Also, the idea of government creating a complex tax code just for funsies is naive. The tax code is huge because accounting is complicated, and taxation is basically a superset of accounting. The GAAP rules are 25,000 pages. That's probably the lower bound in how much you can simplify the tax code (without incorporating the GAAP by reference, which basically would outsource writing tax law to a private organization).

yes.

"The tax code is huge because accounting is complicated"

I'm not sure I buy that. How much active coordination is there between legislators and the Financial Accounting Standards Board for example? If the board says I need to keep records quarterly, does that necessarily imply that taxes must be collected quarterly? If I declare revenue as part of one fiscal year or the next, but the reality of when money hits my bank doesn't change, does that mean tax law must follow the accounting reality and not the bank's reality?

I'm sure you're right that "innovation" in the accounting space is taken advantage of in tax law, but I'd like to hear more about the degree of causal relationship that truly exists.

Tons of people in cheaper areas pay so little in interest and property taxes that they don't even itemize their deductions.

I don't know how it ever seemed like a good idea. If everyone can afford x% more housing cost, what happens? Housing costs get bid up by x%.

Accounting in large part is complicated because of the tax code. Revenues - Expenses = Profit is not complicated otherwise.

LOL. Nope.

This has been the conversation in every political debate for (at least) the past decade. It could be the one broad sentiment shared across party lines.

Almost everyone agrees on simplifying the tax code, especially corporate tax, it just becomes more difficult when vested interests are adversely affected when the rubber meets the road.

Intuit would lobby against it.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/turbotax-maker-funnels-mill...

If you simplify the code, it's bound to adversely affect some people, even if it helps others. The losers will loudly protest the changes and you will be a very unpopular politician. So it rarely happens.

This is not the case with all potential policy changes. Some go the other way (e.g. introducing trade tariffs - large benefit to minority in manufacturers, small negative impact on majority of consumers). And some changes benefit or hurt the majority greatly (e.g. minimum wages help a lot of people quite a bit).

Naw, they do upon occasion simplify it, see e.g. the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986) ... which allows them to start another cycle.

Except there are new changes to the tax code with some frequency

Not sure if it would be easy to find violations or to filter out 'correct usage' (which seems to have some level of subjectivity as well)

Benford's law seems to be a nice proxy for some kinds of frauds as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

I agree it should be simpler, but that would probably require a crisis bigger than the 30's.

The ability to navigate in the complexity is a good thing for those who can afford the financial advisor.

And because there is not one truth because there are not one interest it become impossible to look at it from a rational perspective.

So, it won't get simpler. It benefits IRS's strategy and many stakeholders using exemptions, too.