> At 04:17 PM 10/12/2004, frank scott wrote:
>
>> "...I suppose everyone just hires someone to do this crap but man o man
>> o man!
>> this is insane..."
>>
>> why should it be different from the system it serves? but be careful,
>> our frustration leads into an argument for the flat tax...the most
>> appealing part of jerry brown's pitch for one was that the whole tax
>> form would be the size of a post card...
>>
>> fs
>
>
> I wouldn't waste my time on it, but why not a graduated flat tax?
>
> Aside from which, as best I can tell, the IRS just likes to play hide
> the salami. snark snark.
>
>
> Kelley
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
My memory from tax class - Canadian but I believe that the same reasoning applies in the US - is that any changes to the tax code are "layered" on top of previous legislation - so if some tax is cut, raised, or changed - the existing language is kept, but some accountant in the tax department figures out how to add to the tax code so that the overall effect is the same. Its like what programmers would call "backwards compatibility." And in fact that might be the reason - so that if you have to go back and recalculate your taxes from x years ago, the current tax code still applies.
Owen