You're attacking the Laffer curve (which no one is really defending anyway) and advancing a narrative that only tax increases can save us because we wouldn't possibly entertain any other scenarios.

We're not going to possibly entertain any other scenarios.

90% of the federal budget is politically untouchable. Sure, you can tinker around the edges of VA benefits or tweak some Social Security details. But the five programs I listed (plus servicing the debt) are not going to be substantially reduced. Which means that spending cannot materially be reduced.

Which leaves raising taxes to pay for what we have decided as a society we absolutely are going to spend on.

You haven't outlined any plausible other scenarios. You might abhor it, but Donald Trump has crushed the GOP austerity wing. That faction was never strong enough to actually push through any austerity measures even at the height of their power within the GOP, but now they've been mostly exiled from the party. Trump ran on the premise that the programs that people loved (Social Security and Medicare) are not to be cut. Because Trump realized that those programs are very popular.

Contrary to your other post, we're not going to cut SS benefits. If it's a choice between raising taxes and cutting SS, we're going to raise taxes. You might not like that, you might not think that's the right move - but of those two options, there's no way you get a Congress to cut SS benefits instead of raising taxes. You don't need to raise taxes to something crazy like 80-90% - all you have to do is unwind the last two big tax cuts. So that's what's going to happen.

We can "entertain" other scenarios all you like, but they're not politically feasible, because Social Security and Medicare are so very very popular.