Tax evasion hurts society as a whole by reducing available resources for the programs that aid our country, and failure to provide child support harm the children and mothers that the child support was intended for in much the same way. Neither of these are victimless crimes. Victimless crimes are typically things that only harm the person/people involved in the crime, i.e. prostitution, recreational drug use, or gambling.
> That argument only works if taxation provides a net benefit to society.
How about this one then: At any given level of government spending and borrowing, tax evasion requires higher taxes to be imposed on those not engaged in tax evasion.
That is making the assumption that government spending is constant irrespective of tax revenue. If tax rates and public debt remain constant then tax avoidance will lead government spending to fall. This may mean fewer immoral actions conducted by the government such as wars or arresting people for victimless crimes. In this way, tax evasion can be not only harmless but a moral imperative.
Property is a social construct, society decides what is or isn't theft, not you. Taxation is not theft, and I'm not interested in the least in debating this, it's childish. You don't believe in government, I get it, and I don't care.
I believe in government, I just don't approve of it, because I believe it has a net negative impact on society. My primary concern is not whether you or anyone else cares about my option, but rather what sort of societal organization might have the most positive impact on society.
