My wife is a case worker for the county welfare office. She deals with "those" people for a living and sees first-hand every day all the real and imagined shit spouted by righteous ideologues. She tells me that amongst those living in poverty, wealth is measured in terms of friends and family. Any money you come into is spent immediately, often on gifts to build status within your social network.
It's only when you move into the middle classes that wealth starts to be measured in terms of money. Budgeting, saving, trying to get more and planning for a future when you have none is not something someone in poverty does: it's something someone not in poverty does when they have no money. Trying to climb the social ladder by accumulating more money marks you as middle class.
The third layer has enough money (but of course always try to get more because that's the game). Their concept of wealth tends to be oriented towards legacy: collecting artworks, donating to cultural or research endeavours, political involvement. Wealth is measured by what you leave behind, and money is wasted if it just goes to trust funds or taxes.
When I was a student, and for many years after, I had no money. I had enough to keep a squalid roof over my head and three square meals a week. I had no money and no savings but I did not live in poverty because I had a plan to earn and save and move up in the world. I had no money but I did not live in poverty.
I think it's important for people who are trying to leave their legacy by getting politically involved in eliminating poverty to understand that their world is not the world. They need to understand how the definition of wealth for those in poverty is not the same as their definition of wealth, and without understanding that difference they are bound for failure from the start.