Spending One's Money

Is there a way in which one should spend one's money, as opposed to just things which one should not spend money on because they are evil by default?  This is separate but related to issues like whether one is morally permitted to buy from corrupt companies, as it is broader.  In the latter, the tension arises between the irrational or evil worldview/actions of a company, perhaps an entrenched corporation with enormous profits, a person's willingness to buy from that company, and whether it is actually permissible or wicked to do such a thing since one would be giving them money.  The former still pertains to those who are not buying from a selfish company, no matter their economic status.

Short of literally paying someone to commit sins, such as kidnapping, adultery, murder, rape, slander, or racism, there is not any particular thing which a person should not spend money on in itself.  Not all ways to misuse money involve paying one person to mistreat another, though.  The ethics of spending one's money would encompass far more than just whether one is giving money to someone else with the intention of motivating them to do something unjust, egoistic, morally apathetic, or generally irrational.  Devoting financial resources to things of relatively low significance or how much one spends on non-necessities would also need to be considered--not that what logically follows about this from Biblical philosophical tenets is especially restricting.

One's own status as a human being with all of the rights and obligations of a human does ground a level of respect for oneself that needs to be embraced.  Wholly respecting and loving oneself as just as much of a bearer of God's image as others would exclude the reckless spending of money on gratuitous or frivolous things when one's basic survival needs are not being consistently met, or at least when there is no evidence that one will be able to maintain these needs in the immediate future.  Someone who squanders money on things that do nothing to promote their ultimate wellbeing as they neglect their legitimate needs of the body or mind would be, in a different sense, morally misusing their money.

Poverty is certainly another relevant factor, as a person who barely has the money to survive would be morally negligent to prioritize gratuitous things over that which preserves their own life as a human being (like water or food, regardless of its nutritional value), but this is not the same as it being sinful to spend money on amoral pleasures after someone has taken care of their basic needs for a time, even if it means they will not be actively saving as much money (or they will not be able to save at all).  There is nothing irrational or Biblically immoral about taking advantage of opportunities to spend money on things that are not morally obligatory or pragmatically needed, but that are still very comforting or enjoyable.

After all, it is not as if a few dollars that go to a restaurant or to entertainment, or even several times that amount, will actually lift everyone out of poverty in itself if only they do not spend it.  Those who are unlikely to climb out of poverty until their society is restructured are not morally ineligible to enjoy or pursue things that bring them joy or ease the difficulties of life under an economic system like American capitalism.  Sometimes, in cases of severe emotionalistic negligence, poverty or looser monetary spending could indeed come about because of moral failings, but spending money on helpful, comforting, or exciting things that one does not need is in no way intrinsically evil thing.