I am not saying that requiring the wealthy to pay more in taxes would make the love of money not sinful although I can see how it sounded like that. Still, there is absolutely less sin involved by far in someone being wealthy when no one is going hungry or without medical care and good education. The greatest sin of having more than you need by a lot is that it IS your fault when someone starves to death or dies due to lack of medical care. As far as seeking wealth absent of the love of money I don't personally see much of that although it exists in some small way I'm sure. What I see is parents spending most of their time running businesses rather than with family and children and serving community. I see the pain from absentee fathers who are always at the office instead of parenting and the deep generational pain this causes. I see a certain cruelty in the eyes of may very wealthy young men and women too that comes from having too much and being raised a certain way in relationship to that wealth. I see a lot of men and women using success in business to cover up for deep insecurities that never get healed and are passed on to children. In terms of damage spirituality the seeking of wealth occupies the will and the mind and the time of a person, often almost exclusively in people seeking wealth-- and why wouldn't it? Money is tied to the instincts responsible for social well being, security and sexuality, it is easy for the seeking of wealth to drive a person inordinately in very intense ways that are wired deep into a person on the instinctual level. Think "adrenaline" day in and day out over the next deal and the bump up you get in social status and sexual attractiveness over that. Its easy to end up living an animalistic life this way. I also never said you mostly have to be dumb or come from bad families to be poor and I don't think that. Why would you even think that statement speaks to all of my thoughts on the matter? This is not an essay thread is it? These are the examples I use to reach a certain segment of the population that will admit NO good reason for a person to be poor except laziness. IQ and poor upbringing are the easiest position to come from to get that segment of the population to see that poverty is not necessarily the fault of the person who is poor. On your third point it seems unconnected to anything I've said except in support of it. I never said the rich would see the benefit of helping the poor. I spoke of enacting policies and laws that make them help the poor, and it will benefit them whether they know it or like it.