The reason these bizarre exceptions are included in the tax law is to give people who have the ability and resources to identify them the opportunity to get off paying their share. If you can afford lawyers and accountants, or now, software, you get to pay less.

I don't believe in sales taxes or a flat income tax, I think people who have more resources should not only pay more in tax, they should also pay a higher proportion of their income/wealth in taxes. After all, the basic necessities of life, like a gallon of gas or a quart of milk, cost the poor the same as they do the rich, but they take up a much larger proportion of their income. You can legitimately argue that taxes are too high, or that some income group may be penalized unfairly compared to another, but above all, a tax law should be simple and determined strictly by easily calculated mathematical parameters.

I think everyone should pay x per cent taxes on all income over a $y standard deduction, where x and y are determined periodically by the elected legislature to reflect the needs of the nation. Let's try and get back to the old Conservative principle that income taxes should be used to raise revenue, not try to influence behavior or encourage or discourage certain activities. Complexity only breeds contradictions and inefficiencies with no economic justification other than they are "good for tax purposes". Not only would this make taxes so simple that we could save billion$ in IRS infrastructure, lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, lunatic tax dodges, etc, it would also convince the people that if they don't like their taxes, or what they're getting for them, the only way they can fix it is at the ballot box.