A society claiming the unwealthy tolerate their outcomes because of its exceptional fairness has to prove that unwealth arises from a person deciding to abuse their own chance at wealth by more than the fair treatment society entitles them to (because those ending up wealthy were ostensibly assumed to be given no unfair advantage).

If fair treatment from society (for the purpose of equal opportunity to wealth) results in unequal but 'consistently fair' wealth outcomes, then the explanation for the unwealthy individual's outcome must be disavowal of wealth "after being given the same chance everyone else had" Which implies that, since fair treatment failed to ensure the goal of wealth was as reasonable for them as anyone else, then the sole remaining factor is supposed individual disavowal - which tautologically represents an intolerable situation after all..