"Well, of course not. Their mission was not to reduce taxes but to find a better way to collect the same or more taxes. I don't want to pay the same or more, I want to pay less."
So you are only considering the taxes themselves and not the inefficiency of the system that is used to collect them. IOW, you are interested in tax relief, which is a completely separate and distinct issue, rather than tax reform. In addition, if there were a way to save American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars collectively in compliance costs, that would be of no interest to you, either, since that would not, in and of itself, change the total amount of taxes that you pay.
"So you are only considering the taxes themselves and not the inefficiency of the system that is used to collect them. IOW, you are interested in tax relief, which is a completely separate and distinct issue, rather than tax reform. In addition, if there were a way to save American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars collectively in compliance costs, that would be of no interest to you, either, since that would not, in and of itself, change the total amount of taxes that you pay."
First of all, don't put words into my mouth in an attempt to make it seem that I'm indifferent to others.
Second, you confuse two different principles. A tax is efficient to the extent that the cost to the government is low compared to the amount of revenues raised. The cost of compliance is not borne by the government, it is therefore, irrelevent to the question of efficiency.
Third, my point is that I want the taxes of all Americans to go down. The best and quickest way to that objective is to reduce the cost of government. Any 'revenue neutral' proposal, by definition, does nothing to achieve that objective.