I take exception to this framing of it. 50% of households “take more out” (pejorative framing) than they “pay in” (only in financial terms), but also, it’s largely meaningless. Firstly these statistics are impossible to measure when looking at indirect taxes, it’s a calculation based on modelling. But secondly, most of the net beneficiaries are pensioners, and that number is rising. The group also includes young adults in education and training, and disabled people who are unable to work. With pensioners, this doesn’t take into account their lifetime “value” in terms of financial payment in. With students it ignores their future value.
In all cases it doesn’t reflect the fact that those people contribute to society and to businesses in financial ways other than personal taxes. For example, a low wage worker is paid poorly, and requires income support, but the business they work for will make more profit. Those profits are taxed, the shareholders are taxed, the goods and services they provide are taxed. Pensioners often do voluntary work. The services charities provide should be provided by the government. That’s a saving to the taxpayer.
You’re also conflating figures because 50% of income taxes may be paid by 6.5%, but that’s only a quarter of the tax take. When you add indirect taxes, the split is far more even across all households. Also, even within that 6.5% the distribution is massively uneven.
The framing is made all the worse because the statistics are driven by tax and benefit policies rather than the actions of households.