A more thorough examination of Romney’s tax returns; he was able to take advantage of capital loss carryovers from 2009 into 2010 and 2011, reducing his overall income. There were also significant donations, which reduce his effective tax rate - including significant donations to the Mormon Church, George W. Bush Library, BYU, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Business School, and the charity Homes For Our Troops.

Seems that he was diligent in making sure he paid SS taxes on the hired help (an issue that has affected numerous politicians over the years).

Of course with an effective tax rate of 14%, that’s far lower than many people in the marginal tax brackets from 25-35%. Those in the middle class usually have so little in the way of capital gains or carried interest that is taxed at the lower rate that their effective rate is closer to the marginal rate than in Romney’s case.

Would simplification solve this particular problem? The lawyerly answer is - it depends. If you treat all capital gains and interest the same as wages, you might have a transition period in which things are more complex. If you create a bracket system so that only high income earners are hit with a higher capital gains/interest rate than those in the middle class, you’d have a much more complex system.

It would also depend on whether the politics results in a revenue neutral system, or one that draws more or less revenue - all in the name of expediency to pass any kind of tax reform package.

As it stands, the tax code is needlessly complex and can give those with the means the opportunity to legally reduce their tax burdens far below anything that was originally contemplated.