Looks like you have some passion on this subject. Good for you, passion is important. But it's far less useful on its own than when it's paired with curiosity, critical thought, and especially a bit of skepticism, lest you believe everything you hear/read from your information sources of choice. No source, not left, not right, not non partisan, gives you all information. And the sources on the left and right tend to omit that information which either doesn't further their narrative or seems to contradict their narrative. It's the nature of the beast.
And the 1%/99% bit is just a narrative. Such hard cutoffs really don't work in the real world. I mean, think about it. Let's say the cutoff is an even $400,000. You make $400,000 you're part of the 1%. That means if you make $399,999 you're part of the 99%. See the silliness of hard cutoffs? They really don't make sense in the real world, only in the world of someone's narrative.
You also have to figure out just what numbers you're talking about. When you talk about the 1%, are you talking about the 1% of wage earners in a given year, or are you talking about the 1% of asset owners? Those can be different people with different agendas. I'll assume when you talk of wealth, you're talking more about the latter than the former.
Some more numbers: In America, the so-labeled 1% actually own about 40% of the wealth. The top 10 percent own about 74% of the wealth. So I'm betting that the bottom 90% don't feel they have a lot in common with the 90-99%, which kind of further erodes the 1% narrative. And, really, even within the 1%, the top half has far more than the lower half. From what I can glean from reading about this issue for awhile now, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top .1%. You might find the following article interesting, as it discusses some of this (with data as of 2010): http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Two other points I'd like to address in your post: First, you misunderstood my comment about the Starbucks. The comment was made as a follow-on to Craig's post - basically I was saying that the Starbucks-drinking Occupy folks were relatively rich compared to some of the destitute people in other countries, basically agreeing with the point Craig was making.
And second, as far as being far from reality, I agree, but I'm going to give marriage another try anyway. That is, if I ever get the opportunity.....