The Beggar's Union is so-named for obvious reasons. Then again, didn't it seem that the members of the union (especially the elders and chiefs) were such capable and powerful men that they didn't really *need* to live in poverty if they didn't really want to?
Let's take Kiu Fung, for example. Not only did he grow up in a stable peasant family, but he grew up to be a very powerful and widely respected man. If he needed money, it would certainly not be difficult for him to earn it or even get it as a favor from his many friends, admirers, and beneficiaries. He would certainly not need to live in poverty. The same goes for North Beggar Hung 7 Gung.
Furthermore, Wong Yung was born into wealth as the daughter of East Heretic Wong Yerk See. Yeh Lut Chai was the son of a Khitan/Mongol nobleman, an associate of the Cheun Jen Sect, and the son-in-law of Gwok Jing and Wong Yung...definitely not circumstances that would lock him into a life of poverty. Even mediocrities such as Lo Yau Gerk and Shih For Lung had enough martial arts prowess and "face" to be able to live a comfortable lifestyle.
Life was certainly more difficult for the rank and file beggars that constitued 99% of the union's membership, but even they seemed to be very capable and respected individuals who wouldn't need to beg to make ends meet. How many times have we seen grateful shopowners and restaurant proprietors treat even low-ranking Beggar's Union members with great generosity in appreciation for what the beggars provide them in protection and security?
So was the apparent poverty of the beggars in the Beggar's Union just an act? Was the "impoverished" lifestyle maintained solely because it was the source of the union's organizational identity?