I suspect we're deep into YMMV territory here. 
Just so it's clear: this seems to be, from my best understanding, "How the Dresdenverse works." It seems to be a moral universe, that actively wants people to do the Right Thing. There seems to be an Almighty in the Judeo-Christian sense; it's geek-chic to avoid using the actual terms from religion, but I find "the White God" as a phrase tends to suggest that there is NOT such an "Almighty," which seems... incorrect (for the Dresdenverse).
Also, to be clear: I'm understanding this thread to be "make money with magic" rather than the (very different, to my mind) "what magical pursuits will likely make money?"
So, from THAT context...
I repeat: it's not so much that it's wrong (magic-based moneymaking) as it is just "pathetic."
We ALL need money; it buys food for the table, pays mortgage/rent/whatever, gets us medical service when we need it, etc. We get special treats for our loved ones with it, we buy art that we love, we throw awesome parties with it, etc.
And yet...
"Money is a necessary evil," "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven," etc (that's Christianity). Hinduism understands pursuit of "wealth" (artha) to be appropriate insofar as it enables one to behave appropriately -- make donations, contribute to an ordered society, etc -- but a "sin" (obstacle to dharma, righteousness) if pursued for its own sake or to excess.
And so on... I'm sure we can all cite plenty of examples of pursuit-of-wealth leading to immoral and even "evil" choices.
Is it automatically wrongbad? Nope. Is there a Lawbreaker Stunt for it? Nope.
Is it... risky? Well, YMMV...
Again: you have a fundamental universal creative force alive within your soul, on-tap like Bud Lite but finer than one of Mac's brews. It's something more rare than artistic genius, and MUCH more potent. Can you imagine: Da Vinci the sign-painter? Isn't that kind of a... well... pathetic use of his genius? Not that it's "wrong," or "bad..." just "pathetic."
Consider the "artist who sold their soul" trope. Not a literal Deal with the Devil, just compromise after compromise. In the end, a talented writer is writing ad-copy at a commercial shop, a Fine Art photographer is shooting glorified snapshots for industry & trade publications, etc; they feel like they have "whored out their talent." And the fire of your character's soul -- the most intimate talent, their magic -- is slipping into fishnets and a micromini as we speak. Hey man, sex sells! And if you're really sexy, like, magically sexy... sex sells for a hell of a lot of money! Errrrr, not that "Hell" had anything to do with it...
You COULD be doing something to build/enhance/glorify/etc creation, to help people, to make the world better. You COULD be working with the moral "pull" of the Dresdenverse. What do you do instead? If I were Michael Carpenter, I'd probably say you seemed to be glorifying Mammon with your magic .
If the *player* wants to play a wealthy wizard, fine & dandy... I have several such concepts percolating in the back of my own mind! Sounds like fun, and I'd be much more on-board with that thread.
If the *character* wants to get wealthy via wizardry (not "I want to pursue *this* fascinating magical thing, because my magic sings that song to me... oh hey, and it might just make me rich, too!" but "how can I get rich with this Magical GetRichQuick Stick I've got?" -- then I begin to question; were I GM'ing, I'd probably be throwing wealth-temptations in front of the character, to see if they really can stay the moral course.. or if the urge-to-wealth has a stronger tug than their moral compass. Then again, that too could be a fun concept to play out, seeing if your character can indeed skirt that line...
With all that said... I'ma gonna self-report this for Moderation. Cos when all is said and done, it may be "about the Dresdenverse" -- which I am sure is a moral 'verse -- but the whole argument feels to me like it's getting too close to real-world-morality. Peoples' positions on moneymaking and the RealWorld legitimacy/morality/methodology thereof can flashpoint over into feeling personally-attacked. 
Not my intention!
I see. And I do believe I get where you're coming from, even if I don't necessarily agree.
Also, I would like to point out that Da Vinci pretty much did whore out his services to the highest bidder. (The Church, the Medici family, so on, so forth). Likewise for a very large number of great artists throughout history. There is substantial evidence, for example, that Shakespeare was in it just for the money. If you think about it, it makes sense - those who did so became famous and so became historical figures, and so we still admire their art today, while those who refused to "sell out" didn't... so no one even remembers them now.
Of course, you do have a point about this conversation possibly offending someone's moral beliefs. Me, I'm pretty much never bothered, but unless directly addressed I'd probably drop it here, too.
