Millions worldwide face poverty daily. While its effects vary by society, poverty consistently marginalizes individuals, limiting their opportunities and access to societal benefits. Myths about poverty undergird and perpetuate socioeconomic exclusion, being the vehicles for cultural processes, such as stigmatization, racialization, and rationalization. These myths abound in law. They include the conception of poverty as solely concerned with the deprivation of basic material goods; equal opportunities and collective amnesia about the past; stigmatization of people in poverty as irresponsible and lazy; the categorization of aspects and elements of their poverty condition as criminal. This Article argues that judges, as (meta) narrators, have the power to challenge myths and develop new narratives about poverty, through the language of non-discrimination and equality. This could open the way to judicially redress certain troubling situations of misrecognition, social exclusion and inequality. Ultimately, as long as myths about poverty prevail in law any attempt to tackle the issue of socioeconomic exclusion is destined to fail. This article contributes to the law and sociology literature on poverty in judgecraft by addressing the research gap on narratives of poverty within judicial reasoning and practice.