You substitute "control" & "manage" for the word in your quote, "own." That's the cause of your misunderstanding.
A factory boss manages scores of people, he controls them, though he doesn't own them. I think the objection in your quote is to 1% owning so much, not simply controlling it. Have i helped?
You're mixing thing up again. When you pay insurance premiums, your insurance guy doesn't pocket the money. He controls it, his firm might invest or loan it, but there's no concentration of wealth -- the money's not his.
As far as insurance being a good or a bad idea? That's debatable, though has nothing to do with the 1%.
While making this distinction is meaningful in theory, not giving a company's highest level decision-maker substantial ownership yields very bad results. Top-down organization works to some extent -- mainly through high intelligence by organizers -- but just degenerates at the top. The reason for this is corruption, or game theory on selfish actors if you want to put it that way.
So I'm not mixing things up, but reducing the problem to feasible solutions. You need someone who owns a company so that you have someone who really cares about it. While very high intelligence might
in principle find other setups with favorable incentive systems, that appears to be too hard for us humans right now.
So to answer the question:
Distributing large-scale resource management to over 70M individuals (1% of the planet's population) is not currently possible and managing resources in a non-capitalistic fashion leads to systemic degeneration. Most people currently alive are not educated enough for such a broad asset distribution to work.
What is it you wish to distribute to 1% of the world's population?
It's not me who wants to make an assumption on wealth distribution. The "99%" crew wants to distribute a large amount of it well beyond 1% of the population.
My argument is that control over resources and personal wealth are strongly coupled. To reach their goal, the "99%" protesters must either decouple resource control from wealth, which does not seem to work, or have a whole lot of people trained in resource control, which we don't seem to be able to. This leaves them with no realistic options to achieve their goal.
The distinction between control and wealth blurs on large scales anyway. Nobody can
consume a billion dollars right now. One can
waste it, but a politician can waste it on funny agriculture laws as much as an oil exporter can build a ski resort in the desert.
The difference between a communist party leader and the owner of a giant monopoly of the same size is irrelevant to a human starving on the street. Whether the person at the top owns or just controls something -- and what ownership even means -- is a question of control structure optimization, not reality in terms of power accumulation.