What’s wrong with that line of thinking?
Discussion
Taxes are theft
A robbery with a gun to your head. You don't pay will tale it from you.
Ludwig Von Mises himself, in his book Human Action, is quoted as saying that we all benefit from the division of labor that is brought about by, and only possible because of, collective society. Seeing as we all benefit from the division of labor collectively, what value are you willing to pay in exchange for having access to this society from which we all benefit? Certainly you are willing to pay something in exchange for this service? We call that taxes. The question is how much, not if.
How do you benefit from paying for the US army killing people in a country you'll probably never visit?
The cold reality is we are all slaves - taxes PROVE this.
At what percentage of your labor forcefully take AT GUNPOINT are you not a slave? 
Do you have a response to any of the points I laid out?
Taxes are extortion. Pure and simple. If you don’t pay you go to jail.
Statism is the most dangerous religion humans practice.
Every single law is a potential death sentence to someone out there.
The free market would provide everything one is extorted for better faster and cheaper.
extortion:
noun
Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
That’s the definition of extortion. I think taxes fail to meet this definition, because you get something in return for them. The rest of what you said isn’t an argument. It’s just your feelings.
You should change your avatar, you are not living up to Chad. Sorry.
Name-calling is an Ad Hominem type of Red Herring logical fallacy, and is not a valid argument. Dude, like I’m right-wing as fuck, and I’m a bitcoin maxi. Get better arguments. Stay humble. Stay open minded. Think critically. Question things. I’m still letting you try to convince me otherwise, so far you just haven’t given me a good argument I can’t refute in 0.2 seconds.
“Property taxes' rank right up there with 'income taxes' in terms of immorality and destructiveness. Where 'income taxes' are simply slavery using different words, 'property taxes' are just a Mafia turf racket using different words. For the former, if you earn a living on the gang's turf, they extort you. For the latter, if you own property in their territory, they extort you. The fact that most people still imagine both to be legitimate and acceptable shows just how powerful authoritarian indoctrination is. Meanwhile, even a brief objective examination of the concepts should make anyone see the lunacy of it. 'Wait, so every time I produce anything or trade with anyone, I have to give a cut to the local crime lord??' 'Wait, so I have to keep paying every year, for the privilege of keeping the property I already finished paying for??' And not only do most people not make such obvious observations, but if they hear someone else pointing out such things, the well-trained Stockholm Syndrome slaves usually make arguments condoning their own victimization. Thus is the power of the mind control that comes from repeated exposure to BS political mythology and propaganda.”
Larken Rose
Sure, you can debate the way in which taxes are collected and I encourage you to do so; that is perfectly valid…property tax, income tax, consumer tax, etc…. But that’s not the root of the argument though. The root of the argument is whether they should exist. And they should. You have failed to demonstrate why they should not.
Taxes are you paying for goods and services provided by the government to the benefit of everyone. It is an exchange. An exchange is not theft. An exchange is not slavery. Did slave masters pay their slaves? Yes, sometimes, but mostly no. But the difference is, you couldn’t vote for a different slave master, and you couldn’t negotiate with your slave master on the terms of the exchange. Taxation, therefore, is not slavery. But I am willing to be challenged on this and end up wrong! I have an open mind and am but a poor pleb who stays humble and stacks bitcoin.
LOL. You need to look harder at the human farm you live on. 
This is not an argument against what I said. Like I said, I’m willing to have my mind changed! You just have to actually present me with ideas that make sense lol. So far you have failed to do so. Are you not being open minded? Are you not willing to change your mind and have your beliefs challenged? I am.
You work from January 1 until sometime in April to pay the government off and stay out of jail. If that is not slavery I do not know what is.
Sure, you can debate how much tax you pay, and I encourage you to do so. And you can debate whether the goods and services you are receiving are worth what you are paying, and I encourage you to do so. But that’s not an argument against taxes.
It’s great to criticize that, and you should, but it’s not a case against taxes. A government could collect taxes to build a standing army for the purposes of national defense and border protection to the benefit of all of the citizens of the nation, and could do so without committing war crimes. What would be the alternative method for raising a standing army?
Again, if the army is necessary, people will support and even join it voluntarily.
Not really. Someone could simply choose to not pay for the standing army and still reap the benefits of being protected. People would be incentivized to do this, and we, as bitcoiners, know that people follow incentives.
The sane is happening right now. People who don't pay taxes benefit from being protected.
The incentive is clear, to live in peace. Paying taxes do not guarante that.
Also, the army has to exist before it is necessary.
Ludwig Von Mises himself, in his book Human Action, is quoted as saying that we all benefit from the division of labor that is brought about by, and only possible because of, collective society. Seeing as we all benefit from the division of labor collectively, what value are you willing to pay in exchange for having access to this society from which we all benefit? Certainly you are willing to pay something in exchange for this service? We call that taxes. The question is how much, not if.
