"Robbery is defined as taking away of goods or property by force or intimidation."

Well, that certainly fits the bill. Of course, Inland Revenue (or the IRS, CRA, etc., depending upon where you're from) would say that it's not robbery if it's lawful. As I see it, the fact that a law has been passed to allow robbery does not change it from being robbery. It's merely institutionalised robbery.

Academics might say that we elect representatives to run the central government and those representatives are then entrusted to pass the laws, which we must then meekly follow. Again, this argument doesn't hold water for me, as these individuals may have been elected, but they most certainly do not "represent" me if they pass a law that says it's okay to rob me. No government has ever asked me for permission to take my money simply because they want it, and I have never given it.

If there's any question as to whether the above definition is correct, I'd be happy to see it put to the test: The internet makes possible individualised referendum. If we were to all be questioned as to whether we wish to be taxed, we could easily decide on an individual basis. I'm guessing that I wouldn't be alone if I were to say, "No, thank you."

But, to be fair, I do approve of taxation, but only indirect taxation – taxation based on consumption. (This is lawful in my own country, the Cayman Islands, and I receive good value for money.)