Since the first day, states founded by the human communities with a shared sense of purpose and protection have endeavored to have continuous and reliable income sources to meet common needs. These resources have changed and developed in proportion to the progress of humanity. Nevertheless, today’s point is that taxes proved their reliability in states and public services. Their main characteristics have remained the same, although its practices differ from past to present. However, taxes have become a mutual struggle and point of contention since they are evaluated differently in ruling and ruled classes due to these characteristics. While the authorities spread to use taxes for primary policies and as a source of power, citizens also react individually or communally to the arbitrary treatments as to these unilateral, compulsive, continuous, non-substitutable, indispensable, multidimensional, and dissimilar incomes. The communal resistance has escalated with low or high intensity, even as individual reactions have shaped like tax evasions and avoidances. In direct proportion to the intensity of resistance, communities sometimes rioted against taxes and sometimes engaged in revolts that resulted in civil war or revolution. This study explores whether a higher communal resistance for higher revenual persistence and dominance is an acceptable risk. It discusses the idiosyncratic characteristics of taxes and the individual and so much to more social reactions to the tax impositions of authorities. Methodologically, get some mileage out of David F. Burg’s book “A World History of Tax Rebellions: An Encyclopedia of Tax Rebels, Revolts, and Riots from Antiquity to the Present” and the law lexicons relating to “riot” and “revolt” and their syntaxes and synonyms. The causes, levels, and consequences of the tax resistances of the 20th and 21st centuries are submitted in separate tables with riot and revolt differentiation. This brief monographic study, which aims to reveal a panorama of the recent period’s tax resistances from a causative perspective, concludes that taxation is extremely sensitive to arbitrary behavior, and the consequences of imposing taxwise practices deaf to social expectations may turn into destructive.