"It's better for a theory to be incomplete than completely wrong."

You haven't established any reason why my theory is wrong, only that it doesn't agree with your opinion. You have not pointed out any self-contradiction or circularity or equivocation other logical error.

Whereas I have shown how
a) your central claim cannot be verified. You can't prove what the appropriate rate of tax is - "it depends" (on unknowables);
b) it is common ground that your central claim can be falsified because even you agree that tax may be damaging, inappropriate or unfair
c) you cannot determine the point at which it goes from being allegedly beneficial to admittedly detrimental
d) you keep contradicting yourself as I have repeatedly shown above
e) you keep equivocating, particularly in the definition of tax, constantly misrepresenting it as a voluntary donation, ignoring or denying its coercive nature
f) you have never explained how you know whether the taxed money would net benefit society, more or better than the same money untaxed
g) the fact of your mere opinion otherwise is not a proof
h) you have never explained why the political process is more representative of the people, than the people are of themselves
i) you have never explained why you should not fund voluntarily the income redistributions you want to force on others
j) you keep assuming that investment makes the poor poorer.

You have not been able to cite any tenet of Austrian theory, let alone one that is illogical or incorrect.

A pathetic primary school level of argument.

"I admit no such thing."

According to you, the reason why tax is necessary to fund government, is because otherwise there'd be "anarchy" and "tribalism". Therefore you have established no justification of any governmental action over above that level - even if your absurd hyperbole were accepted, which it ain't.

Therefore I have shown that no-one is able to defend the concept of an appropriate or fair rate of tax.

Aidan

So you enter the discussion having already assumed that there is an appropriate or fair rate of tax, even though you agree that it is definitely detrimental at some stage.

When asked how you determine when it's beneficial, you say from its "effects", even though you must admit that these run into hundreds of millions of evaluations that are subjective, contingent, constantly changing, and mostly unknown and unknowable.

My question is, when trying to figure out what the effects of a given rate of tax are, how do you hold all the other variables constant?

Also, where did you get the idea that you know better than everyone else what their thoughts, feelings, preferences and values should be?