Budget, taxes and the common man

FOR decades, we have heard the same familiar phrase: “This budget is for the common man”. Every year, the budget is announced, the same claim is repeated and a faint sense of hope briefly returns. Yet a simple question keeps returning with uncomfortable persistence that if budget is truly for the common man, why does the life of the common man not change? In Pakistan, the “common man” has become a powerful phrase in political speeches, yet a fragile reality in everyday life. Every government places him at the centre of its narrative. Every budget invokes him as its justification. But on the ground, he remains where he has always been caught between rising prices, stagnant incomes an increasingly uncertain future. A budget, in its essence, is not merely a financial document. It is a social contract between the state and its citizens. Citizens contribute through taxes; the state returns services, protection opportunity. The question is whether this contract in Pakistan is truly balanced or whether it exists more elegantly on paper than in practice. Pakistan’s tax structure makes this question even more complex. Salaried individuals contribute their taxes quietly and consistently. Their incomes are taxed at source, leaving little room for avoidance or flexibility. In contrast, large segments of the economy still operate outside fully documented systems, where income is either underreported or not effectively taxed at all. The result is a structural imbalance: those who are easiest to tax end up carrying a disproportionate share of the burden. It is here that the sense of fairness begins to erode. The ordinary taxpayer sees himself as the most compliant participant in the system, yet often feels he receives the least in return. This is not merely a grievance; it is a structural distortion that gradually weakens trust in the state itself. Each year, budget speeches present ambitious figures, development targets policy priorities. Yet the lived experience of the common ci