Not the OP, and very pro taxation, but there is a coherent political philosophy argument against it.

One definition of the State is a monopoly on violence and the sanctioning of violence. We take as a given that criminals can be handcuffed, roughed around, and put in a cell against their will. We take as a given that the state participates in military conflicts. We take as a given that the state defines what the penalty (or lack thereof) is for violence in society. By giving one entity this monopoly on violence, laws get enforced, and generally it seems to make thing civil.

Taxes are not voluntary, and they are the way that an institution with a monopoly on violence forcefully extracts revenue from civilians. I cannot choose not to pay, at threat of law enforcement. So if I disagree with the decisions of the institution with a monopoly on violence, it definitely could be reasoned to be "stealing".

If America was run by local gangs, and the gang in charge of your neighborhood took money from you at gunpoint as a tax, then stealing is a very apt metaphor. It works more slowly and bureaucratically in our government, but it's still involuntary violence backed seizing of assets.

Again, I am very pro taxation, I think it is the only way to fund common benefits, and I think that civilian controlled government is a better tax solution than an autocracy, since I can have a say on how the money is spent. But, it sort of makes sense to see it as theft.