If you’re like most taxpayers, you probably haven’t thought much about filing yet this year. Not because you’re lazy, but because taxes are such a dreadful chore.

No one can blame you on this complaint, not even Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who last Thursday remarked that our current tax system is “an abomination” in its complexity and arcane nature. He has promised a series of reports outlining the sheer complexity of the code with respect to both individual filers and corporations later this year.

Laudable as this is, it doesn’t take a report to tell most Americans what is already apparent to them – our income tax system is a complicated mess. Anyone who has had to file anything other than your standard 1040EZ form knows this. The New York Times reports, “The tax law required 1.4 million words, 650 tax forms and 13,000 pages of explanation,” leading almost half of all taxpayers to seek professional help in filing.

Despite this knowledge, Congress has been unforthcoming for the last two decades with any means of solving this crisis. Every “tax reform” passed thus far (including President Bush’s now infamous tax cut) has only proven to complicate the system by adding more exemptions and new definitions rather than to streamline the system as a whole.

In addition to the complexity offered to the individual filer, our tax code is riddled with loopholes that are fixed by new loopholes and more red tape, most of these provided courtesy of competing special interest groups. It’s no wonder corporations are taking flight in a mass exodus and moving their headquarters to Bermuda – our tax system is a nightmare for businesses.

Clearly, “fixing” the tax code by amendment and patching won’t solve the larger problem of complexity. In fact, like every other attempt, it will probably serve to make things worse. Instead, what is needed is a new system as a whole, one that is simple, easy to understand and free of red tape.

The best hope to eliminate all of this would be to scrap our tax code in its entirety and replace it with a national consumption tax. Analogous to a sales tax, it would serve as a tax on end-consumer goods purchased by individuals and businesses with an exemption for necessary goods such as food and clothing.

How much would such a tax be? Analysists at the Cato Institute estimate that at the current rate of government spending, a rate of 15 percent would be sufficient to cover all government expenditures, a paltry sum compared to how much Americans pay each year in income taxes right now.

One of the main advantages of such a system is the massive savings in time and money to both individuals and businesses – money that can be better used toward savings, investment, and increased spending, providing a boon to a sagging economy.

In addition, a consumption tax places the tax burden upon those who have usually escaped taxation through ill-gotten income, both by criminals, such as drug dealers and prostitutes; undocumented workers, who take in cash income; and traditional “tax cheats,” who simply use “creative accounting” to avoid taxation.

Were such people to spend money in a legitimate market (which one is generally forced to do for some goods), their spending is subject to taxation, contributing to an otherwise empty sector of the current tax base.

Further, a national consumption tax eliminates the problem of “double and triple taxation,” namely taxation that occurs first at the payroll level (payroll taxes), second at the individual level (individual income tax), and third if this money is used to produce more wealth (interest and capital gains taxes).

Objections to this system stem from both sides. Conservatives decry that such a tax would be “bad for business and consumer spending.” Yet how is a system that causes business and consumer income to be sucked into a black hole of red tape each year better?

Our current system is a “wealth sink,” one that requires money to be spent on services that do nothing to increase net wealth, such as time and money spent on interpreting tax laws. Likewise, liberals accuse such a tax of being regressive and unfair to the poor, yet this objection falls flat: A consumption tax targets spending on nonessential goods (goods outside of food and clothing). Thus, the opposite claim is true: Those who spend more, such as those spending money on luxuries and expensive good, are likely to pay more. The poor and middle class actually fare far better under such a system.

Will Congress ever pass such a simplified system? Probably not. But here’s to hoping.

Steve Skutnik is a senior in physics from Palm Harbor, Fla. He is currently the Election Commissioner for GSB.