Gear cannot make a bad photographer good. Gear certainly can improve the work of a good photographer. Certain types of photography (particularly landscapes and still-life) do not require expensive gear to do well. Many other types (indoor sports or aviation) require expensive equipment to recreate the images we're familiar with seeing in connection with those events and expect to produce ourselves.
The new "Prove you're a great photographer" program I'm thinking of starting:
You send me your 1DS3, 1D4 or 1DX and all you L lenses. I'll send you a Rebel XT and 18-55 IS. You prove you're a great photographer by putting food on your family table using your new improved setup. Your reward will be a hearty "Well done" from me in email form.*
I fear we are in real danger of discouraging new photographers with our collective attitude expressed commonly here.
When someone comes here and says "I want to do this thing, but all I have is a 10 year old Rebel and kit lens," sometimes the first answer is "once you have X (some body/lens combo costing $5000 total) you can do that." The second answer is usually someone with a gear list taking up half the screen in their sig line saying "I started with a Rebel kit and did fine, just use what you've got for now."
The first person to answer is derided as "gearhead" and the second is "True Artist." But which answer actually helped the asker? The first gave them a goal, a sense that what they wanted to accomplish is realistic once their budget takes them there. The second simply said "come back when you're better."
* This should be read with sarcasm tags, unless you actually have a 1 series you want to trade for an XT...
-Just remember, TANSTAAFL and when SHTF, IANAL and all my posts are IMHO, IIRC, and AFAIK; YMMV.