Money only goes so far. It's one thing for a woman to want her man to be gainfully employed and able to care for a family. That's sensible. However, it's quite another for her to be a gold digger or obsessed with worldly things. Not all men are looking for that in a relationship. Personally, I've never liked gold-diggers. Even when I was younger, what some call "true love" has remained what I look for. Not that I'm totally idealistic. I consider myself to be pragmatic and sensible, but I care more about making unique contributions in this lifetime. It's good to save and have stability, as that allows me to focus on more self-actualizing pursuits, but excess is superfluous to me. Not something to waste time on when there is so much to read, learn, design, build, write, ponder, and give thanks for. If God didn't bless me with these potentialities, perhaps I'd be content with only focusing on money, but as far as I'm concerned there's more to life.
I'm only in my 40s, so I can't say for sure how I'll be when I'm old, but the older men in my family tend to be reasonably healthy. Not perfect, but pretty good for the most part. No obesity, diabetes, substance abuse, etc. as far as I'm aware. The age of their fathers, and the ages when they fathered their own children, didn't seem to make any difference. Then again, I can only speak for my extended family. The experiences of others may differ.
That being said, if toxins were as cumulative and heritable as you suggest, then those risks would accumulate regardless of how many years pass between generations. As long as somebody exists in an evironment with toxins, they will presumably be acumulating. If you view having a child earlier as a kind of toxin "reset", that would contradict your assertion of how heritable the effects of those toxins supposedly is. Not to mention how vulnerable children are to toxic environments.
Epigenetics can be positive or negative, but most heritable characteristics are passed along through DNA. The SNPs that comprise DNA are what researchers study in terms of "good genes" vs. "bad genes". And even that isn't so simple. For instance, the influence of many proposed candidate genes were called into question with advances in GWAS (genome-wide association studies) research. The unique interactions of SNPs can vary from individual to individual depending on what combination they have. It's nice to think that any potential children that I might have could also benefit from epigenetic factors that have been passed along through my family and my own life experiences. However, I am aware that there's more to it than that.
Speaking of mutations, problematic mutations don't usually survive. Leading to infertility, miscarriage, etc. The ones that do survive and reproduce are generally healthy and, depending on your views on evolution, may be a net positive within the greater context of humanity. If there's a change, a potentially beneficial mutation, that change has to start somewhere.
Regarding risks, the risks are small and even the article you cited decouples paternal age from some of them. There are many reasons why a man might father a child later in life. Therefore, it isn't accurate to pin all risks on the fathers age when other factors remain unaccounted for. Correlation isn't causation.