So let&#x27;s discuss here! I think these issues are very interesting, and it&#x27;s fascinating that there exists views that differ so radically when it comes to how wealth should be redistributed (if it should), and when it comes to whether a given fortune is &#x27;deserved&#x27;. It is also fascinating to see how different these views are between, say, Europe and the US.<p>Personally I think Pikettys suggestions make sense if we&#x27;re trying to truly build a system where the quality and quantity of work performed is as closely mapped to the amount of wealth gained as possible. The nuances are difficult - i.e. how do we deal with the fact that parents want the best education for their children, etc? There must be set some thresholds, and as usual, people will find ways to circumvent those thresholds.<p>Opinions also differ on how big of a role luck plays. I lean towards the view that noone truly &#x27;deserves&#x27; wealth because they are all products of their genes and upbringing, so if someone is lazy, is it truly their &#x27;fault&#x27;? They lack certain neurological impulses that other people have, but how were they supposed to gain these impulses in the first place? Maybe the only difference between that person and someone non-lazy and &#x27;successful&#x27; is that the successful kid once saw a television show about Thomas Edison which the other kid happened to miss. To me it seems obvious that it is these kinds of coincidences that make a person what s&#x2F;he is. Then we create environments to make certain coincidences more probable, but there are never any guarantees that your child will not become a heroin addict, develop mental issues, or what have you. And I don&#x27;t think the child is ever truly &#x27;at fault&#x27; although we may phrase it as such in order to try to import the correct neurological pathways in our child&#x27;s brain.<p>And the same is true for the occurrences that lead to massive wealth. In many cases it takes genius (which, as I argued above, is a matter of chance IMO) but as many people will attest, genius is only part of it - you also have to be at the right place at the right time.<p>Given all this it seems unreasonable to me to say that any wealth is &#x27;deserved&#x27;. In my view, the only thing that can positively be derived from the concept of wealth is as a motivator for people to innovate. Thus, when wealth becomes something that you inherit, it has less of a sociological purpose.