1. I don’t believe in objective “morality” anyway, so reliance on a claim that something is moral or not doesn’t get very far for me.
2. Assuming that there’s such a thing as objective morality, I don’t accept the logic that tax = theft = immoral. This is based on a premise that all theft is always immoral, in all circumstances. Even assuming some logical/rational basis for morality, I don’t agree with the stated premise that theft = immoral in all circumstances.
3. If you state that tax = immoral, then I assume you’d also agree that other democratically enacted laws are immoral too - basically any “malum prohibitum” law, or any civil law. Basically any restriction on another persons freedom for anything other than immediate, proportional self-defense, right? Which means that nearly the entirety of Democratic government is forbidden as “immoral.”
Ultimately, the whole thing falls apart IMO. The only thing that really makes sense is that there are no universal moral rules - it’s a made up concept - and everyone is free to do whatever they want. Consequences are real, but universal laws of “right” and “wrong” are not. So instead of basing these conversations on right and wrong, we should look at results.