. I reckon this situates them several hundreds of orders of magnitude above their fellows.

What's worse is, by my divination at least: as a general rule, I don't find these people to be exceptional or necessarily well suited to wield such power. And I would also conjecture that the centralization of power in aspects of individual occurrence and institutions creates a behavioral uniformity, which I hypothesize necessarily leads to considerable instability ultimately creating more "too big to fail" situations which ultimately compromises the health of our polite society. And because of the immense leverage, I don't find it to be stepping out of bounds to say that it's entirely probable that our body politic is owned and operated through backroom auction of policy.

I'd also append that, from my experience, I've never seen debts factored into arguments regarding wealth disparities, but I do suppose it should be. Historically debt peonage was a considerable force. I think it would be interesting to look at the wealth distribution charts and seeing how it plays out when they traipse into the negative.