This has been reinforced by the Supreme Court who could find no distinction between any socioeconomic class optimizing their tax burden, no matter how accessible the privilege becomes for some.
> Perhaps it's naive of me,
I think it would be considered naive to elevate the greed of the state over the greed of an individual. Your current train of thought doesn't seem to factor it in at all, it seems more like "if this kind of authority asks, because I respect it, I must comply" which makes me wonder where the limits are. Any state? Any due process outcome? Any percentage? Would you consider to read the state's law to discover that you are not subjected to the payment in many circumstances that you can create? To me, thats where the naivete lies.
My current thoughts on taxes are that the state incentivizes certain kinds of transactions. And if you don't engage in those kind of transactions then the state taxes a percentage of the remainder. The percentage of the tax being a deterrent, as it would prefer you put your money to use in other ways so that you never pay it. Spending, investments, etc. Which this logic its not about imagining that you are passively paying for roads and schools (you aren't, you are paying interest on the funds the state borrowed from the international markets to pay for the roads and schools that were already going to be paid for regardless, the ones that would be neglected would still be neglected). This is most directly seen with the old healthcare fine: if you don't have healthcare through an employer and don't pay for the affordable care act plan then you pay a $1,000 tax. They are incentivizing you to shift capital to certain areas of the economy, with the fallback being the state. This will be a more productive way for you to think of all transactions with the state.