I'm not saying that if asked we should blindly approve such actions, but there are soooo many other topics that ppl would be more likely to gain spiritual benefit from.
That's a really broad generalization that has no justification. How do you know what topics people may or may not benefit from?
There are cultural reasons as well why telling ppl to spend more money would not go down well. There are other serious (possibly more serious) deficiencies within the congregations which have a far greater chance of making a difference. Have you ever heard a sermon on piracy? I'm arguing for the status quo in this regard.
What gives anyone the right to prioritize sin or deficiencies? The most serious sin is the sin of frivolity mixed with deception. It is the classical mark of Satan to deceive the elect by making sin socially acceptable. He does this by deceiving people into thinking a sin is not a sin, or at least not significant enough to repent from. It is really irrelevant if a congregation suffers from gossip instead of homosexuality. Sin is sin. Justifying sin by some pseudo-prioritization is only adding another sin on sin.
Reluctance to spend money is different than stealing. Piracy is stealing. And yes, I have heard many sermons on stealing. And since when did the status quo become our standard? St Athanasius is not famous for following the status quo to accept sin and heresy. He is famous and venerated for challenging the status quo by his lonesome self as "contra mondum". Should we not imitate him as he imitated Christ?