The Absurdity of Taxation

Taxation as we know, breaks The Non-aggression Principle and is strictly a misallocation of resources, but for brevity, we can look at how this mechanism (institutionalized extortion) is meant/supposed to work and validate whether it is a coherent idea or complete nonsense.

What is taxation meant to do? What do central planning advocates say?

• provide justice (law and order)
• provide protection (national security, policing etc)
• provide essential services to the population
  These goods/services vary but all fall under the colloquial term of Public Goods which is a nothing term, as private goods can be considered public goods and vice-versa.
  Let us grant that govt are the ones to supply us these 'public goods', why must it be through extortion and not voluntary through the market like other goods/services?

Cheaper for all/majority (todo)

Taxation advocates say taxes are good because 'everyone is chipping in' for these govt goods/services making it more affordable/more accessible, but what is the mechanism that makes it cheaper for everyone? Is that even the case?
False, if I am taxed $100 but will receive more than $100 in value from these govt goods/services then where is that extra value coming from who is paying for that?
1. More successful people pay more — Then they would be receiving "more expensive" service than the rest of us. eg. Bob pays $100 in tax but receives $150, Larry pays $200. This means Larry is paying $200 to receive $150 in value. In what world would a rational person knowingly make a trade like that?
2. Govt prints money to pay for it — Then this is a worse form of the above because now all savers are being robbed of their purchasing power rendering everyone poorer than they were.
Eg. Let's say the total money supply of an economy is $1000, the govt, after they've extorted everyone, has a budget of $200 to enact their silly little plans but it's going to cost $400. Let's also assume the population has $400 left in their bank accounts.
i.e.
Govt funds - $200
Govt project - $300
Population savings - $400
The govt prints $100 to make up this difference needed and now the total money supply has gone from $1000 to $1200. Now what does that mean for the rest of the population?
When the total money supply was $1000, the population had
400/1000 x 100 = 40% of purchasing power, but now they have
400/1200 x 100 = 33.33% , more than 6% of purchasing power lost
If Jim had $100 in his bank prior to the addition of new monetary units, he now has effectively $100 x (100-6)/100 = ~$94 i.e. robbed $6, now that might seem like a negligible amount of money to lose if the promise is that you get "Free {insert service of the day}", but as explored above, rich people bear the brunt of the costs.
So Larry had $250 prior to the print, now has effectively $250 x (100x6)/100 = $235 i.e. robbed $25 over 4x the amount Jim lost.
So how are taxes benefitting people when it be default makes them poorer off the bat?
Oh right its only for the idea that majority will benefit at the expense of a few (rich people). This then begs a very important question, how will this work if we had little to no 'rich people'?

Parasitism of Taxation

Forcing one group ('rich people') to benefit another group disincentivizes that group to remain within the borders — a factor towards brain-drain, as well as upcoming groups ('upper-middle class') not to pursue more success as they won't see the full fruits of their labour. It also makes the receiving group more dependent and more entitled to others. If we let this run its course, the parasitic class will grow and the productive class will shrink — why work hard when you can work little and get other hard working people to pay for you?