No, what I am saying is that by making your life "more miserable" for a short time, you can make the rest of your entire life better.

It is called delayed gratification and it is linked to success in general. That is just an instance of it.

And sure, I can save my whole life and make less than some people can make in an hour. Ok, good for them. But now what can we do? Take their money? It is not going to happen, so I think it is smarter to do with what we have instead of dreaming about a better world that will solve all our problems.

And even if we manage to take all the money from "the 1%" and redistribute it to everyone else, it will be around $20k/year more per household. It is a lot, but not that much. Let's take our $50k/year median household, it is now $70k. In theory that means $20k/year of savings. But when you consider that many $70k/year households are living paycheck to paycheck (but with a nicer car and a slightly bigger house), it probably wont change the saving ability of the average American.

Another way to show that the 1% has nothing to do with savings is to look at other countries. Even when adjusted to purchasing power and inequality, US households has less savings and more income than most western Europe countries.

Mike Bloomberg spent 500 million dollars on advertisements for a failed presidential bid. With this money, he could've given every American a million dollars, still have 173 million left over, and have made no discernible impact on his net worth.

It's absolutely an issue of the 1% versus everyone else, and especially given these people's opposition to providing basic social safety nets to all people.

EDIT:

I'm an idiot and didn't think through the math.