In response to your questions:
Yes, there is a lot of money involved but in reality that is only helping speed up the process. It works on a small scale but it definitely takes a much longer time and leaves more room for corruption to seep in. The funding efforts involved have arguably taken from 10-14 years, so yes it has been a tough road.
Yes, there are banks involved, but in this situation their cut is essentially nil. And they won't be involved for very long if all goes well. The money is not coming from them, they are just transacting it.
After wages increase, the workers do get a new mindset. And yes, that does eliminate the "need" for them. Fortunately, that doesn't mean they get fired. It just means that they need to work less hours for the same pay. This is the beginning of the trend towards earlier and earlier retirements and it only works if the owners don't get greedy. This is avoided by everyone getting an excess in wages (as compared to today's rates) and a team environment where home life sustainability is a primary goal. (Picture, for starters, splitting the central banks' profit among price cuts, owner profits and wage increases.)
An example of what home life sustainability means would be that people don't pay for electricity anymore because they are producing an excess from home renewables. Other examples cover pretty much everything else they might want with one-time purchases. This is why it's a consortium of many companies and not just one technology to make this work. It literally takes many products to get the 'average' homeowner completely off the grid in all areas. We're currently only shooting for 9x% complete.
Yes, the company essentially works for the community, but the owner (holding the personal accountability) does make more than the rest. That's not to say he makes 1,000 times the workers' average but certainly a few times. In return for this lowering of his wages, he gets tremendous community good faith.
What would people do with their spare time? Should this all begin to take place, about 15% of the people would work for their hobby (according to numerous studies) and many would become more active in their hobbies (which translates somewhat loosely to the arts) and still others would simply enjoy family life more.
Those currently in the category of TPTB who would try to game the overall system cannot do their games without conspiring others to help them. Be it government or personal minions, they must enlist help somewhere. If the economy was on average 'equal' (qualified here), why would anyone agree to help the bad guy if they were getting nothing they didn't already have access to? It's probably there would still be some that would but the numbers would be greatly reduced. And the power they wield would be reduced as well because less people would be afraid to stand up to them.
I'm not suggesting we actively destroy the central banks. Seeing how the 'End the Fed' movement is dragging shows that is unlikely. I'm suggesting that we cut off enough of their income that they implode. Remember, they are leveraged so far now that they need bailouts to continue to survive. What would happen if 10% of the people stopped paying monthly fees to them? What about 20% or 50%? Same as with mega-corporations who lose market share, stocks dive and it's only a matter of DAYS before they tank.
I'll agree to disagree on the religion thing but I fail to see a single thing that relies on any aspect of religion to help better the situation. I do, however, see many many things where religion has undercut the efforts of people. Relative to this topic, the idea that people are inherently bad (i.e. original sin exists in a newborn???) is just a form of fear-mongering and serves wonderfully to stop people from seeing that most bad actions are simply compromises toward either surviving or moving up the social ladder.