People argue that ideas for significantly reducing bureaucracy are simplistic; but won’t admit that their own arguments are equally simplistic. Sometimes their argument boils down to finding that the actions taken to make a smaller, simpler, and less expensive government would make large, complex, and expensive government impossible.
Narrow-view arguments allow for the “externalizing” of costs and benefits that are important factors in making a balanced decision. Industrial Agriculture likes to point to the cheap price of food in the stores, but that [not even counting environmental and human costs] is only a fraction of what the public is paying for that food — there are investment tax credits, school tax credits, electricity cost reduction, gas tax elimination, school tax credits that can return 100% of their tax from state tax revenues, and a host of subsidies, giveaways, and incentives, that are hidden from casual view.
A “Flat Tax” could free up a significant portion of the 75,000 IRS workers [and who knows how many tax preparers, lawyers, etc.] for other careers that would be of much more value to society; this is an “opportunity cost” that Flat Tax opponents don’t like to deal with. Or how about the benefits from not forcing the public to navigate the tax form bureaucracy? There would certainly be an upswing in productivity.
Any societal debate that doesn’t include all the costs and benefits, and doesn’t put the welfare of people as the most important factor is closing the door to our future.