That's a very unusual metric to use for this purpose. Essentially the "mode" of the income distribution. I'm not saying you're wrong to use it, it's just a little strange. The mode of most distributions doesn't tell you much about the distribution as a whole, which might be just fine in this case.
OTOH, the median is the number for which half the households in the country earn more and half earn less, and whatever the merits of the mode might be, I still think that's a fairly significant value too.
I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that. There is something compelling about "the income that the most people make". But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect. Anyway, it's a good thing to focus on, regardless of the metric chosen.
After another day, I think I realize my issue with using the mode.
The actual mode is going to be a single number, not a range, and it will correspond to very few people's incomes. To be usable in the way you mean, you need to add a range to it, and the size of that range is up for debate (mode +/- 1000? 2000? 10,000 ? etc)
The rate of pay available to the most possible people is minimum wage. Its covers 100% of (legal) jobs. So, are you saying your expenses are 4x minimum wage?
OTOH, the median is the number for which half the households in the country earn more and half earn less, and whatever the merits of the mode might be, I still think that's a fairly significant value too.