I don't know if this adds to the conversation, but I'm surprised to see you say:
"Yes. This."

...to

"No. Taxes are a service fee paid as agreed to in your social contract (which you signed by participating in said society). If you disagree with this contract, you're free to move elsewhere that is a. Devoid of taxes (good luck) or b. Devoid of society."

...but then proceed to say:

" Paying the fee isn't the issue for me anymore. Rather, the uncivil political discourse and refusal to make reasonable compromises to deal with disagreements about how that money should be spent (and how government, defense, and social service programs can be sustainable) is what irks me."

...which I actually agree very much with.

The "If you disagree with this contract, you're free to move elsewhere" argument offends me greatly, my interpretation of that is that the author believes they hold the ultimate final wisdom on the subject, and you either take it, or you leave.

I fully agree that there should be some taxes, and different people should pay different amounts (from each according to his ability) not so much because it is "right", but because it is "wise", it is (I think) the best way to structure a society to maximize happiness (not the right word really). I believe it is best that those who are more able are forced to pay more (in absolute numbers, if not necessarily percentage, but maybe that too), but I also believe the people who are on the other side of that deal should also be made (somehow) to know how good they actually have it, and it wouldn't hurt them to maybe say "thanks" now and then.

Now, imho money in society is largely ending up in the pockets of people who in no way actually earned it, so some of the above doesn't apply. I don't think someone making minimum wage should be saying thanks to a Wall Street banker for example. I think money "should" be flowing to people who genuinely innovate to raise the standard living of his fellow man, and citizens of the world. I'm thinking innovations in manufacturing, distribution, medical & health advancements, some forms of software, etc. Things that make a real difference.

I also happen to feel/guess that the real, righteous innovators who are really improving the world, probably would be very ok with getting just "very rich" despite how much they've given the world, whereas many of the recipients of the big money flows today (who in very many cases have really done nothing beneficial for the world, often the opposite even), want to keep all of their money, and will do almost anything to keep it, things that they very well know are morally wrong, by most any definition.

The problem is, who is wise enough to make these decisions, of what is the right amount of taxation, what is the right amount of privatization vs socialization, etc. I think we need some social enlightenment, and I don't see that happening any time soon. We've had great experiments of different models in different countries throughout the world, I think we have plenty data for wise open minded people to make a very accurate judgement in some cases. But then, it is also extremely culturally driven, and with current immigration and reproduction rates around the world, I think the makeup of societies are now changing so quickly, that the "best" solution that would have worked in a particular region 20 or even 10 years ago, might now be nowhere close to the best solution. For example: I grew up in a small, close knit community, where everyone knew everyone. There were always some layabout people and families who were always sucking on the public teat, but that's just the way it was, and no one really got overly upset. But if multiple families like this start moving into my neighborhood from other countries, and they don't seem particularly interested in the community or my culture, and choose to associate only amongst themselves, while still helping themselves to the rich social programs that are largely a product of lifetimes of extremely hard work and sacrifice of my ancestors, well, I'm not so ok with that.

I'm not sure what my point is really. I think on one hand, our technology and highly automated manufacturing allows us to get 75% of everything else wrong and still have a high and extremely widespread standard of living. On the other hand, I think if we could get that other 75% down to around 25%, perhaps the wealth could be spread around more fairly (one class who's getting royally screwed is the current generation of workers in Chinese factories) without everyone getting bent out of shape, and we could perhaps have some leftover to work on some of the really important problems in the world, that can almost only be solved by a socialized effort.