The OP was incoherent for multiple reasons: Grossly confusing the number of people who would have to be sacrificed in order to double everyone else's wealth, claiming that sacrificing them would actually double everyone's wealth, thinking that forcibly redistributing that would yield anywhere near the paper value of the underlying assets, thinking it would do much to help the people it was given to, and so on. If you say that "1%" in the context of global wealth distribution meant something very different to the OP than "$77,000 of net worth", you may be right, but that is yet another point where OP is wrong in an easy-to-discover way.
Your silly obsession over what qualifies as a "welfare mom" misses the point. Most people would not accept confiscating a doctor's house and medical practice to pay more money to people who live off welfare, or confiscating the home and retirement assets from a couple of 60-year-old middle-class people to build a new mud hut for a subsistence farmer in Elbonia (which is about how far the money would go after all the bureaucrats along the way take their cuts), but that is what the OP was proposing to "double the world's wealth". Fussing about "welfare moms" and whose sob story justifies sucking at the public teat is a refusal to address the legitimate objections to that kind of redistribution.