You draw the line where it is obvious that the benefit far outweighs the risk.
Determined by who? Benefits and risks for who?
The people who elect the officials.
In different words, you are advocating mob rule: if the majority wants it, that makes it right and justifies it according to your world view.
But there are legitimate medical and/or non-medical reasons to object to other vaccines (e.g., HPV, TB). [References?]
TB vaccinations make it impossible to determine active TB infection via a skin test; that's why the US currently doesn't vaccinate against TB, while it is mandatory elsewhere. HPV vaccination is morally objectionable to many people because they object to the presumption that their kids will be unable to control their sexual urges.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Taxes are paid for a lot of things that are not used by individual tax payers. Case in point, people without children pay taxes for public schools even though they never send children there. People who own cars still pay for public transit even though they never use it.
Indeed. And not only are those policies morally wrong, they don't even accomplish what they are intended to accomplish. Both public schools and public transit are ineffective and inefficient given the vast amounts of money we sink into them, and both are the result of massive lobbying by special interest groups.
Evidently, what you're advocating is all about promoting cronyism and corruption and taking away the rights and choices of people whose views differ from the majority.