On the one hand, people are free to spend their money how they want. If poor people want to give their hard earned money over so their pastor can drive around in a £100k car and live in a million pound house that’s up to them.
But how freely and willingly do they make that choice? Look at the UCKG, whose pastor is a billionaire purely on the back of tithes and which is widely regarded to be an abusive cult. Look at the Scientologists.
Indeed, however for all the high profile cases there's many many other pastors who actuality would be far better off doing what they previously did as job, indeed there are some who have second jobs to make ends meet.
Also, as I said, even a fairly limited size of church (100 households is likely to be around 230 people, which is quite a large Church, but not significantly so) isn't a lot of money on average.
Likewise whilst £60 a month could be a lot, it's not necessarily so. For exams a household earning £50,000 and only using half their 10% tithe to go to the Church could be gifting double that each month (assuming a post tax 10% gift to any charity giving), and so other households might be gifting well below that average and may actually be gifting less than they receive in benefits from attending (for example getting 2 hours where their teenagers are in youth group each week giving then time to spend with their other kids or even child free could easily cost them £45 a term, plus the cost of the uniform, if they were going to scouts, whilst many youth groups run by churches are either free or have a fairly nominal charge, so if they were gifting £12 a month they might not be any worse off).
Most churches don't require 10%, and whilst that's something which was laid out to the Jews in the old testament, that also included an element which our taxes pay for now and so whilst it can be a useful guide, it's not something which is often pushed for.
Even as a guide is often used for all charitable giving and not just to the local church.
Likewise, sometimes the suggestion is that if someone is time rich but cash poor that they could do practical things rather than gifting cash.
Finally, quite a lot of people can gift aid their donations (+25%), so that means that a £65 income to the Church may only cost the giver £52.
As I've said, there's other things which people (including those in very low incomes) can easily spend those sorts of money on (£52 a month would typically get someone less than 4 pints a week in a pub - although it's possible to get more insome very specific cases, likewise buying a meal deal for lunch when working 5 days a week could likely cost that much more than making your own lunches).
It's obvious that personally you don't like religion and maybe that you even potentially think that others are being scammed by it, however, others find it of great benefit and often in ways which they would find hard to put a value to. For example, it can provide company for those who are living on their own, it gives children a way to interact with other people beyond school and family, it encourages men to spend time together and open up to each other, it can breaksdown barriers between different groups of people (young/old, rich/poor, local/newly arrived, British/born overseas, etc.), people can be supported at they go though tough times in their lives and so on.
Whilst the Church doesn't have a monopoly on such things (I know that many other organisations do these things too), I would argue that generally (at least currently in the UK) we'd be worse off as a country if there were no churches at all.
For example, whilst people don't like religious leaders getting involved in politics, churches often encourage people to vote (although they rarely advise directly who for) but they do encourage people to be actively interested (for example they often host hustings which are open to everyone). Likewise, at least in the UK, they tend to oppose war and push for social justice for all be that within the UK (for example food banks and debt advice, shelters for homeless people, campaigning against cuts to welfare and pushing for the living wage - including some being early adopters of paying it) or overseas (for example churches were at least part of the reason why things like Fairtrade exist for things like cotton, coffee and chocolate, as a way to reduce the risk of us buying things with exploitation in the supply chain).
Again nothing which others aren't doing, but without the Church also doing it, the scale would be significantly smaller.
