I think % is a flawed metric. Your measuring your position compared to the rest of society as a gauge for "getting ahead in life" when you should measure yourself to yourself at different points in time.
Absolutely; to the extent that there a person has natural property interests, they don't extend beyond the end of their life; the ability to direct the disposition of property beyond that point makes sense as a legal privilege only to the extent that model on which that privilege is granted has social utility. It's clear that some rights here are probably desirable, but not unlimited, and beyond a point the inequality that results has considerable externalized disutility.
> I think % is a flawed metric. Your measuring your position compared to the rest of society as a gauge
Whatever you think people should value, it's empirically quite clear that relative deprivation -- compare to contemporaries as well as compared to one's own former state -- is a source of significant disutility consistently, across cultures.
It's also clear that, ceteris paribus, increasing concentration of wealth decreases the amount of progress people on the lower end of the scale can make against their own past state as well as against those on the upper end.
So, should you be able to increase the ability for your "dynasty" to do better? Yes. Of course, increasing society at large accomplishes this more effectively than just giving them more money. Good stewards of a society typically have it better in the long run than greedy stewards.
Hard work is important for many reasons. Hard work can be involved in getting access to a lot of money, but it isn't necessarily involved in it.
And there's nothing wrong with that, because monetary resources are just one aspect of an individual's overall circumstances and it doesn't mean anything in isolation. Like many other personal circumstances (including health, much, much more valuable than money), reversal in fortunes are not uncommon. Seeking to maintain a positive position for the people you care about to rely on as needed is good, and they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their forebears' labors without undue judgment or excessive expectation.
Consider it in sports. Is it surprising that there are some families that have "figured it out" and are better overall than others? No. Not at all. Some will be genetics and some will be learning successful training regimes from a young age. However, even in there, the top performers are just that. The top performers.
This is showing that the top is not made up of people that are capable of getting to the top. That is concerning. Not life stoppingly so. But it is against what a lot of the world teaches each other for how working hard can help you get ahead in life.