Capitalism, Spending, Morality

How one spends one's money is often considered to be above Moral reproach, since, as one's property, one's right to dispense with it as one pleases is unconditional.  Notable exceptions to that stance are the practice of Tithing, and Kant's 'imperfect duty' to help others.  So, Smith's Laissez-Faire attitude falls between the two--it is conditionally so, since it is complemented by the thesis that the Invisible Hand will guide even the most self-indulgent spending equitably throughout society.  It also diverges from his principle elsewhere that one seek Profit in other types of Economic behavior, e. g. production, trade, etc., as a factor in the national accumulation of Wealth. Instead, here he implicitly recognizes that an appropriate distribution of Wealth is a Good, a process for which the Invisible Hand is the best means, with which no spending behavior can interfere. But implicit in that Laissez-Faire is that subject to his Moral disapproval is the withholding of Wealth from public distribution, examples of which likely include hoarding, secreting indefinitely in banks, etc.  On the other hand, bank accounts are Interest-bearing, so holding Wealth meets approval as Profit-Maximization.  But re-investing profits in the enterprise that yields can be classified as either itself Profit-seeking, or discretionary spending, and, hence, as Morally equivocal.  So, the Moral status of spending in Capitalism is muddled.