No. It’s not critical at all. Their income level is irrelevant; purely academic but with no bearing on anything relating to faith or salvation (beyond the obvious that He was not born an earthly King but into an ordinary family).
Nor do you know what he did with his money.
Be real here. You don’t know.
Pure speculation about bribing the innkeeper. Not based on any actual facts.
One could just as easily say that he only brought as much money as he thought he would need, given the danger of travel in that day.
You’re just drawing a big circle, while ignoring facts in order to support something that isn’t even relevant.
You say that they “must” have been poor, therefore they “must” have given away all their money. Quite convenient of you.
You’re still forcing the issue, whether or not you’ll admit it.
You remind me of the person who says “I wear my baseball cap backwards because it keeps the alligators away” friend says “there are no alligators around here” and responds “see, the cap works!”
If St Joseph made a middle to upper-middle class income, then he did. Period. It doesn’t mean anything beyond that.
There is no actual reason to think the Holy Family was poor. It’s a pious thought, but not one based on any actual evidence or any reason behind it.
It’s a circular argument and nothing more. People think it sounds nice to say that they were poor, so people then say “they must have been poor.”
What’s next: claiming that St Joseph had a false beard? Well, he MUST have had one because every 9 year old boy who plays St Jospeh in a Christmas pageant wears a fake beard, so it must be true.