If that is the case, the answer to the original question “when is enough mammon enough” is ZERO! Nobody should ever have any mammon because mammon is a very bad thing to have.
In the context of the question asked by the other poster it was material possessions but you're right that it's actually excessive material possession and the worship that goes with it. So, I stand corrected inasmuch as that goes. Mammon in the Biblical sense, where it is tied to the idolatry of it, is very bad, whereas money or possessions in and of themselves are not.
But the question "when is enough actually enough" is referring to possessions, and the answer lies in when those possessions become an idol to the owner (i.e. mammon).
If Mammon is as bad as you said it is, people shouldn’t serve mammon at all! Judging from your description, I think it is possible for the wealthiest man in the world to have no mammon, and the poor man to have a lot of mammon. Do you agree?
First, I'll assume by "wealthiest" you mean in terms of money and material possessions (because that's not my definition of "wealth" but I'll assume it's yours here). Yes, it's possible. It would probably be very difficult because even poor people can and often serve mammon so it must be much harder for those with far more material possessions. It's possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle also but barely possible.
Wait; I thought you said mammon was NOT synonymous with wealth and money!
It can be - there is an overlap. Is a "stolen car" synonymous with a "car"? It can be. Not all cars are stolen, but those which are stolen are both "cars" and "stolen cars". Anyway, I explained earlier and I'll admit I didn't explain it correctly or thoroughly the first time - I'll take that on me and say I was wrong.
Just because someone has material wealth doesn’t mean their wealth will go into the territory of being an idol, or put in front of the wellbeing of other people.
That's true, it is possible. It's not likely but it is possible. So I'm saying "there's a chance!!!" Just like there's a chance that the current top supermodel in New York will marry me by the end of the year - it's technically possible for sure.
Bill Gates is one of the worlds wealthiest men; he started the worlds largest charity helping millions world wide. This is not mammon as you describe it; is it?.
I don't know, it might be or it might not be. What matters is why he does it. Even if he is doing that altruistically (and I can't say he is or isn't) it doesn't mean he doesn't worship mammon at all; that particular example may not be an example of him worshiping mammon but I'm pretty sure Bill Gates spends lots of money on other things as well.
Furthermore, there is a parable of the widow's mite where a widow gives a couple pennies as alms and the wealthy men of the temple give far, far more, yet Christ says the widow's pennies are far more valuable because she sacrificed much more than those wealthy man. So, even Bill Gates can't buy his way out of mammon worship. His millions may be less of a sacrifice than another man's $20.
Then there are people who have very little, yet they become so possessive of the little bit they have that they allow it to become an idol. IOW mammon isn’t a poison that only effects the rich, it can effect anybody; do you agree?
Absolutely. I said earlier in this post that many and even most who are not rich, and who are even poor, also worship mammon. But the case you describe is not necessarily mammon-worship. Those who are poor and even of average means and are overly protective of their meager or limited financial and material possessions are typically doing so out of a survival/security need as opposed to a need to satiate their greed or lusts. That's not really mammon-worship, although mammon-worship can (and often does) accompany that.
If the person uses his possessions to help people, to make the world a better place, an argument can be made that there is never enough mammon someone could possess because there is never going to be a point when nobody needs help, or the world no longer needs to be improved. Do you agree? Perhaps this is the conservative Christians view of mammon
If someone uses material possessions and money to give to others than that is not mammon. Mammon is the excessive, selfishly-desired and kept material possessions and money. Nobody will ever have enough of any material possessions or money to help everyone in the world. I don't see how this would be an argument for anyone, let alone conservatives. Conservative (and any other) Christians who worship mammon are disobeying God and breaking the commandment God gives them in His Word, that's all there is to it. There's no excuses for that at all, even though a lot of those people are constantly coming up with rationalizations and excuses.