Imagine you want to buy a house. You have a budget for the house. The government takes taxes on the price, which you need to consider in your budget. Does the seller pay the taxes, or do you?
Absent the tax, the seller would simply recoup more of the value of their property.
I think the confusion here is that there exists an economic truth, and then a separate and conflicting language/branding around this economic truth to make it more palatable to people having their money taken from them at gunpoint by the state.
I'm bringing up economic reality, you're rebutting this with the government marketing language.
Yes, I know 'employer contributions' is a clever trick to make people believe they aren't paying as much to government as they are, but in economic reality they are paying for this.
I feel like "having their money taken from them at gunpoint" is rage bait language.
Have you ever considered that you benefit from public spending? Infrastructure, etc.