Gear is one of the least important elements in photography (with obvious exceptions for certain types of photography). Yet it is where many who are starting out place all the emphasis. Or all the blame. There is so much emphasis on gear on the internet that it isn't crazy for people to feel this way. Gear is easy to talk about. Gear is easy to evaluate and rate. It's also natural to look for external factors for both image success and failure (i.e. my money was well spent or I need to spend more money).
I think that this is just something that's inherent in the hobby of photography, and probably not something that's ever going to change.
Probably more so than any other artistic hobby, there's an endless stream of STUFF that you can always buy. Yes, there are bodies, lenses, and filters. Then you get into tripods and bags. If you're inside/studio inclined, you can go wild with lighting. If you like traditional processes, you can go nuts with darkroom stuff(yes, I'm still looking for both an Omega 45 and a Jobo).
Even though you don't NEED a lot of the stuff, the tech-obsessed person can have a field day with it, and someone with a collector streak can go wild in various other rabbit holes. Speaking for myself, I have 5 different SLR systems that I actually use-and that's down from 8 not too long ago. I'm also not including 35mm rangefinders and large format in that count, as well as systems that I don't consider to be in active use.
Also, I think that "better gear" is an easier trap to fall into than with a lot of artistic endeavors. I can pick out a tune on a piano, but I know that a Steinway isn't going to make me a concert pianist. I'm hopeless with any kind of stringed instrument, and I can't draw to save my life(although the latter doesn't stop me from at least indulging myself in good pencils and pens, but everything I have is geared toward writing and not drawing with the exception of the technical pens I keep for when I have to grit my teeth and make a technical drawing). By contrast, most anyone can mash the shutter release on a camera and get an image. Fundamentally, unless it's just by blind luck, you aren't going to get BETTER images unless you both have the ability to see a good image before you press the shutter release and an understanding of the technical side of things that elevates it from a snapshot to a good photo to a great photo.
I always want to improve the photographs I take-after all that's the goal-but there's nothing really that's going to stop me from buying equipment. A lot of my purchases these days either have a specific purpose(last week it was "I want a sturdy tripod with a good ball head that I'll actually carry with me") or they are happenstance purchases(oh, I could really do something interesting with that...I already use the one I have all the time so it would be nice to have another to do...).
There are also the things I want even though I honestly have no justification for them. I have two current production Nikon lenses on my want list now-the 135mm f/2 DC and the 14mm f/2.8. I can make some good arguments for the 135mm DC, although I've also been dissuaded by someone who had one and sold it-I'm considering finding another 135mm f/2 AI-S to replace my poor example I have now. My justification for the 14mm is pretty weak-I have a zoom that covers that range and is optically better at 14mm. The prime is "film friendly" since it can use rear gels and also has an aperture ring pre-drilled for a metering shoe for full meter coupling and AE compatibility with cameras made before the mid-90s. It's lighter than the 14-24 f/2.8 and also a tiny bit wider, but those are both very small differences.
Now, the 40mm Distagon I want is a different story
. A nice example is also more expensive than both of the above lenses.
Plus, let's face it-no matter how impractical they are(for folks who aren't wildlife or sports photographers), super-teles are fun. Who DOESN'T want a 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4? I compromised by buying a "baby" super-tele in the Nikon 300mm f/4-with high res sensors cropping often gets it close enough to get something useable for the few times I could legitimately use a longer lens. Its biggest technical failing is that focusing is slow as molasses.