To say no one would accept a coin with tax is also to say, no one would pay $1000 to submit a proposal, or no one would choose 1.8 dash as a reward. Willingly accepting one side of the argument when it suits us (reward paid), yet choosing to reject "tax". Inflation occurs the moment a proposal is successful. It is a tax because more dash magically comes into existence. The benefit for that inflation is hopefully more adoption. So why must we think the benefit of another type of tax is zero? Sure, we can discuss how we derive the various numbers, or how we determine the beneficiaries, but that doesn't make the idea inherently flawed.
The fiat system is "broken", that's why we're in crypto, but it's clearly good enough for a large number of people, or else we wouldn't be so obsessed to measure the bitcoin price is dollars. And it has already been suggested, had Adaptive Proposal Fees existed at the start of the coin, then it would of surely stayed that way, unchallenged. And so too for a pre-programmed tax mechanism; if it existed at the start, people would choose to use the coin, or not, so where is the problem?
Don't misunderstand me. I am definitely allergic to taxes! But if we can guarantee the rules in code.. code is law, right?
And remember, I am also proposing the flip side to tax.. interest paid on time locked funds. Thus as a user you make your choices.. and everyone would definitely make their own choice. Some people piss their money away, while others are savers, and everything in-between.