Are you honestly trying to suggest that someone with $2.5m to their name isn't wealthy? Wow.
I guess the question is, what is wealthy then? I haven't ever seen a definitive cutoff. $1M? That doesn't seem like much if it's a household with two retired people.
Arguments like "Ah, but they're not really wealthy because..." will always fail because there'll always be the case of someone in the same situation who doesn't have $2.5m, at which point the person with $2.5m is definitely wealthy.
If you're 25 and you have $2.5M? Yes, you're wealthy since you have 40 years of earning potential on top of your money.
If you're 65 and you have $2.5M? Very well off, but nowhere close to the 25 year old.
Same goes with inequality. If you ignore age, then things really unfair. How can someone have $3M and another nothing? But that ignore the fact that you'll have inequality regardless just due to age. It's not unreasonable for someone who is 65 to have a lot more money than someone who is 25. That's just the benefit of time.
The problem, in my opinion, is that there are too few gradations when talking about wealth. Yes, someone with a million dollars in assets - heck, even $10k in assets - is very wealthy, globally. I completely agree.
But to lump them in with the actual ruling class and call them "elites" is naive.
