This isn't correct when you look at the numbers. You can try it yourself at https://us.abalancingact.com/federal-budget-simulator.

The thing is, in isolation, balancing the budget looks pretty easy. It's only because you have to deal with particular interest groups and a populace who has come to believe that any tax increase means they're getting shafted. I was able to balance that budget with the following changes:

1. Top one percent effective tax rate goes from 24 to 30 percent.

2. Higher income goes from 12.26 to 14.26.

3. Upper middle income goes from 7.7 to 8.7.

4. Middle income goes from 4.8 to 5.8.

5. Lower middle income goes from .1 to 1.1

6. Lower income goes from -4.1 to -3.1

7. Social payroll taxable maximum goes to 90% of taxable income.

Those changes alone, with absolutely no spending changes, balance the budget. Now, I'm not proposing that those changes are politically viable, and you can certainly fiddle with my distribution if you think something else would be fairer (I think it's fair because the rich have done much better than everyone else over the past 40 years so I think they can afford to pay more, but I also think that everyone should have to contribute something more or else you get the current problematic belief that the issue can be solved just by taxing somebody else), but I would strongly disagree if you wanted to argue that those changes would result in any substantial change in standard of living for anyone.

I think, numerically, the problem can pretty easily be solved just by taxation alone (though I think it would make sense to add some spending cuts), just not politically.

Site looked interesting, so I was just like "what would it look like to have a top tax rate like we did in the 1950s-1980s (Before Reagan dropped it)?" [1] And the hilarious thing is the propaganda it spews without any backing of data:

>At a certain point, increases in tax rates will not raise more revenue. Once someone's tax rate becomes sufficiently high, they might work less or try harder to evade taxes. Based on existing evidence, this simulation assumes that increasing this group’s tax rate beyond your current level is unlikely to raise more revenue.

And then it pretends like the maximum amount of income you can get out of the richest 1% is $203B.

This is rich people's propaganda that we've bought into by pretending that Rich people don't need this country. But that's a lie. If it were true, they would just move, instead of fighting tooth and nail for tax cuts in every single election.

Also the breakdown of spending categories and the way they're represented are pretty clearly politically motivated, and the Numbers look a little suspicious to me. They don't even align with the CBO numbers.

Another really obvious thing missing is a "Capital Gains Tax"

Which is currently pegged to like 20%, and how CEOs get all of their income. So If Capital Gains was taxed as income, I think that would at least start to make the Income tax realistic.

[1] https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder...

> Those changes alone, with absolutely no spending changes, balance the budget.

I tried out the calculator and put in all your changes, and the budget wasn't balanced, there was still a 1.4T deficit (as opposed to the current 1.9T deficit). The app only claims the budget is "sustainable" now because it assumes GDP keeps growing at the same rate (which might not be true), and if so we'll hit a 3%-of-GDP "deficit target" in 25 years. Also adjusting a negative tax rate kind of seems like it is, in fact, reducing spending (i.e. the federal government reduces the amount of tax credits it gives out). This also assumes the federal government will not introduce new programs, new spending, etc. So really all you did was reduce the deficit by .5T along with a hope and a prayer that the economy will continue to grow at the same rate for the next 25 years (while at the same time the federal government does not increase spending). I personally think it's bad to have a deficit at all and that we should work towards zero deficit and eventually surplus (yes, I know there are all sort of growth hacks and such you can do with debt, but historically politicians have succumbed to slippery slope deficit increases and so for that reason alone I think holding politicians to a zero deficit standard is best -- do it for a few generations and now there's a precedent that protects us from getting into the situation we are currently in). To me a "balanced budget" is that your spending is <= your income.

Anyway, interesting calculator app. I do see the value in raising taxes for sure, but it's not easy politically to raise taxes and it's also not easy politically to cut spending (whichever group likes the thing you cut will scream), so ultimately it might have to be a hybrid solution where democrats increase taxes without increasing spending when they are in power and republicans cut spending without decreasing taxes when they are in power. When I say that out loud though it seems like a pipe dream, sigh...