"I wouldn't think that someone who comes from copious amounts of wealth is likely to understand that sort of money-guilt. "
Thoroughly disagree. Money guilt? Do you realize what you're saying? Only the wealthy attempt to use 'money issues' to guilt trip people. The poor are merely stating a fact when they state that it's unwise to spend money on some greedy person's whims when mortgage payments are due. Simple cause and effect.
Using a term like money-guilt is like saying standing-in-the-middle-of-the-freeway-at-rush-hour-guilt. I can think of precious few reasons to hope for somebody to put their butts on the line for me by jumping into oncoming traffic. And I say "hope" not "expect" Using rush hour traffic to get them to express their love and pay attention to me is not on the list.
Asking somebody with limited resources to waste them on pointless therapy is akin to ^the above expectation. Simple cause and effect. Waste not want not.
"...do you not see how Sin could take that as a guilt-inducing statement?"
I can see how some abstract and thoroughly messed up, extremely hypothetical somebody could feel guilty over that statement. But that person would be far more delusional and broken than I believe Sin to be.
2+2=4 Like who feels guilty over that statement?
Income minus tax payments= disposable income. Disposable income minus the cost of essentials like food and rent = discretionary income. Discretionary income may be allotted for non-essentials provided there is enough of it. If there is not enough discretionary income available for luxury items then the family goes without the luxury items. Not the essentials.
It's math. A descriptive statement, not a normative statement.