Quite the opposite, the natural tendency for any asset that's not naturally depreciating (money, property, ...) is for it too all end up in the hands of a few.

The reason is that the best strategy is to always acquire and never spend. Anyone ever played the monopoly game knows this.

However when people are forced to spend, like buying a house to live, the poor people are at a disadvantage. Rich people already have everything and can just time the market wait for the best moment with the lowest price. Poor people need to buy right then and there otherwise they'll sleep under a bridge.

We all know that poor people e.g. buy lower quality stuff like cheap clothes, used cars etc. that are actually more expensive in the long run, just because they can't wait to accumulate enough money for the good durable things. It works like that with a shirt and it works like that with acquiring a billion dollar business.

All the artificially durable assets like money and property will end up in the hands of a few, and we already today have 1% of the population owning 50% of the stuff or something like that.

This is why some amount of inflation counteracts this phenomenon to some extent, an actual demurrage on money would be much better. Same with property. Silvio Gesell writes about it in his book on the Natural Economic Order.

So abandon your ideas of passive income and generational wealth. They are bugs in the system. It's much more likely you'll be on the short end of that stick e.g. by starving in a financial crisis than be one of the lucky few on the receiving end.