Ah, I didn't get that from your post. I think that it's a good idea within limits. I could see something along the lines of 25% of what people pay in taxes being voluntary with the rest being traditionally distributed. I see two issues with it being entirely voluntary. The first is that people are not that smart and will be less likely to put their money towards more complex issues simply because they have a limited (or lack of) understanding of those issues. The second problem is that it would favour those who pay more in taxes and would increase income inequality because of how little the poor would be able to sway distribution in their own favour, which could potentially lead them to be continually ignored and create a cycle.

My wording could use some work but you probably get the idea.

And wage is how much you can steal from your boss per hour.

Stop poking holes in Marxist economics.

Perhaps I didn't hone in on the point of my argument well enough.

The idea of taxation as theft assumes harm is integral to the nature of "taxation", the compulsory secular 'tithe' of currency for common use. As others have stated, there are abuses in this system, which should be rooted out, but I fail to see how taxation is intrinsically harmful. Our system of government allows for us to select our representatives. If one's position is that all taxation should be voluntary, then they are free to elect representatives that agree with that position. But to characterize losing a political argument, i.e. is taxation theft, as having harm done to you is a rhetorical bridge too far.

Americans have repeatedly demonstrated a desire for some form of government. Its reach waxes and wains, but the core institutions (military, postal service, etc,) remain.

And another quick thought, currency is debt. More specifically, currency that is not tied to a finite resource (gold, silver, platinum, etc.) is debt. Following the logic of 'taxation as theft' if the currency you've earned for your labors is issued in dollars, and not in bullion, then you are relieving your employer of a form of debt and taking on "money" with a fluctuating value. Looked at another way, the more money you pay in tax, the more debt you're relieved of! (I realize it's mostly playing a game with numbers, but the internal logic is consistent and I'm using it to highlight what I see as an empty anti-tax argument).

Currency as debt

At the end of the day, I'm comfortable with roughly 20% of my income being deducted for various taxes and compulsory "savings" (e.g. social security). I view it as a 'society tax', and when compared to historical examples (and some currently lawless, tax-less societies) of low to functionally no tax areas, I think we're better off for it. Taxation helps maintain the social contract - it provides for common use utilities. We shouldn't understate how important free-use roads are. They are the figurative lifeblood of our economy. Can you imagine a patchwork of private, for-profit roadways? Free market capitalism is generally a wonderful thing, but the 'tragedy of the commons' is economic problem that Hayek and the rest of the invisible hand Austrians never adequately solved, in my humble opinion.

Unless those laborers produced money then wage is their acceptable level of hourly theft.

Do places of work grow on trees?

They do when your a lumberjack.

No, labor is producing clean floors and ****. I can't buy a dub with a clean floor now can I? First you rob the floor of its dirt and then you rob your boss of their cash.

Explain.

I mean I've heard that a lot, but I've never come across anyone who explained how it would function in reality, and I'm not reading one of your boring poli sci books, but I'll watch a YT video about it if you're too lazy to explain.