[csense]

The problem is that loopholes are largely monotonic.

Every loophole that exists was originally a political favor to some important constituency. There are always important constituencies seeking political favors, or embattled politicians or parties seeking new allies; so there will always be pressure to create new loopholes.

If a loophole's in danger of going away, its constituency will scream bloody murder. Republicans who vote to eliminate it will be painted as "raising taxes;" ever since Bush I promised not to raise taxes, raised taxes anyway, and then lost the White House, a lot of Republicans have been very afraid of this political attack. So there will always be pressure to avoid closing existing loopholes.

So loopholes are monotonic -- they can only increase over time.

The only way we could conceivably get out of this situation is if our tax code becomes so complex, everyone -- even the beneficiaries of the loopholes -- is angry and upset at the complexity and costs of paying, and decides to support throwing the whole thing out and starting fresh. This scenario probably requires a united government (same party controlling Presidency and both houses) which is willing to make the issue a priority. It's probably not going to happen in this year's election, unless a major event occurs between now and Election Day.

[WildUtah]

The only way we could conceivably get out of this situation is if our tax code becomes so complex, everyone -- even the beneficiaries of the loopholes -- is angry and upset at the complexity and costs of paying, and decides to support throwing the whole thing out and starting fresh. This scenario probably requires a united government

The last time it happened in 1986, the House was Democratic and the Ways And Means Committee was run by famously corrupt but effective old-time Chicago pol Dan Rostenkowski. The Senate was Republican and liberal West Coast Oregon Republican Bob Packwood was running the Senate Finance Committee. President Ronald Reagan and his tax policy chief Donald Regan were more right wing than the Koch brothers and Michelle Bachmann combined.

Together they pushed through the biggest tax reform in the nation's history.[0]

There was nothing united about US government in 1986. It's hard to imagine a political spectrum as disunited and full of genuine differences today. Nevertheless, Reagan bet his second term policy agenda on tax reform and Rostenkowski arranged an unprecedented public media campaign and put himself on television selling the Reagan idea to the people and his own party. The reform was pushed through with bipartisan support and only oil companies and employee benefits escaped unscathed. All the other pressure groups had to give for the national good.

The difference is not a united government. We had united government in 2003-04 and 2009-10 and it didn't do any good. The difference is leadership. This year we don't have much leadership available in Washington from either party and the challengers in the coming election seem even less likely to offer any.

So don't get your hopes up.

[0] Showdown At Gucci Gulch by Murray and Birnbaum is the classic book about the 1986 reform

[encoderer]

> President Ronald Reagan and his tax policy chief Donald Regan were more right wing than the Koch brothers and Michelle Bachmann combined

I think this is where your memory skews.

By the standards of the time, that is true.

But today? Reagan supported AMNESTY. He supported a tax reform bill that RAISED some taxes. EITC??? That's a means-tested welfare program to try to lift working poor above the poverty line.

I grew up a liberal. I still am, but I'll be honest, my idealism is tested by our tax rate and fiscal ignorance. If you have no kids or mortgage, live in California and make over 100k -- in other words if you're like most software engineers in bay area startups -- you pay an obscene tax rate. And I'd even be OK with that if Sacramento and D.C. were good stewards of our tax dollars. But, of course, they're not.

Still, I have no choice but vote Democratic. I could vote 3rd party and waste my vote. But today's breed of hyper-partisan, non-fact-base Republicans just are not a serious alternative.

[twoodfin]

"Yesteryear's Republicans were reasonable. It's just this crop that's a bunch of know-nothing radical fascist reactionaries" was said in the 1980's as much as it's said today. It was said in 1994 about Newt Gingrich and Co. just a few years before they worked with President Clinton to reform welfare and balance the budget. "This is not your father's Republican party" was a favorite line of House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, if I recall correctly.

[Evbn]

California taxes pay for California, and SV engineers owe their industry to Californka being California.

[blake8086]

I think Bush said "no new taxes" and then raised existing taxes.

[csense]

This actually supports my point.

I've read in several places that the public perceived it as a broken promise and it's a major reason why he lost to Bill Clinton.

The message Republican politicians took away is: The public doesn't interpret anti-tax promises narrowly; if you make one, you'd better stay the heck away from anything that looks remotely like raising taxes.