I’m not sure if it’s that brutal, but in some countries, for some people maybe that’s true.
But on the other hand you have all the things that are sponsored by the country: pension, roads, hospitals, police, firefighters, etc. It’s hard to put value on these things, but no doubt they have value.
So I guess what I imagine as an example, a person earns 50’000, 20’000 is taken by the goverment in the form of all these taxes that you mentioned. 30’000 is what this person (eventually) gets back. So this particular person would be a net beneficiary of the system. These are completely hypothetical numbers.
Aggregated on a country level, all the tax income could be, let’s say 300 billion, 250 billion would go redistributed for pensions, benefits, military, healthcare etc, and 50 billion would be admin cost: salaries of politicians, public workers, rent for all the public buildings, IT systems, etc. Again, arbitrary numbers. You could argue that this admin cost is also a form of redistribution.
In the end, the public sector reminds me of a leech attached to the economy, providing negligible added value. But it is redistributing money, and this money does not get lost, it ends up in some pocket. So in the end if you sum up the net gains and losses of each person due to government, both sides should be equal. And my argument is just that ironically there is a majority of people who have (small) net gains, and a few people that have high net losses.