> In practice that just means that those with inherited wealth expend some of it on building a personal myth of being self-made independent of their family legacy.

This happens a fair bit in the UK. Due to the media's obsession with entrepreneurs, we see the wealthy gambling a bit of family wealth on a series of startup ideas that are clearly not made for the reality we inhabit but sound snappy and fin-techy (blockchain for banks, with no understanding of banks).

> Obviously, no parallel equivalent exists in the other end of the economic scale.

If you take away the spending of money bit, there is an equivalent at the other end of the economic scale.

There exists some person with inherited wealth that builds a personal myth of their inherited wealth not being responsible for their current wealth.

There exists some person in inherited poverty that builds a personal myth of their inherited poverty not being responsible for their current poverty.

The latter does happen.

By no parallel equivalent I mean that there is in practice no equivalent method for someone in overt poverty to fake virtue under the particular model of virtue being discussed as there is a wealthy person whose wealth is inherited rather than earned. (It is sometimes possible for a person who is not wealthy to fake wealth to fake virtue under the system, though it's more common for a person who is wealthy to fake greater wealth for that purpose—Donald Trump is, interestingly enough, an example of both this and the pretending inherited wealth is earned methods of faking the virtue of earned wealth.)