1.
Correlation is not causation.

2.
Even if I had asserted that billionaires cap the lives of the working class to the poverty line (which I didn't), the poverty line is an outdated, unserious measure of how Americans are doing.

::: spoiler More about the FPL
My assertion is that billionaires are a cap on the lives of the working class, not that the cap is set at the federal poverty line.

I can't see your links (imgur says their servers are overloaded), but I'll use US figures for the sake of argument.

The [federal poverty line is] derived from the official poverty thresholds, which were originally developed in the 1960s based on the cost of a minimum food diet multiplied by three — reflecting the "fact" [quotations mine] that food makes up about one-third of a typical family’s budget. (What is the federal poverty level?)

Look up "average American monthly expenses", and you'll see that food consistently accounts for less than 15%. The FPL is outdated and has been for decades.

There's controversy about the right way to measure poverty, but no one serious on either side of the argument points at "the percentage of the population living in poverty" and calls it a day.
:::

3.
The majority of Americans support progressive policies. But whether or not a policy is passed depends on whether or not it has the support of the billionaire class.

::: spoiler More on the popularity of progressive policies and the impact of wealth on policy change
Over half of Americans say they lack the cash to cover a $1,000 unexpected emergency expense. Increased earnings — not lower spending — is main driver for boosting emergency funds. The most common cause of emergency expenses in the United States is a medical emergency. Regardless of whether or not they meet a 1960's definition of poverty, Americans are not, by and large, financially well.

The majority of Americans support progressive programs that address the causes of this precarity: paid maternity leave, childcare support, boosting the minimum wage, free college, and Medicare for All.

But what we want doesn't get passed.

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
...
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
:::

Working class Americans (and not just those at or below the federal poverty line) support policy changes that would materially improve their lives. When those policies conflict with the interests of billionaires, the billionaires stop them from passing.

In other words, they put a cap on it.

Its very easy to make an incorrect correlation

I think you don't understand what "correlation" means. The correlation is clearly and inarguably what I showed it to be: billionaires per capita went up as poverty went down. That's a plain fact.

43% of the US living in poverty

I'm not going to bother examining how legitimate this stat is, because even if I just take this at face value, what is that compared to the 40-60% I cited? It still does nothing to support the point that billionaires are 'holding the working class down' to any statistically-significant degree. If we take the bottom of the range of the estimate I got, 40%, and took your figure as-is, 43%, then a 7x increase in billionaires per capita increased poverty by 3% total over 100 years! That stat takes "nothingburger" to a whole new level.

That doesn't do much of anything to support the assertion that billionaires are 'capping the lives of the working class', when there being seven times more of them makes no statistically-significant difference in the poverty rate.

Not to mention that 1925 is in the midst of the roaring twenties, before the Great Depression, and your article was written a few years after a global pandemic that wreaked havoc on the world's economy—two facts that both skew things in favor of your claim.