This is my plan as a liberal Democratic "deficit hawk."

Taxes overall need to decrease. So does spending. The rich are already disproportionately paying more than their fair share. Why not make the ~50% who pay no tax kick in 0.5-1.0 %?

Read or listen to democrat President JFK’s December 14, 1962 address to the New York Economic Club where he soundly argues for LESS tax here:

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html

Listen here: https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHA/1962/JFKWHA-148/JFKWHA-148

Paragraph 28:
“ In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

JFKs comments were about a completely different tax system. We had a "progressive tax system" then. They taxed the hell out of the rich and gave them "write offs," and deductions for investing in new equipment, employee benefits and real charities. I remember reading a story about H.L. Hunt being the richest man in th world and paying zero dollars tax during that era. Quoting JFK's comments about a tax system that hasn't existed since 1983, is a bit misleading. Of course, that is the forte of MAGA extremists.

We still have a progressive tax system, personal tax deductions for charity and business deductions for investment and expenses. Some details may have changed, but structurally still the same.

Hunt lived on a modest house in Dallas, mowed his own yard and took his lunch to work in a brown paper bag every day.

Perhaps at times, his BUSINESS income was taxed very little, but those rules apply to anyone at any investment level. Wealth accumulates through re-investment, which has tax advantages anyone can benefit from.
Tyler Perry, the billionaire entertainment tycoon, lived out of his car in his early twenties. As he made money and reinvested it, he created jobs for others.
Learn to play by the rules and watch your wealth increase.

The maximum tax rate for 1962 was 91% for personal income above $200,000 and 52% for business income above $25,000. Wealth accumulates through putting other people's money at risk, by borrowing and making business investments. Rich people do not put, or put very little of, their money at risk. Accumulated wealth is stashed away in safe investments. None-the-less the tax rates in place today are nowhere near the 91% marginal rate that was in place in 1962.

I could be just as deceptive in my post as you were. Under the system in place in 1962 people were taxed at a rate of 91% for income of 200,000.00 or more. President Biden proposes no tax increases for people earning twice that amount, $400,000.00. Even then, they would pay less than half of the 1962 tax rate. Never mind that $200,000.00 in 1962 is now $200,009,26.49. Can you see now that equating tax systems and their consequences today with 1962 is disinformative?

The last time a tax break made a discernable difference in US employment was when Lyndon Johnson eliminated the Excise Tax on all American made goods. That gave domestically produced goods like "White Wall Tires," a cost advantage over their Japanese competitors. American companies grew to meet increased demand. Tax deductions for the rich go into their pockets or investments in gold, et al. Only when demand increases (usually when working class people get more money,) do the rich make more jobs. Without more money in the hands of working people, demand does not grow. If demand does not grow, supply does not increase. If supply does not increase, the rich do not increase the number of people they employ. "Supply and Demand," really should be called "Demand and Supply."