The preference of average citizens appears to be almost immaterial to what Congress actually does. Instead, interest groups and rich people are the ones who win. E.g.: https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...

There are also 1.2 million tax preparers in the US. I'm not going to vote for somebody who has the wrong opinion on, e.g., abortion just because they're going to make my taxes easier but if the change to taxes was going to eliminate my job I'd feel differently.

Also, the complex nature of the US tax code means that the people who've put effort into gaming the system and the dishonest also stand to lose if move to a more reasonable system.

So it's really not just about the campaign contributions but actual substantial interest groups.

You can't have a right or wrong opinion, its just an opinion.

Of course you can. It's a matter of perspective. From your viewpoint, someone else that has an opposing opinion has the "wrong" opinion. That's what GP was saying.

Maybe it would have been clearer if they said "position" instead?

It appears your opinion on the matter is wrong.

It's just a manner of expression, they simply mean someone they disagree with.

Lobbying + campaign contributions. + the knowledge that as long as they don't change the situation, they'll be able to expect future campaign contributions.

I agree that may be a factor in more controversial issues where siding with lobbyists doesn't come at the cost of alienating a huge majority of your constituents. This seems different.

Almost everyone (from what I understand) agrees, so it's a pretty clear case where we should be able to call out those lawmakers and say "you're obviously only doing this for the money/job security - you can't even pretend to be against it on principle."

There are many issues that are in similar spots. The go to strategy to deal with those has been to either:

(1) ignore it completely if it's not getting sufficient media coverage to cause outrage or (2) control the coverage by making it seem as if the public is divided, typically using various forms of poor (but effective) arguments, statistically invalid polling, and research that only gets published if it produces the desired result

I'd say this falls into the first category.

Maybe lobbying and the current rules about campaign finance are undemocratic and should be changed, but meantime where's the lobbying group where we can donate to advocate for tax simplification?

I used to think it was Americans for Tax Reform, now I think Tax Policy Center is the closest thing, but while Bankman has worked a lot with them in the past, in this article they seem at least ambivalent if not opposed to it.

Any other suggestions of which nonprofit lobbying organizations can be used to offset the impact of Americans for Tax Reform, Intuit, and other organizations who favor tax complexification?

> So how is it that lobbying alone is enough to persuade lawmakers to take the side of Intuit et al.?

The lobbying is a big part, but the other part is anti-tax ideologues in Congress want to keep the tax process as painful as possible so that people are as angry as possible about taxes, to maximize support for and engagement on anti-tax policies.

If a policy would bring a small benefit to a large number of people, but a large loss to a small number, the small group is much more motivated to fight against the policy, and will often win. This is why it is generally not possible to abolish special programs, shrink the size of the government, etc.

Also note that the "pure flat tax" idea earlier in this discussion and the "universal basic income" idea discussed elsewhere on this website have the same problem: the promised simplification comes from eliminating a bunch of special programs, exemptions, benefits etc., which is impossible.