>>793047Calling money collected through the use of (the threat of) force "theft" is no more manipulative and deceiving than calling it "taxes". Taxes is just one particular kind of theft. You could argue that it is somehow justified theft or necessary theft, but you can't argue that it isn't theft at all.
>Plus, did you know that those taxes were actually used for useful things?Useful? Like... objectively useful? How would one really measure that, maybe "how much of tax spending you agree with" vs. "how much you don't"?
Honestly the fact that you think taxes in whatever country you live in currently are spent relatively wisely doesn't really mean much, what's useful to you isn't necessarily useful to me or vice versa.
And if it really is true for you, in your state, at the present time, that doesn't mean that it's true for me, in my state, forever.
So I would not really agree that taxes are used for "useful things". I don't even think that it's fundamentally relevant to the issue of taxes; they violate the non-aggression principle and that's that for me.
As for the other issue, it was not that the government suddenly takes large portions of money but that it at very arbitrary points and for very arbitrary reasons changes the rules.
(I almost wanted to pretend that you said that all tax money everywhere is at all times spent on the absolutely most useful things that it could possibly be spent on, but I decided that misunderstanding you on purpose would be pretty silly.)