Taxes being compulsory are whats wrong.
You'll happily pay for a needed service that provides a net benefit. You'll happily stop paying for a service that only rips you off.
Taxes being compulsory allows fraud and inefficient use of funds under threat of state-sanctioned violence.
Ludwig Von Mises himself, in his book Human Action, is quoted as saying that we all benefit from the division of labor that is brought about by, and only possible because of, collective society. Seeing as we all benefit from the division of labor collectively, what value are you willing to pay in exchange for having access to this society from which we all benefit? Certainly you are willing to pay something in exchange for this service? We call that taxes. The question is how much, not if.
Unless you don’t believe in value for value. I thought that’s why we were all here.
One example of very many:
Biden passed a $1 trillion infrastructure bill in 2021 with $7.6 BILLION set aside for electric car chargers.
A grand total of 0 new chargers were built with that funding.
Where did all that money go?
Any free market value-for-value business that attempted this would go out of business almost immediately.
Compulsion removes the free-market feedback.
Also, when 16th Amendment was passed in 1909 legalizing income taxes in USA, taxes were initially 2%. So your metric for measuring whats appropriate is a subjective ever-shifting goalpost.
Lastly, society was thriving before income taxes. The gold standard between the civil war and WWI produced most of our technologies today such as internal combustion engine, electricity, cameras, television, telephone, etc etc. All that without compulsory taxes.
Put down the philosophy books and pick up a history book
That is a great example. It’s a great thing to critique the squandering and inefficient use of taxes, and also to highlight whatever possible corruption might be happening. I think that example highlights that it’s a question of how much, what it’s spent on, and is it being used effectively; it’s not an argument to say that taxes shouldn’t exist. The fact that taxes currently get misused is not an argument against taxes, it’s an argument against the misuse of taxes. I’ll finish reading Human Action, but when I’m done, what history book would you recommend I pick up to learn more about taxes?
I never said taxes shouldnt exist - I said they should not be compulsory under threat of state-sanctioned violence.
If [any subject] requires forceful compulsion, it is only because it cannot persuade in a market of free choices. People want quality public services - they do not want to be stolen from.
Tax revenue received would then reflect political performance (or lack thereof) instead of enabling consistently gross abuse of public resources. It would make tax revenue dynamic and truely value-for-value, just like how a private business receives revenue only by offering quality service.
That is interesting. I had not heard of a non compulsory tax. If the tax is non compulsory, at what point is it paid?
If there's no compulsory tax and you're living in a village and the village board want to build a road, they have to present this idea to all villagers. People who feel like a good idea will contribute to it.
But if the village board tells them they want to send a couple of soldiers to a country, you've never heard of, how many people will contribute?
Income tax in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_income_tax_in_the_United_States
I don’t think that that would work though. People could choose to not contribute to build the road but still benefit from the road after it was built. It would become a game of chicken to see who could get away without contributing. And it’s terrible for poor people; they have the least to contribute but the most to gain from it. In this road example, rich people could afford to continue to pay their way around the inconvenience of not having a road, while the poor could not do that. If taxes are collected from everyone, then everyone pays for the service that they all benefit from.
You are assuming that if taxes arent forced then no one will pay them.
Lots of philanthropists today donate to causes they wish to support, as was normal before compulsory taxes. You vote with your consumer dollar, why not also vote with your tax dollar?
Yeah, I don’t think the philanthropist argument is really strong.
Compare an employment model where you are guaranteed to never be fired no matter what, to a model where your compensation entirely depends value-for-value on your performance.
Which produces the better performance and life for you and others?
If 100 years of compulsory taxes led to the current unsustainable financial situation and debt spiral, then of what use is it to double down on the same failed approach?
To be clear, you are supporting state violence against any citizen for simply disagreeing over financial management. Shoplifting under $1k is de facto legal in California, but if I withhold my property taxes you'll look the other way while I get evicted, imprisoned or shot by police.
The 'civilized society' in America is beholden to the people, not vice-versa.
I don’t think that is an analogous comparison though. If the government fucks up, they get voted out of office, so their incentive is to not fuck up. If the issue keeps getting worse among all political options, eventually riots and civil unrest happens until the fuckiness unfucks itself.
You know it’s possible there could be other causes to our current unstable financial situation besides tax collection, right? Corruption, terrible financial planning, terrible trade agreements, terrible regulation, deficit spending… it’s possible to collect tax and run a balanced budget. What evidence do you have that it is only taxes that are entirely the cause of the current financial situation?
And to be clear, no, I am not supporting state violence against citizens who disagree with financial management. I disagree with a lot of the things that the state does, and they are not committing violence against me.
I have yet to hear a compelling alternative to tax collection.