I'd rather listen to someone who actually read and study books, even if he is paid for it.

I mean, if you are unable to explain something as entry-level as Descartes' "cogito", its limits and what that entails, why it engender dualism, i'd rather not listening to you talking about consiousness. You don't have to read Chalmels (you should, but you don't HAVE to)(Btw i'm more of an illusionist myself, i don't suscribe to Chalmels thesis), but not knowing the classics is disqualifying.

People don't teach philosophy for money, they teach it because someone has to.

That is a big assumption. Many teachers teach because someone has to, but there are also always those who do it for the money.

Name one teacher of philosophy who makes enough money, from teaching alone, to even approach the wealth of the revered businessman-philosopher.