the haves may have what the have-nots have not; yet the haves have not what the have-nots have, and it may also be that the haves have not have had what the have-nots had.
----------
the haves would have the have-nots to have what they have, yet would not have helped the have-nots have what they have - so why preserve that the have-nots have what the haves have, when the haves have not have that the have-nots have what they have?
-----------
it may also be that:

the have-nots actually have more than what the haves have. but the have-nots can't have the haves have what they have too.