a rather cheap response that takes nothing into account other than the fact that she has access to a ton of money she probably had no hand in earning.
Not to mention that, underlying the fallacy, is the idea that moral virtues make people rich. Which is a way to define morality through measurable economic "productivity". While, not only many moral vitues are economically counter-productive (and/or productive on other, non-quantifyinable, levels), but also, many moral flaws can contribute to make someone economically successful.
The absurdity of this fallacy goes beyond the mere "(financial/symbolic) heir" effect. Even a self-made billionaire is not necessarily morally superior to some pauper or more humane, more worthy, more deserving, than him. And especially not proportionally to the wealth difference (someone who earns $500'000 a month is not a 10'000 times better person than someone who earns $50), because no one is.