The Church calls its payment DONATIONS and the State calls its payment TAXES.
Basically, it seems the Church wants 10% and the State wants 10% of every dollar transacted by the citizen. But today, it looks like the State is trying to bury the Church and take all the cash flow. The State seems to be demanding 20% or more of every citizen's productive energy. And it has basically attained this goal, no? The current Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. is about $15 trillion and the government's operating budget is about $3 trillion. That's 20%. And this doesn't even include the money extorted from citizens at the state and local levels.
So the State has definitely cut in to the Church's revenues. In fact, its program of cultural Marxism is effectively working every day to totally abolish the Church and the family unit in the name of equality, diversity and multi-culturalism as Pat Buchanan details in his must-read book, Suicide of a Superpower. Yes, folks, this is the very book that was so on point, Pat was fired from MSNBC, an oily little nest of cultural Marxism .
If the reader can agree with that the Church and the State are in competition and both are offering society a similar SERVICE, all we have to do is determine what the fair value of that service is and this could be the amount of money each individual should allocate to the Church and/or the State.
I would suggest this sum should be 5 to 10 percent for the State and 5 to 10 percent for the Church.
If people want to pay higher taxes or donate more to their church, they should be able to do this on a voluntary basis. If people want to allocate 5% of their wealth to internal ethics and 5% to external ethics, or 7% to internal ethics and 3% to external ethics, then let the competition for funding between the Church and State begin. But no matter what sums are allocated:
MANDATORY TAXES CAN BE NO MORE ONEROUS THAN WHAT THE POOREST MEMBERS OF SOCIETY CAN EASILY AFFORD.
A poor person physically can't give the State 45% of his money because that doesn't leave him with enough for food, shelter, clothing, transportation and recreation. A rich person, on the other hand, CAN give the State 45% and still be able to provide for living necessities, BUT this not fair to the rich person.