Not quite. There ARE worthwhile things that are best done, for various reasons, by society as a group. Those must be paid for by society, and taxes are probably the least damaging way to do so.
However, what I would like to see, and I believe this was the intention of the founders when they wrote the Constitution, is for the federal government to be limited to ONLY the activities that are EXPRESSLY given to them in WRITING within the Constitution, or amendments. And none of this 'implied' garbage the lunatic left likes to come up with.
For example, the government should be able to tax in order to pay for national defense, the postal service, border security, and the few other things written in the Constitution. EVERYTHING ELSE that Congress wants to spend money on 'for the good of society', must be paid for with voluntary contributions by the citizens. Examples would be a national highway system, space exploration, funding for medical research, etc. Anything deemed important enough to justify taxation funding would REQUIRE an amendment!
This would mean that Congress would have to CONVINCE Americans to donate money to the general fund in order pay for their projects.
Imagine that. A flat tax could be as little as 3% of each person's income. That would cover the mandated necessities of the government. But each person could make donations either into the general treasury for Congress to spend as they deem wise, or they could make specific donations for a particular project. States could make donations for highway systems. Corporations could make donations for housing projects for public t***sportation. If the feds can't do it efficiently, the funding simply drys up. And the government would HAVE to pay attention to the v**ers in order to keep them happy enough to keep on donating.
This is just an idea, and as always the devil would be in the details, but just think of it! A political playground where the players are completely dependent of making their constituents satisfied with their work.

Anyone using their brains understands this is a severely half baked idea that was pulled out of a few whack job's butts...do you "think" anyone sponsoring this thing ever took even a few days to crunch the numbers for any shred of viability?

The details would be even funnier than the broad concept, which is a joke. Gee, what do you think would happen with caps that would affect wealthy people?
...Vehicles taxed up to $75k, anything more would be unfair to wealthy people
...Home mortgages up to say $750k, anything over that would punish wealthy people

Anyone using their brains understands this is a severely half baked idea that was pulled out of a few whack job's butts...do you "think" anyone sponsoring this thing ever took even a few days to crunch the numbers for any shred of viability?

The details would be even funnier than the broad concept, which is a joke. Gee, what do you think would happen with caps that would affect wealthy people?
...Vehicles taxed up to $75k, anything more would be unfair to wealthy people
...Home mortgages up to say $750k, anything over that would punish wealthy people

Not quite. There ARE worthwhile things that are best done, for various reasons, by society as a group. Those must be paid for by society, and taxes are probably the least damaging way to do so.
However, what I would like to see, and I believe this was the intention of the founders when they wrote the Constitution, is for the federal government to be limited to ONLY the activities that are EXPRESSLY given to them in WRITING within the Constitution, or amendments. And none of this 'implied' garbage the lunatic left likes to come up with.
For example, the government should be able to tax in order to pay for national defense, the postal service, border security, and the few other things written in the Constitution. EVERYTHING ELSE that Congress wants to spend money on 'for the good of society', must be paid for with voluntary contributions by the citizens. Examples would be a national highway system, space exploration, funding for medical research, etc. Anything deemed important enough to justify taxation funding would REQUIRE an amendment!
This would mean that Congress would have to CONVINCE Americans to donate money to the general fund in order pay for their projects.
Imagine that. A flat tax could be as little as 3% of each person's income. That would cover the mandated necessities of the government. But each person could make donations either into the general treasury for Congress to spend as they deem wise, or they could make specific donations for a particular project. States could make donations for highway systems. Corporations could make donations for housing projects for public t***sportation. If the feds can't do it efficiently, the funding simply drys up. And the government would HAVE to pay attention to the v**ers in order to keep them happy enough to keep on donating.
This is just an idea, and as always the devil would be in the details, but just think of it! A political playground where the players are completely dependent of making their constituents satisfied with their work.