We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Poverty, "relative poverty", and opportunity. Clearly as long as you define poverty as the lowest 10% of income, you will always have darn close to 10% poverty, right?
Stumbling and Mumbling points out that the above logic is in error. Providing benefits to bring everyone up to 61% of the median income would solve that statistical issue by eliminating the bottom. Of course, the disincentives to work provided by those benefits, and the disincentives to work which would be required via taxes, would make everyone far poorer in the end.
Take a look at his piece, and read the comments. The problem, of course, lies in not defining poverty by standard of living.
But even using specific measures of poverty doesn't do the trick. For example, the Masai don't think they're poor even though they lack TVs. And what Masai family is poor - the one with ten cattle compared to the one with twenty, who has double the wealth? Is poverty a useful concept outside of industrialized societies?