I think a more interesting approach might be to look at net contributors vs net beneficiaries.

There's a big assumption that anyone earning and paying tax is a contributor, but unfortunately that's not the case.

There are a lot of people whose tax is more than offset by working tax credits, child benefits, and all kind of other state support. That leads to a whole complex debate in itself about why companies won't or can't pay people enough to have a decent standard of living (which in turn taps into a worryingly circular debate about the cost of living, high taxation, wages that have been shrinking in real terms for the last 30 years etc.)

But a far bigger issue is the split of public vs private sector employment. Putting it bluntly, around 20% of the workforce in the public sector (and another 20-22% of working age people quoted as "economically inactive") is just too many. The public sector is essential as an enabler for the private sector. But it doesn't make anything, sell anything or export anything. Thus, any tax they pay on employment is just a circular transaction.

So my view is that we need to reduce the size of the public sector (while recognising that some of what it does is absolutely essential), and get the non-working back to being productive (another debate to be had, including recognising that some people are genuinely never going to be able to work, and how to create jobs in an economy where AI is removing them).

I also (and probably controversially) think that only those who have contributed National Insurance should be able to benefit from it, again with common sense exceptions for UK citizens who are genuinely never going to be able to work due to disability etc.