Assuming you are who you say you are, a native speaker more or less knowledgeable in matters of the English language, 

--- * --- * ---

allow me to pose this question for you.

이 문장이 원어민의 귀에 문법적으로 들립니까? 비문법적으로 들립니까?

논리적으로 정당한 사고를 담고 있다고 보십니까? 논리적으로 무리한 사고를 담고 있다고 보십니까?

"He becomes a millionaire, so he has more worries."

I already know the answer, but I would appreciate hearing it from you.

--- * --- * ---

regua : Since I already got your answer as to the grammar and logic of the sentence, with which you find no objection as a native speaker of the English language, let me add this little tidbit.

The present tense is a popular verb tenses employed in the narrative time in English literature.

The verb become is no exception, and why should it be unless there existed an inherent problem with grammar or diction regarding the verb become?

Anyways, this little question of grammaticality and logic regarding the verb become regards some one's claim that the validity of 

my thesis could be evaluated by examining the grammar and logic of the following sentence :

"If I did not become a millionaire, I would have fewer problems."

My antagonist's claim (not mine): 

see 제 목 did not become이 답이 되지 않는 이유. 증명 
이 름 가정법판단조회수34 http://gall.dcinside.com/English/193426 

"(quote) 가정법 시제가 제대로 쓰여져있는지 판단하기 위해서
가정하고 있는 것과 반대되는 사실 명제가 제대로 되는지를 보면 가정법 문장이 비문인지 알 수 있겠네요. 

*문제가 되는 가정법 문장*  If he _____________ a millionaire, he would have fewer problems 

-빈칸의 답을 헌차사자님은 did not become이라고 하셨습니다. 
그렇게 되면 If절, 주절 모두 가정법 과거로 "아름다운"대칭 관계를 형성한다고 하셨네요. 
-헌차사자님의 답에 따르면 문장은 If he did not become a millonaire(가정법과거), he would have fewer worries(가정법과거) 가 되겠네요. 
-단순한 상상력을 표현한 가정법과 달리 지금 문장에는 반대되는 (그는 백만장자이고 걱정이 많다.)라는 사실이 분명히 존재하네요. 
가정법 과거이기 때문에 현재시제를 사용해서 영어문장으로 써보면 이렇게 되겠네요.

he becomes a millonaire, SO he has not a few worries.

이 명제는 논리적으로 문제가 없을까요? (end of quote)"

My antagonist claims that this can be translated into the indicative mood: (my comment: Surely some information would be lost, but that cannot be helped)

"He becomes a millionaire, so he has more worries."

Thank you again for your highly informative response. 

Cheers, Mr Regua

------------

I understand your frustration; not knowing where all this is going is surely not something I myself feel comfortable with. 

It basically stems from the following corollary posts, where someone constructs the said sentence claiming the sample sentence in question "He becomes a millionaire, so he has more worries" is ungrammatical and/or illogical, with which I tend to disagree.

"헌차사자의 did not become이 답이 되지 않는 이유. 증명" [35]  가정법판단 http://gall.dcinside.com/English/193426

"근데 become을 현재형으로 쓰는 경우가 있음?" [11] 싼피오너 http://gall.dcinside.com/English/193467

------------

As for what the sentences in question would ultimately mean, I would rather not decide until the grammatical possibilities have been exhausted.

Once the range of possible constructions has been reduced, then we may safely proceed with giving, finding, or assigning meaning to the sentence(s) in true-to-life contexts for the small number of possible structures that survived the test of grammatical & logical restraints.

If the subjunctive question had been excerpted from a work of literature or something printed, that would have been ideal for coming to a decision as to what purpose the original sentence might have served.

Unfortunately I have failed to find one yet. So here we are, stuck in the virtual world of what sounds like a hypothetical subjunctive utterance uttered by a maybe-millionaire Mr Gallagher, or Mr Smith by some.

Unless utterly confused by the absence of a tangible context to give enough meaning to the unrevealed utterance eventually, let only sound reason, grammar, and logic be our guides through the dim tunnel of what might turn out a linguistic ambiguity.