Imagine a world in which everyone has exactly the same income and the same expenses, saves up the same amount of money for retirement, and lives exactly the same amount of time.
In that world, someone just about to retire would in one sense be somewhere in the top 1-2% of wealth holders and in another sense be exactly average (and median, and mode), as regards their consumption patterns.
The point being, lifecycle effects matter a _lot_. In the US, ~17% of the population is 65+ (not all of them retired, of course, but many retired and living partially off their savings) and ~6% of the population are college students. Let's assume that "individual income" does not include children (though it might, depending on how it's measured. It certainly includes various people who only work part-time, but let's ignore that. If we assume that college students and retirees are all below-median (not entirely true, but no worse than the other assumptions we just made), 70th percentile of individual income is something like 60th percentile of "income of non-students and non-retirees".
> That being reasonable doesn't change the fact that it's still more than what 70% of other situations get
The point is, if you look at actual consumption (as in, how people actually live), not everyone's consumption comes entirely from income. So it's extremely misleading to look at incomes and say anything about what people "get".