Flat Tax does not equal Simple Tax

With Americans once again getting excited about Bush's latest proposal to shift taxes from the rich to the poor/lower middle class (his latest tax reform musings), I am reminded once again of one of the strangest things in the world of taxes: the idea that a flat tax is equivalent to a simple tax:

The Canadian Income Tax Act is hundreds and hundreds of small print pages long. How much shorter would it be if we instituted a flat tax here?

Well, we'd have to take out the following section (from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-3.3/67357.html):

"The tax payable under this Part by an individual on the individual's taxable income or taxable income earned in Canada, as the case may be, (in this subdivision referred to as the "amount taxable") for a taxation year is

(a) 16% of the amount taxable, if the amount taxable does not exceed $30,754;

(b) $4,921 plus 22% of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $30,754, if the amount taxable exceeds $30,754 and does not exceed $61,509;

(b.1) $11,687 plus 26% of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $61,509, if the amount taxable exceeds $61,509 and does not exceed $100,000; and

(c) $21,695 plus 29% of the amount by which the amount taxable exceeds $100,000, if the amount taxable exceeds $100,000."

I pasted it here in full just to show how short it is (and believe me, if you put it in the font they use for the tax act, it would look even shorter).

The simple fact is that things like the RRSP program, the Child Tax Benefit, the deductions for charitable donations and so on, create far more text in the act than the three tax brackets do.

So if people want to reduce taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor/lower middle class then they should advocate this. If they want to get rid of all the deductions in the tax act (including the child tax credit, RRSP program etc.) then they should advocate this instead.

The effort to hide the true nature of what a flat tax is suggests to me that proponents know that it is not supported by the majority of the population and that in order to get it passed they have to deceive and manipulate people.

If you think I'm wrong, I'd like to hear a counter-argument because I can't think of any.

The question of whether or not we should have progressive taxation (we should), I'll leave for another day, but when we talk about a flat tax, we should be clear that that is indeed the question we are discussing. Simplicity is an entirely different issue.