Even the 1% are not all carefree. Making $420,000 (the minimum to be in the 1% for 2016) a year would definitely bring more financial security, but it doesn't make money meaningless. Before any possible deductions, you would pay roughly $115,000 in taxes on your income. If you saved 50% of your income and lived on the rest, then you would be looking at expenses of roughly $152,500. To me, financial freedom would be being able to draw down on money equal to your current living costs (adjusted for inflation over time) for the rest of your life. Then money wouldn't matter so much any more because you would have a set, continuous standard of living for the rest of your life.
So in this case, this person is saving $152,500 per year and wants to be able to match that in investment income for the rest of their life. It would take about $3 million dollars with 5% returns to ensure they can draw down $152,500 (adjusted for inflation) for life (assuming 50-60 years). To save $3 million, it would take 12 years making 5% interest on investments. This doesn't seem too bad really, except that most people in the 1% usually only remain in the 1% for a few years, at most. The 1% is very fluid and so most people would not be able to save at that kind of rate over that long of a period.
And most people making that kind of salary, just like most people in general, would never save 50% of their earnings. A best case scenario would be that they save 20% (most people making retirement contributions actually save just 7.5%), which would mean they are spending $244,000 per year and would need $6.5 million to match that salary. It would take them 31 years to reach the same point of being able to draw the equivalent of their annual spending, assuming that they maintained that same salary over the entire course of those 31 years (highly unlikely).