My point was that there will always be people on each end of any spectrum of wealth measurement. If there is a squirrel with 10 nuts, and one with 6 nuts, there is a “rich” squirrel and a “poor” squirrel.
There will always be “poor” people because words are used to describe how people match up financially. There is NO WAY to make sure we all have the same. Even pure Communism needs a ruling party, outside the system, to “divvy” it all up among the suckers underneath.
So “poor people,” people with less resources than others, will have LESS STUFF than others. They will struggle to meet their basic needs.
People who have more always wish to help those who have less, especially by “teaching them to fish” and demonstrating how to become self-sufficient. People who are not poor ALWAYS wish to help the truly helpless.
None of these natural facts of life have any business being controlled by any body of governmental representatives.
To add to your comments, being poor is not only a relative term, it can also be a temporary state. We’ve all had our “poor” times. My parents were so poor after they got married during the Korean War that Dad sneaked food home from the mess hall to feed my mom, who was experiencing a high-risk pregnancy. Over the next decades, their subsistence-level life gradually evolved into upper middle class economic status. Throughout that transition, they were the first to help those in need. Like me, I bet most people have cyclical, fluctuating economic circumstances. The person flying high one day is shot down the next—and vice-versa. The ability to improve one’s personal and economic circumstances, with limited government intervention, is what has made this country great.