https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-24/oxfam-...
2) You have taken the bad analysis and made it even worse. The headline says 8 men own as much as half the world (as much as the bottom 50%). That does NOT mean they own half the world. Far far far from it. (EDIT: you fixed this part with your edit)
So top 26 instead of top 8.
Anyway my point is that all these news article lump the top 1% together even though you can make similar headlines about just the top 0.1%, 0.01%, 0.001%, 0.0001%, 0.00001%, 0.000001%.
Whatever your point is, it's not very meaningful if it's supported by faulty evidence or reasoning.
I am saying the top 1% is 77 million people and you can narrow that group down by a lot and still make the same headline of top X surpasses wealth of bottom Y.
Keep in mind that the top 1% have a combined wealth of about 35 trillion. The combined wealth of all US billionaires is only 10% or so of that.
So the core idea that you seem to be trying to express, that the billionaires have it all, is just not accurate.
Personally I think the focus on the 1% is a bad tactic since it targets people who are everywhere all around us, whom their friends know to be talented or hard working or to have undertaken the stress of operating a small business or whatever. For that reason it does and will continue to come off as inappropriate/unfair/immature to demonize the 1%, and hell probably even the 0.1%. This is why Occupy Wall Street was so easily dismissed.
In the US, when we focus the discussion on the ultra rich and move it away from the merely well to do, we take the discussion away from what has to happen if we want things like single payer health care or vastly cheaper college education.
2) Also, for the record this is a little questionable:
compared to the 1%, most of whom still have to actively plan for retirement and worry about financial security
To be in the 1% of wealth you've got to have over 10 million dollars. If you've got that much on hand and you're all that worried about retirement you either can't do math or your idea of a comfortable retirement is quite lavish.
(a) implicitly constrain our notion of what is possible ("what is possible is what we can offset with a redistributive pay-for"), or
(b) in reckoning with the fact that billionaires can't (for instance) pay for single-payer health care, force ourselves to reject entirely the notion of accounting and economics (see MMT, which is a serious idea in academia but finds an entirely unserious expression in public policy).
Europe doesn't seem to have this problem; they seem simply to decide that everyone needs guaranteed-issue, subsidized, affordable health insurance (or a single payer), and then tax the middle class to pay for it.