On the tax side, you seem to be mixing individual FIT and total tax collections - the 25.5% is total, the $899b is individual income only. I don't follow this. The 25.5% is FIT effective tax rate from the CBO, what other taxes are you saying are included?
You didn't provide a link for your number, so I can't see where you got it. I'm guessing the original source is here
Congressional Budget Office - Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2005
Table 1A in the appendix shows four types of federal taxes. For the top quintile they are these percents of income:
14.1% Individual Income Tax
+6.0% Social Insurance Tax
+4.9% Corporate Income Tax *
+0.5% Excise Taxes
------
25.5% Total Federal Taxes
Instead of raising taxes on the top 20%, I suggested raising taxes on the top 1%. So I used column L which shows 19.1% individual FIT for that group. I got income rates and number of taxpayers from Table 1C.
"Doesn't come close" isn't very precise. I provided numbers to show that much of the 2010 deficit is 9+% unemployment. The long term general fund deficit is more like $520 billion. So I think that $140 billion, which we could get by simply raising the average individual FIT rate to maybe 27% on the top 1% of taxpayers, could be a "significant" part of the package.
You apparently found some people who think we could cover 100% of the deficit with taxes on the rich, I know I'm not one of them. If the OP was only addressed to a few posters, it might have helped to name them.
* Note that the allocation of Corp income tax to individuals is difficult. The CBO has historically allocated 100% of CIT to all owners of capital. That makes sense in a closed economy. However, as capital has become much more mobile than workers, there's a case for allocating a significant piece to workers instead of capital.