At the extremely wealthy end, you almost certainly didn't.

There's hard work, and there's luck. Your genes, your environment and the randomness of the universe add to make up 100% of both of those things.

I don't think it's fair to say that the children (and their children, and their children) of someone who won the randomness / genetic / environmental lottery should be thousands of times better off than the children of someone who didn't.

In a fair and just nation/world we would try to reduce wherever possible the instances where your opportunities are dependent upon where, or to whom you are born.

That's missing the point. People don't get angry about someone else being a thousand times better off. They get angry about being left behind while certain special interests take all the gains.

That's something that can't be solved by an inheritance tax or sending children to boarding schools from the day they are born to let them grow up in a homogeneous environment.

All of those children will then feel left behind while their parents party away their last savings because the state is going to take it away anyway, right?

I don't really understand why the commentors are just contradicting your statement with philosophical notions of ownership.

I think your comment is more about the right to self-determination and touches on the topic of what wealth itself means (i.e., having a good education is of value; whether it cost a lot of money or not).

I guess one should not take HN comments too personally or seriously...