The number you're looking for is $465k.
https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-t...>that no one needs to be making $800,000 a year.
And that's where the mistake is. A significant number of people (including me) are fine with someone creating a company, selling it for a few million, or just having 10 good years of operation and retiring. The rewards for creating something new need to be worth the risk of complete failure and loss of income for those years.
This is the problem with using 1%. The bottom of the 1% is filled with normal professionals that took huge risks (starting businesses) or spent a significant amount of time in training (brain surgeon).
>As people see home ownership being increasingly implausible
Not if you give up on living in the most expensive parts of the US. Even then, a housing shortage is hardly attributable to income inequality. Just look at the bay area where there are people making good money. The housing shortage has caused prices to sky rocket to absorb up all of that difference. If you have 1000 people fighting for 100 houses, 900 people are going to get screwed regardless of income inequality.
> healthcare difficult to afford,
A broken healthcare system can't be fixed by fewer rich people.
>fulfilling work unable to be found and less than $1000 in savings
Capping incomes of successful professions will not add more fulfilling professions nor will it increase their savings.
>Who is waging this campaign?
Well people like you who claim nobody needs to make a lot of money and then blame a bunch of unrelated issues on income inequality. I can't tell if it was just the mathematical ignorance of who started the movement or if it was partially orchestrated by the super-rich. But by making it include skilled professionals that had to put in huge risks to get where they are, they lost significant support of the population within 50% of that income.
>is it any wonder people are upset, bothered and judgemental of people who make an impossibly larger amount of money than 99% of people?
I don't know what "impossibly larger" is supposed to mean in this context. Someone who makes $250k will not see someone who makes $500k as making an "impossibly larger" amount of money than them.
If this whole movement had been more carefully crafted to exclude people that had to go to medical school and go $350k into debt, I don't think there would have been very much disagreement from a significant chunk of the US. As it stands, it just looks like an arbitrary cut-off screwing the people who managed to secure a good life rather than being focused on people with enough money to hire full-time Washington lobbyists.