Almost all articles of the form "X% of the Y is held by the top Z%" where X > Z leave off one important thing: what % of Y should be held by the top Z%? One's

Almost all articles of the form "X% of the Y is held by the top Z%" where X > Z leave off one important thing: what % of Y should be held by the top Z%? One's first though might be that in a truly equitable society, we'd have X = Z for all Z. E.g., the top 10% have 10% of Y, the top 20% have 20% of Y, and so on. But upon a few moments more thought one will realize that is only mathematically possible if everyone has the same amount. If Y is stock owned by households, for example, such equitability in ownership can only happen if every household has the same amount of stock. The moment even a single household ends up with either more or less stock than a single other household, then the % held by the top Z% will be >Z%. This is true for anything, not just financial things. E.g., the top 10% of the winners of the Best Album of the Year Grammy Award have won more than 10% of the Best Album Grammy Awards. The top 10% of pimps manage more than 10% of the whores who work for pimps. The top 10% of pizza sellers by sales sell more than 10% of all pizza sold. The top 10% of muggers are responsible for more than 10% of muggings.