Questions on Singer's Solution to Poverty

Money is an indicator of how much society as a whole, however right or wrong, perceives an individual’s worth. To dispute the current impoverished situations of individuals, we must assume that society incorrectly values certain individuals, for example those in the entertainment industry. To propose a solution we must assume that we have a better system of evaluating individual’s worth. I cannot claim to assume or prove either. Yet I can offer some questions.
To focus on poverty in children: Others, such as Singer have pointed out that we ought to try to equalize the opportunities of children, gotten only through “biological luck.” Yet this “biological luck” includes far more than just the wealth of the parents. It is hair color, eye color, I.Q. and a million other characteristics. To equalize all the “biological luck” would produce uniformity and a loss of uniqueness. Is abolishing poverty the same as trying to abolish other signs of “biological luck” or if it is not, what is different about abolishing poverty?
Although, abolishing poverty may not have as an extreme affect as that, the ability of parents to raise their child has long been claimed as a right and to place the state or any other entity in charge of the child’s basic needs seems to infringe upon this right. Although it may be argued that the state or other entity would only intervene in times of extreme need-such as in child abuse cases-the other children would be affected by taxes or the moral obligation to donate. This organization would then influence all children taking from some and giving to others. Whose right is it to raise the child, and therefore who is responsible for the child’s basic needs?
Society gives an individual money, on the basis of a trade for talents or products, or on the basis of entertainment, or on the basis of being valued by someone (inheritance), in a bargain both sides made. Singer suggests that we have a moral obligation to give this money to impoverished children. He implies that the money is not the sole property of the individual but that others, on the basis of need can claim it from him. To give this money is not mercy on the part of the individual but justice on the part of society. Is the money given to an individual for some trade (of money for talent, products etc.) belong only to that individual or does society still have a claim upon it?