So, in response to my assertion that perhaps you missed my point, you simply restate your own point. You clearly did not care to understand the argument, or but just pushed your own pet theory. Yes, you are being hostile and patronising, and you have now doubled down on that.
I can only imagine you have never met anyone living in poverty in New Zealand, or the US, given that you seem to have so little regard for them. If you actually think that the bar for poverty should be set so low as to be the point of actual starvation, then I really don't know what to say to you. My empathy, for one, extends a little further to my fellow man.
But anyway, my argument restated in case I am misreading you.. in fact, definitions of poverty do not matter once you understand that differentials in power create the conditions for poverty. It is lack of power then, not money which creates poverty. And once you understand that money is not an actual thing, but an agreement.. a societal construct to codify peoples access to power (to have control over their wealth). It is designed to be persuasive, it is a promise of your own power and the ability to confer it on someone else. But it lacks any content itself, ultimately, money only works because of the implicit threat of the state or group which creates the agreement. It is a device I would describe as rhetoric.
ie. rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.