A justification for wealth is that it could serve as a buffer against a population crash. This is to say, over-consumption, or over-savings by the wealthy could serve to not only make available resources during emergency demands when a resource deficit occurs, but also makes an artificial signal of scarcity to those not in the wealth subset, that will tend to make them consume less, and procreate less. Were this just from democratic planners, because of the oddness of our trained tastes and greed, the constituency might insist the savers desist on the grounds of dubious justifications. Such justifications, as we now find, do not require proof, but simply enough sound-good-assertion to convince a majority that what they would like to be true is in fact true. Thus we find that, by allowing ourselves to live in political fantasies, we throw away our democratic empowerment.
That all being said, the second aspect of the justification is the ONLY one you have high assurance of, since the rich guys may just let your ass starve when push comes to shove. So you not only lose your democracy, but your ability to survive resource hardships. On the other hand, as the wealthy eventually end up the only ones who can afford education, you may find you'll need them for the knowledge you lost along with that democratic empowerment.
And of course all these patterns are a bit too complex for most to parse, as they will be well trained in their own personal perspectives on life, including the popular religions and consumer hobbies that have minimal to do with their self-intereset. As such, perhaps I should elaborate them here in larger paragraphs using specific focus: