1. Do you think poverty can or should be defined in this way for a non-agrarian society? Are you asserting that there is no food or housing insecurity among Chareidim in Eretz Yisroel?
Do you think that the Torah should be updated for a non-agrarian society. Hm….. No. If I did, I would (rightfully) be called a Reform Jew.
While this may be proper for someone to hold this for himself, I do not think it is proper to say it to someone else.
That is the same “your Cheshbon” point DY brought. Asked and answered.
Since you are missing the point, (and DY is a Kofer anyway, so no-one will listen to him :), I’ll explain. Chazal was dealing with the individual, that for an individual to learn to his maximum potential, poverty is a requirement, as all of your Amailus should be in Torah.
What we are dealing with in Israel is not the Torah learning of individuals, but having a society that is Ruba D’Ruba learners. Of course, in such a society, only very few individuals (probably even above those who The Chofetz Chaim describes as “Muflag”) will be on the level that Chazal describe is necessary to maximize Torah learning . The rest, while they do learn, are not capable of the maximization that Chazal suggests. Therefore, in order for them to remain in such a society, they need to have more. Otherwise, they could give it up and leave the society.
As DY appropriately pointed out, one of the biggest Tzedakos is giving to those Muflagim B’Torah (who are not on the level of Pas B’Melach and therefore need), and that is who should be supported.
Finally, this assumes that the Charaidi goal is to maximize Limud HaTorah. If one argues (and there is room) that the goal is to perpetuate Charaidism, then certainly living off of others would maximize that goal over living in poverty.