Tax "cuts" are the wrong way to think about it.
The government should get enough money from the population to act as a limited social contract among free people to secure life, liberty, and property.
Anything extra should be given back to the people who payed in.
As an outsider, I'd like to point out that while I agree with this on paper, there's a problem - the people who've paid in the most have always been the poorest (their individual tax burdens far outweigh those of the extremely wealthy), yet those are also the same people getting the least back.
It's interesting to note that when it comes to taxes, the' American Left' and the 'American Right' (neither of which live up to their names imo) seem to have pretty similar policies on tax - the difference is that 'Left' see it as scalable with income (ie, Rich pay more into the pot), whereas the 'Right' see it as absolute (Rich pay the same as the poor).
Both sides seem to have the goal of increasing governments role and the size of the pot, but the difference is in how - the 'Right', through increased spending on security and military capabilities, the 'Left' through increased spending infrastructure and social support. In both cases your line about private property being used as communal property is true.
Neither are necessarily wrong, but I don't see anyone in America's political spectrum actually working to your ideal of reduced government.