Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end
"Because that's not relevant to the discussion of how we finance tax cuts."
Actually that is entirely relevant to your claim that not taxing one increases tax on another. You seem to think there is 'an amount' the gov rightfully gets, I say the gov would take 100%, people want to keep more of what they earn and the tax take is what both sides agree on. As a feature of this discussion with you it seems very relevant.
"I suspect we both agree that we need to give _some_ money to provide services that enable society to function - the amount of money that is required is irrelevant, except in that we need to raise approximately that much in taxes (some years will be more, some will be less)"
The amount is the problem. The gov likes to spend, the NHS likes to spend, the education system, MOD and every department of government likes to spend. Local councils like to spend. The entire structure including off the books public workers moved into the private sector like to spend. Not just on the essentials to enable society to function, but to spend. Even to our detriment they will spend because it suits them. They will borrow against the tax payer because they will tax you more later. They believe your moneys and possessions belong to them, as long as they can get away with it.
Until you can provide the arbitrary amount the rest of your beliefs about reducing tax on one increases on another doesnt work. The more they collect the more they spend. They reduce tax and they still keep spending.
"Encouraging more car use can not be an efficient use of government funds - it therefore increases the tax burden on others."
Why? The entirety of transport is a huge part of what makes your rich country with civilised society possible. Without it you would be in a much worse situation and the government would absolutely lose a lot of tax (overtaxing fuel, road tax, etc which collects more than it returns to drivers).
"Again it doesn't matter why you owe me... and tax is a paid for service, in fact it's *many* services which we pay for"
If you go to the shop and buy product/service you choose to pay them for it. I dare you to 'choose' not to pay your tax. Paying for a service and having your earnings taken by force are extremely different things. Government may 'incentivise' actions by not taxing as a mugger may 'incentivise' you dont enter a certain area.
"If you don't want to pay tax to your countries government then a) you're a selfish jerk"
Perfect response you selfish jerk. I say that because all probability says you only pay the exact amount of tax you owe and dont send the government extra? And if you wernt such a selfish jerk and in your opinion of how this money is spent, you could reduce the tax bill of everyone else. However in reality the gov would take that money and spend it on top of everything else it takes. (obviously I dont actually believe you a selfish jerk)
"b) you're free to go and opt out of society entirely"
100% as I say. But instead of eating berries people move their money off shore, use tax efficient structures and some even evade tax (at many levels of society) which of course limits what the government can take. The more they take the more moves away, especially when its seen to be unjust.
Surely from all of the above you can see why I would completely disagree with your last paragraph as completely wrong.