Lots of mistakes here.

Do you think central bank rates "go to the source" and take money directly from the poor? No, it's already convoluted. By raising the federal funds rates, it forces banks to raise the money it charges other banks to borrow money. This in turn makes loans and mortgages more expensive, which means businesses stop spending, loans and mortgages are more expensive, etc. This eventually "trickles down" to consumers. The most direct manifestation is a home mortgage or car loan, but that is only a small fraction of the economic effect of the central bank rate.

The basket of goods is NOT modelled around what poor people buy. I'm not sure where you got that from. The basket is modelled around what consumers buy overall, proportional to how much they are spending on that category of good. It is true that the poor spend a greater proportion of their income, which is I guess the grain of truth that you're basing that mistake on?

Traditional views of inflation have been turned upside down by "seller's inflation" (the media calls this "Greedflation"). This is when companies raise prices above increases in input costs. It was dismissed by economists at first, but the academic consensus is now that it accounts for a significant portion of inflation. Hurting the poor will not help with corporations forcing prices up through tacit coordination and lack of competition.