I disagree. From what I understand, he is not talking about government needing the money, but society needing the money (in his example, which is, after all, the central reason for his post, he talks about him taking in money for a group of people to organize an event for everybody).

This maps well to his addressing those "strawmen" libertarians. Most libertarian rhetoric builds on the fact that people have been made suspicious of government and are suggested to think of government as "the other". Likewise, you seem to try to force his argument on its head - Nobody argues whether government should exist and you suggesting it makes me wonder how closely you've read the post.

"The Government" is the subgroup of society who have been elected by the rest of society to invest part of societies resources to the advantage to everybody. The basic math being that society will be better off having spent the money in that way than had it kept the money. Whether or not you agree that that is happening, that is the basic plan.

Tims post simply says: If we want to be a society, that comes at a cost and somebody has to pick up the tab at the end of the night and the system to make that happen is called taxation.

Claiming that this in itself "fallacious argument" because you actually know what his argument is seems ambitious, but I simply have no idea where you take that from. Let's argue the reverse: Since you don't seem to disagree that a government in itself is a good concept, who do you think should pay the price for it?