He once paid Rs 1 crore in taxes. However, techie’s dream run at his office came to an end when he got laid off. Taking to X, user Mohamed Nowsath bemoaned the lack of the country’s social security. “14 years of career, paid close to 1 crore as income tax so far. Now, being laid off. Absolutely no trace of any support system. Thank you India,” Nowsath wrote in his X post two days ago.

A social media discussion about India's social security system gained momentum after tech professional Nowsath revealed in a follow-up post that the severance package he received after being laid off would also be subject to taxation.

His comments divided opinion online. Several users supported his argument, saying India lacks a robust social safety net for salaried taxpayers. Social security generally refers to government-funded programs that provide financial assistance to individuals and families when they lose income due to unemployment, retirement, disability, illness, or workplace injuries.

Among those backing Nowsath, X user Manoj Arora argued that while Indians often compare their tax rates with those in developed nations, they rarely compare the benefits taxpayers receive in return. He pointed to countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and France, where unemployed workers are eligible for financial assistance and welfare benefits after losing their jobs.

Others disagreed with the criticism of the government, maintaining that financial preparedness is primarily an individual's responsibility. They argued that people should build emergency savings rather than depend on public assistance during periods of unemployment.

One user questioned what kind of government support was being sought. Responding to the query, Nowsath suggested that income taxpayers could be provided with temporary relief in the form of a tax-exempt payment or a percentage of their salary for three to six months after losing their jobs.

Another commenter defended the existing system, stating that the government already offers multiple tax-saving schemes, including EPF, NPS, and deductions under Section 80C. The user also highlighted that public hospitals and government schools are available at no cost, suggesting that citizens already receive benefits in exchange for paying taxes.

In response to the criticism, Nowsath published another strongly worded post, shifting the discussion from unemployment benefits to the overall quality of public infrastructure and civic services.

He argued that if taxpayers are not expected to receive financial assistance during periods of unemployment, they should at least have access to world-class public amenities funded by the taxes they contribute. According to him, taxpayers deserve better roads, transport systems, public spaces, and urban infrastructure.

Nowsath wrote that many people appeared offended simply because he had suggested financial support for unemployed taxpayers. He added that he was willing to rely entirely on his own emergency savings, provided the government delivered better public services. As examples, he said he wanted to be able to push his child in a stroller on clean city streets without worrying about pollution or excessive noise, walk on safe and well-maintained footpaths, allow children to cycle without the constant risk of heavy traffic, spend time with family in parks and green spaces instead of shopping malls, and travel between cities on high-speed trains rather than endure congested highways.