The Armey flat tax would have drastically simplified -- not necessarily improved -- the tax forms of anyone whose entire income was attributable to wages and pension disbursements. For anyone else, there would also be simplification, not because of the single rate, as you allude, but because the definition of income is simpler.
The Brown flat tax was quite different and had little of the simplification advantages of Hall-Rabushka-Armey.
> is in determining
> what is exactly income, not the arithmetic in figuring the tax
> after making that
> determination. Besides, isn't the primary purpose of the tax
> code to direct
> economic activity rather than raise revenue? That ain't a
> rhetorical question.
Reasonable people can differ on this, and when I find one I'll let you know. In the meantime, I'd suggest the use of tax rules to direct behavior is too easily bent to the benefits of concentrated interests and elites, so my bias is for simpler taxes that raise more revenue.
mbs