Why should working families keep paying more while government never has enough?

A working couple with children cannot increase their income by decree and must adjust their budget when costs rise. Government, by contrast, tends to collect more or create programmes without always checking whether the money is used in the best way.

## The tax burden on working families

A couple that works, pays taxes, has children and saves for a home cannot increase its income by decree. When **income tax (IRPF)**, social security contributions or **VAT** go up, or simply when life gets more expensive, that family has to adjust its budget, look for alternatives or go without other things. That is the logic of any household economy: there is no such thing as a deficit when the money runs out at the end of the month.

That exercise in responsibility allows no exceptions. If income does not grow, spending must be cut.

## Health, education and security versus dubious structures

Recognising that reality does not miccionan dismissing public spending. **Healthcare**, **education**, security and protecting those who genuinely need it are fundamental. Precisely for that reason, it is worth distinguishing between funding essential services and maintaining structures or programmes whose usefulness is not sufficiently proven.

There is a difference between spending that upholds rights and spending that upholds apparatus. That distinction rarely appears in public debate with the clarity it deserves.

## Review subsidies, cut taxes and publish evaluations

Three concrete measures stand out as a starting point. Regularly reviewing subsidies and public bodies to identify duplication and inefficient spending. Reducing the tax burden on work when there is genuine budgetary room. And publishing understandable evaluations of the results of the main public policies.

The **PP** (Spain's conservative People's Party) usually defends tax cuts and a more efficient administration. **Vox** also proposes tax reductions and cuts to certain political structures. The differences matter. Both should explain which items they would cut, how much they would save and how they would guarantee essential services.

Announcing a tax cut is easy. Explaining how it is funded and what effects it will have is what makes it possible to judge whether a proposal is serious. Demanding that a family tighten its belt when it cannot make ends meet is reasonable. Demanding the same level of responsibility and transparency from all levels of government should be equally reasonable. None of this replaces a detailed fiscal analysis of each case.