When you are a talented child born into a bad family, your success is to go from £1 to £10M.

If you are a talented child born to a millionaire, your success is to go from £10M to £1bn.

If you are a dumb child born to a millionaire, you go from £10M to £1.

You probably assume that people with the same skills should have the same absolute outcomes. I don't. There shouldn't be glass ceilings for talented ones, so a son of a carpenter has a right to become a billionaire, or earn a Nobel Prize in science, or apply his talents in any field. But I don't think there exists any socioeconomic system that would deliver more equitable results and had more pros than cons, especially compared to the current system.

▲

lwhi 11 hours ago | parent [-]

You've lost me on your reasoning, but I would like to state that I wholly disagree with your politics.

Describing a family that doesn't have money as 'bad' is outrageous.

▲

patanegra 10 hours ago | parent [-]

By bad, I mean being in a bad situation.

I don't say people are evil for not having much money.

I grew up in a family with very low income (my dad was earning about £12000 per year, when he retired a few years ago, my mum about £6000, I am from Central Europe, so things are a bit cheaper there, but not much). He worked shifts, and my mum worked 1.5 jobs.

Yet, I was able to achieve everything I wanted.

Maybe you should re-read what I write to understand it better.

	▲	lwhi 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I see your point, I really do. We all have the ability to achieve, and there shouldn't be a limit on that potential. However, that's exactly what the class system in the UK does. The potential of oeople born into lower classes of society is actively limited.