Worse: you are punishing poor children who don't draw parents who sacrifice everything until they rest in an early grave, while rich children who have parents who don't remember how many kids they have after a few drinks get every opportunity in the world.
This is a specifically middle-class moralization that defines merit as the product of the ability to suffer and "giftedness," and measures merit by looking at outcomes.
There’s a huge distance between the majority of parents who “care” in that way and those who truly care about their children.
The flip side is that parents who could not ordinarily build for their kids' futures might feel better. I wonder if that's enough to compensate.
But I'm saying that I think that because humans and groups of humans are complicated, not just because I think it's important to reward parents that value and plan for their children's future.
I think it's likely that society will probably work better with high mobility vs the random draw that "perfect" mobility requires, but that's a fuzzy feeling based on human groups being complex, not the distilled moralization that you are using.
I suppose the less complicated discussion is about raising the baseline outcome being better than working to make outcomes the same. Raising the baseline is about absolute outcomes rather than relative outcomes, so the latter aren't as big a piece of the discussion.