I would argue it is coercive, but so is the property system underpinning the market in the first place. Adding a redistribution element to a system of private property doesn't introduce violent coercion, it merely changes how it is being used to allocate resources.

As Adam Smith wrote: "Civil government, in so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

That quote doesn't mean what you think it means. Taken in context, that quote is talking about the origins of civil government and how it is often corrupted as stated in that quote. It is used as an argument for why there must be a separation of powers to ensure fair judgement and protect the property rights of both the poor and the wealthy.