Then all these income numbers and 1% targeting are irrelevant. There are plenty of low income people that have a higher quality of life and more meaningful work than high income people. I wouldn't know where to begin measuring that, but I do know I don't want the govenment trying to mandate or regulate it. Let people make their own choices.
I doubt many governments anywhere would restrict voluntary poverty. Poverty is often not voluntary and not a choice obviously. A high quality of life on a low income (and much more importantly on very LOW WEALTH because that's way more important than income) is probably much more doable in a non-urban environment (so that's probably the way to go) but there's a lot that runs against it in much of American society regardless.

If poverty was just poverty and having less - if poverty wasn't environmental discrimination (which neighborhoods are more polluted, rich or poor? Actually which areas of the country (read about Appalachia and the coal and the sickness and that's actually not urban). Which neighborhoods have more trees cleaning the air and doing all their other beneficial things, rich or poor? What are the rates of asthma etc. that are likely tied to the pollution concentrations in rich or poor urban neighborhoods?). If poverty was just poverty and wasn't legal discrimination. Who is less likely to serve time if they are accused of something, someone who can afford to hire a lawyer or someone who relies on the public defender? Not to mention if poor neighborhoods are treated differently by law enforcement. If poverty was just poverty and wasn't worse working conditions. Who is more likely to be treated badly by their boss, a minimum wage worker or a salaried professional? Sure it can happen in either but I don't think it's equally likely. Who is more likely to have more say over their work?