I disagree that the argument against a legal right holds any water. Just because the text says it is incoherent, doesn't make it incoherent. The argument the te

I disagree that the argument against a legal right holds any water. Just because the text says it is incoherent, doesn't make it incoherent. The argument the text makes to claim it is incoherent is that you are legally required to pay taxes. The problem with that as the argument is that taxes are on income. Income has many forms, but is usually understood as wages paid for goods or services. The wages must be paid to you first, then taxes deducted. The exchange of money for value (as goods or services) is made first. At that point the money is yours. The exchange has completed. Therefore the taxation on income is taxing money that is already yours, irrespective of your obligation to pay a portion of it to the state. Taxation occurs by rule of law, therefore taxation most certainly is not theft. Use of the term "theft" is dramatic rhetoric. This argument attempts to construe taxation as something other than "taking", though, and that simply is not true. The moral stance put forth by the article is literally "you don't deserve the income you get, therefore the state is obligated to take it".