Alright, I hate these topics, because the political confusion and reversals of the modern age sometimes has me arguing issues I don't necessarily agree with because so many people today have no sense of historical context.
The most important factor to remember here is the context. For thousands of years, in Jesus' time, and right up until the liberal enlightenment of the 1700s, religion and government were completely intertwined. It wasn't just about having a state religion, the king and his government were divinely appointed by the church. The church said the king ruled with the authority of God. In return, religious tithes were considered mandatory and were collected by the government to be given to the church. Even devotion to the state religion would be enforced by the state (i.e. the Inquisitions, burning of witches and heretics, Salem witch trials, etc etc). So when Jesus said that his followers were to pay their tithes and that the tithes were to be redistributed to the poor, or go to Hell, he was speaking with political authority (such as he had in his own day) just as much as he was speaking with religious authority. To his followers, Jesus' words were law.
He was a political leader just as much as he was a religious leader, because the ancient Jews made no distinction between those. And he would have academic credentials comparable (of that time) to a modern-day lawyer. Luke 2 tells us that Jesus could recite the Torah by age 12 and converse with the religious teachers at the temple with great understanding. Luke 19 tells us that 20 years later, he was teaching daily at the temple, something which only recognized religious leaders and scholars were allowed to do. In short, Jesus was a rabbi.
Now, in modern times, we wisely have separation of church and state, but this has created confusion as to the roles of each. Especially on this contentious issue of wealth distribution and charity to the poor, etc etc which the churches used to provide.