If I have a job, house, car, beautiful partner etc. and then lose it all and end up with a mountain of debt I'll never pay off, as long as the state allows me (or has to give me by law) a roof, heating, food allowance, clothing allowance...then I'm not poor on your definition, I think, as "poor" is destitution--no access to reliable food source, polluted water, no access to sanitation...

I think it's rather obvious that these types of poverty are not equavalent, and I also find it rather obvious that just having none of these debts, but a low income, is not the same as starving. And more importantly, I find it completely obvious that a person that is starving is poor, even if his neighbours are starving with them.

And I find it rather astonishing that people here claim to have a different opinion. (It's difficult for me to believe that anybody really do have a different opinion, I think they are just claiming this to be able to grasp on to their set of beliefs).

think there is then a question of where our "richness" comes from,

That's a good question. It was answered in 1776 by Adam Smith, and the answer is specialization and trade.

I'm wildly off topic

Actually, you are more on topic than most. :)