I never know what to make of numbers like those, because the articles that present them never offer anything to tell me what a good wealth distribution would be. With nothing to compare to, I have no idea if those numbers are showing something is wrong, or showing that things are fine.

In any group (the whole population, or any subgroup such as the top 1%) where the are wealth differences within the group, then it is mathematically inevitable that the top X% of the group will have more than X% of the group's wealth.

If there is an individual who has more wealth than any other individual, then it is also mathematically necessary that wealth_of_top(X)/X increases as X decreases.