Taxes are not necesseraly evil. Taxes are used by the state in order to protect its residents, and in order to give some basic services that everyone should have. No society can exist without taxes. And if there is no taxes, there is no money. Money is created in order to support taxation. You cannot separate money from taxes, money is a tax tool. The allocated budget of dash (10%) is also a form o taxation. So, as long as the abolition of taxes is impossible (because this will result the abolition of the society) the important thing is who decides about taxes and whether this decision is made in a centralized or decentralized way.
Taxes are compulsory payments by definition, with threats of violence to back them. It's just extortion. Changing the name of it and calling the mafia who runs the protection racket "govt" doesn;t change that. Thereby, all taxes are just extortion, and thereby unethical in a normative sense. Further, in a consequentialist sense, it is illogical to say threatening innocent people with extortion increases their individual utility, and since society is just a bunch of individuals who interact with each other peacefully (mostly, as a rule), i. e. pro-social behavior and not antisocial behavior (like extortion), extorting the masses cannot lead to an increase in societal utility.
You act as if their protection racket is not a racket or coercive monopoly. Mafias of the usual sort also protect people in this regional monopolist form...the only difference is scale and laws that condone or ban it for the particular group. The idea I can threaten innocent people with violence if they don't pay me for protection, and that they are not allowed to out-compete me in this service, and they can't hire an alternative therefore (even if they don't like the service, see the quality as shit, see the prices rightly as monopolist and gouged, and see coercive monopolies have less transparency, and therefore less accountability) and it be "ethical" and not just a protection racket is nonsense. Sorry...there is no logic to that belief.
Let the local mafia hit you up for protection money. Even if they do a great job of protection, it's of no consequence, given you have nothing to really compare it to to know if it does a good, cheap, high quality, high transparency, high accountability job or not. This isn't a political philosophy debate on taxation though...it's on the purpose of the tech. And if the purpose is to facilitate taxation by a state or other entity, you can call that "moral" all you like, but it's not. Just because a nationalist cult which has you brainwashed, like we all were, to believe it is good (via civic religion, i.e. pledge is the prayer we brainwash kids with before they are even old enough to know what govt is or a republic is, etc., the flag is the religious symbol they pray too, the anthem in the hymn, the group acts of submission at kids games, like pro sports, are subsidized by the state to help groom the kids and keep the adults practicing the civic religion, etc.) doesn't mean it is indeed good. All tyranny is fashionable and mass accepted in its time. Chattel slavery was popular and thought necessary and good...until it wasn't.
ALL taxes are unethical, period. There is no consistently logical ethical theory which can say otherwise. To say so, would mean all extortion can be justified via some normative or utilitarian analysis, not just when its called "tax" and when the taxer is called "govt" (the test of universalism in ethics). Hence, the Founders called govt "a necessary evil". They acknowledged the evil you deny. I question the necessity is my difference with them on that point. How much money a year does the state spend making itself unnecessary? How is it when tech has made many things govt does not necessary for govt to do (like mail), that the govt keeps doing those things and even expanding things they do? Think about it.
No offense, but I'm an ethical theorist. I developed a methodology outside of normative/consequentialist methodology (my circumstantialist analysis), and also came up with an entirely original way to arrive at an ethical universal (not that theories within ethics are not subjective...only the universal they must be based on to make them logically consistent and based on valid premises is objective)....which I call the SLOET, but which has many other names, as it is had been discovered by others via different methods. Using just basic epistemological and metaphysical premises which can be shown to be valid, and consistent logic, I arrive at a sound conclusion in ethics. It's the only way in philosophy to arrive at a sound conclusion. I can point out invalid premises or inconsistent logic, as I did above, when anyone claims the state is justified/ethical. The state, by definition, refuses to acknowledge the ethical universal or respect the subjective ethical theories built on top of it.
And I can also use the language of Egoists (amoralists) to get them to agree (and have) to the same conclusions without calling them "ethics". So, regardless, individual autonomy being sacrosanct for the non-victimizer is not negotiable in ethics or amoralism. There's no way to deny the evil of the state or its extortion (tax) schemes, or those of competing smaller organized crime groups (the other mafias who aren't powerful enough to build a cult of legitimacy around themselves and legalize their crimes while calling all competing criminals' acts "crime").
And there is no basic service, not even roads, that isn't already done by someone other than govt somewhere. Highways, side streets...there is already evidence those things happen without the state or corrupt the process and fill the pockets of the Rulers and their crony friends. Only defense is largely a monopsony, and only law/courts are largely monopolized in the dispute resolution market. But we know law and defense predates the state by 8,000 years, thanks to anthropology, so there is no reason empirically or logically to believe only a state can do those things, and that we need it done in monopolist form.
You see the central banking cartel the Rulers grant its crony bank buddies is not necessary...now realize everything they do is like that. If people want it en masse via aggregate demand, it will exist. If they do not, they why do you want the state to do it and call it "necessary"? Think it through. I won't debate this further, as it is a total distraction in the thread. You want to read my writings on the state and anarchism, I will PM you private links to my FB page where I have tons of essays stored...or you can wait until they are compiled into a book which is coming out in 2017 (I'll give you a free copy, of course).
And money predates taxes (compulsory payments)...the idea it is a tax tool is false historically. It's a medium of exchange. LABOR was synonymous with TAX in Ancient Egypt, not money. You were temporarily enslaved until you could pay off what you owed the Ruler there if you couldn't pay the tax bill. It amounted to about 30-40% of total production output of the slave. See, percentage taxing is just a indirect way of enslaving you...they still are taking the fruits of YOUR labor by force. Either of them has the same result, it just APPEARS more civil the percentage way. But rest assured, whether you are a chattel slave or a tax slave...the result is the same. You have to let someone else have the fruits of your labor by force. The percentage is arbitrary...the principle is tax or no tax. So, when does tax become slavery then, to you, since you do not think it to be a form of forced labor (and the most common definition of slavery is forced labor)? 100%? 99? 67.3? How about 2%? See...the percentage doesn't matter; any non-zero amount is forced labor. And you "not minding" to pay is not relevant either....you have no choice. A man who breaks into a woman's house to rape her is no less evil and an attempted rapist if she decides she's horny and wants to willingly have sex with him. She had no choice, so he's still evil and a problem. She's just a sick person well adjusted to a sick situation.
See, being well adjusted to an insane or sick society is not evidence of mental health. It's evidence of the opposite. Statists are merely brainwashed into a cult like we all were...a very evil and insane cult. Deprogram, like we did, and become an anarchist. The state is not real...it's just people abusing other people and brainwashing them to love their abuse (thinking of it as good, benign, or necessary). It's just a faith (authoritarianism), and the political class are just parasites living off of our excess productivity, ever since the agrarian revolution started about 6,000 years ago. I can, again, give you essays and videos for days which tear apart in detail every single argument you can possibly put forth for the state. We've been at this for a couple centuries, and I've been at it myself for like 10 years now.
People aren't generally born or raised as anarchists...they read their way out of the cult of authoritarianism/statism/nationalism.