Because it'd put accountants, lawyers, and firms like these out of work.
Meanwhile, the accounting and tax lay industry is part of the lobbying effort to grow their business on the back end, rather than making the case to the customer on the front end. It'd double dealing.
So I'm hardly sympathetic, but yes considering there are an ass tonne of jobs that would just vanish overnight, there'd maybe need to be a transitional phase, just avoid an abrupt change. But how do you shrink a market in a non-disruptive and fair way considering it grew in a distruptive and unfair way in the first place?
it's not the free market when you lobby the GOVERNMENT to do what you want it to do
I imagine discussing relative merits within the range of roughly level four to level eight would be far more fruitful than the usual "my free market is tougher than your free market" posturing.
Our current system is the opposite of a free market. You can think of paying your monthly rent payment, your banking, etc. as (mostly) free market.
You can think of taxes, DMV, healthcare, etc. as not free market.
Rent is not really heavily regulated outside of California and New York. Similarly, banking is indeed regulated in specific sectors, but not really across the board
Politicians protecting an industry through action or inaction, no matter if its lobbyists or others suggesting that they do, isn't the free market.
Remember kids: If it's broken, apply Free Market liberally to the affected areas.
Are you suggesting complicated taxes isn't the government's fault?
A bunch of people with a lot of money have been able to lock in their positions. It sure feels like pulling out of the church of laissez-faire economics would let us, say, pass laws with things like price controls (or just nationalizing the whole industry!).
An aside: complicated taxes aren't the opposite of "free market". For example, giving tax incentives to new companies can help make a market more free by reducing the cost of entry.
It is all very well excluding corporate lobbying from your scholastic definition of a free market. Such a market will never exist anywhere for more than five minutes.
I think that we have a cultural problem. People chose to take out loans for their tertiary education because of our beliefs in the tertiary educational system. College is to get a job, but we believe it's there for us to "discover ourselves." And that's how we end up with accountants.
Sometimes I wish there was some website where non-partisan smart people scientifically identified the current problems and come up with a finite, exhaustive list of possible problems. And then, determine the amount of money it would take to test a hypothesis. If they do and it fails, then they must take into account that hypothesis and correct for it.
How much money would need to be raised?
It's just too bad that I've never encountered anyone in real life that thinks like this. It feels so intuitive when you approach it like a computer problem.
I think the problem is that that political science is paradoxical in itself and goes against on of the most important tenets of science and reason: that we must give up our beliefs if the evidence proves them wrong.
Is there anyone out there who is balanced enough to actually be bipartisan? How would one search for such a unicorn? Is it really impossible?