Which misses the point. Being a 1%er isn't about some income, it's about economic agency.
Doctors in the UK are well-paid professionals, but - like scientists, artists, academics, engineers, writers and other members of the middle class - their influence on policy is essentially zero.
The biggest political change of the last few decades in the UK has been the absurd concentration of political power in the hands of speculators, bankers, property developers, creators of sweatshop industries, and a tiny number of "consultancies" that are hired to provide public services that used to be publicly owned.
A few of the biggest IT corps - most obviously Google and MS - are on that privileged access list.
No one else gets a say in policy. Voting is a sideshow.
Policy is set in secret meetings which are unminuted and off-the-record even if they take place in government offices.
The real meaning of "1%er" is anyone who can buy access to ministers - because it's been proven time and again that access is for sale - and influence policy for their own benefit.
I know less about the US, but so far as I can tell the setup is very similar, but perhaps less indirect. You pay for your senator or congressman or president on the way up, and then they do what you want, more or less, while they're in power.
There's a lot of show about caucuses and candidates and voting and flags are waved while pundits punditise. But the real decisions happen with money - euphemistically known as "favours" - on the table, and most voters are excluded from that process because they don't have the organisation, the social links, or - obviously - the money to take part.
If you are not playing at that level you are not a 1%er. Having a six figure salary does nothing to change that, because ultimately your income stream is just as susceptible to the whims of the people who do play at that level as everyone else's.