Why do the richest 10% own 85% of the worlds wealth?

Everyone has the opportunities

Source? I hadn't heard this.

Well obviously there are instances where the richer person has had to overcome more adversity than the poorer person, but these are relatively few and far between. You haven't taken into account the "drive" factor either. A person born into a poor family is less likely to see being rich as a possibility as compared to one born into a rich background.

Someone who is labelled a "chav" is highly unlikely to be able to become a top doctor due to many factors. I would wager that the number of doctors who went to state schools is less than 50%, when the private sector accounts for less than 20% of schools.

You may have had a difficult life, but you weren't born on a council estate to a mother and father who don't want to work, spend their time getting drunk and watching the Jeremy Kyle show.

Whilst I'm sure the adversity you've had to overcome was harsh, you can't really say what you'd become if you were put into the family others were. Similarly I should say that certainly, some people are more susceptible to turning out that way than others (members of my immediate family aren't exactly the most classy people I know) but I'd say myself and my siblings turned out quite well.

Jst bkos i dont typ lke dis dunt meen im nt a chv.

But they don't have the same opportunities.
Someone born into a richer family, with better "connections" etc etc will have more and better opporutunities than someone born to a teenage mother in a council estate. That isn't to say that second person won't have any, but certainly they would not have the same amount of the same chances as the first person would have.

But they don't have the same opportunities.
Someone born into a richer family, with better "connections" etc etc will have more and better opporutunities than someone born to a teenage mother in a council estate. That isn't to say that second person won't have any, but certainly they would not have the same amount of the same chances as the first person would have.

I totally agree! Everyone has the opportunities, people in this country don't seem to realise that even the poorest of us are in the top 10%.

And the last bit, that always happens to me. I get people (on here but occasionally in real life too) saying stuff like "Oh it's alright for you, your parents are reasonably wealthy..." as if it's a criticism. Sorry for having parents who wanted to make something of themselves.

Why do people such as yourself (i.e. socialists) see happiness so simplistically? I have seen street children who will be immeasurably happier living their lives than many of the people I know who have been through the boarding school system and are set to inherit millions. Wealth is such a small small part of happiness. So much unhappiness of the working classes is derived from looking over the fence at the small minority of people who have a higher standard of living, and they seem entirely unable to see that their lives now are a million times better than the lives kings lived a few hundred years ago. Worse than this, what is their answer to this? TAKE. Focus on bringing down the upper middle classes, rather than engineering solutions to the problems they face.

I didn't mention happiness.
I am talking about opportunities to better their lives and their education and their employment etc etc.
I was not talking about happiness, and did not mention it at all.

edit - also I wouldn't call myself a socialst. That implies I support socialism. I do not. I am left wing, yes. But I have no problem with people making a better life for themselves through capitalist means. I just would like the same opportunities to be there for less fortunite people too.

My grandma always used to tell me "It's not what you know, it's who you know."
Most of the politicians/investment bankers/top 1% come from Eton and other top public schools. And this is the problem.

I would rather know that fellow humans are able to survive happily, with good health and a strong society, than caring about my own 'needs'. I wouldn't care if I was hit by a 50% drop in income. Yes it may sting, and would be a drastic change, but if it meant that people like you and I who do not have the same opportunities are able to survive, eat and socially mobilise, it'll be worth it. What is this insane pre-conceived notion about borders, that we are all under one country and thus this is who we are, and this is who we help. That is only history, and if we want progressive change to help all people from all over the world, who are we to say we'd rather have an Xbox than to keep someone alive? I think our current system is a disgusting sham, aiming to serve only the interests of those who benefit, and massacaring those at the bottom.
Call me a Socialist, yes, but we need to get over our own selfish ideas to help those really in need. Equality may hit us hardest, as we've worked so hard over the years to gain all this wealth from war and sleaze, but we need to take the hit for the future of mankind.

And what do you propose to provide these people with 'better' opportunities? If you're an average person without exceptional drive, intelligence, or blind luck, then your parents will be the difference between you getting to middle management or working as a cleaner, but the very top of the ladder is made up of people from a very diverse set of backgrounds. Those who have had it harder are better off for it in my opinion as well.

My grandma used to tell me work hard and be intelligent and you'll rise to the top like cream. Once you're at the top you'll meet another top person, combine genes and spend your money on sending them to a good school, and they will repeat the cycle. In theory social mobility should slow as the cleverest breed with the cleverest, and the less intelligent breed with the less intelligent. The conscientious will pass their conscientiousness onto their children and their children after that. And the less conscientious will pass that onto their children. And everyone will become more and more ingrained into their patterns. Unless you want to do some sort of Nazi-esque experiment in which parents who don't measure up are sterilised this is the way it will always be. And thank goodness too. I mean, you wouldn't want to take your own rubbish to the dump, would you? Not with those a-levels!

*Waits for the thought police to cry 'but but we're all equal'*

You sum up so many of my thoughts!!

Thank you. I hope it wasn't an incoherent ramble, it's just something that really angers me. I wish people could see their inherently selfish ways and realise that a change is needed; everyone moans about inequality until it stops affecting them, which is incredibly flippant. We should be the generation that makes a difference and saves so many lives.

I understood and agreed with every word.

My grandma used to tell me work hard and be intelligent and you'll rise to the top like cream. Once you're at the top you'll meet another top person, combine genes and spend your money on sending them to a good school, and they will repeat the cycle. In theory social mobility should slow as the cleverest breed with the cleverest, and the less intelligent breed with the less intelligent. The conscientious will pass their conscientiousness onto their children and their children after that. And the less conscientious will pass that onto their children. And everyone will become more and more ingrained into their patterns. Unless you want to do some sort of Nazi-esque experiment in which parents who don't measure up are sterilised this is the way it will always be. And thank goodness too. I mean, you wouldn't want to take your own rubbish to the dump, would you? Not with those a-levels!

*Waits for the thought police to cry 'but but we're all equal'*

I'm all for meritocracy, I just think it's an issue that some clever people have a glass ceiling in certain careers because they don't have contacts.