Although Congress is sympathetic and the president determined, efforts to change the way the government collects its revenues (as distinct from attempts to simply raise or lower existing taxes) usually founder on the shoals of special interest opposition and institutional rigidity. “The cries for tax reform are cyclical,” notes Annette Nellen, professor of tax and accounting at the College of Business at San Jose State University in California. “It tends to come up every seven to 10 years.”

Reform schemes often come with distinctive tenets and fervent believers, all focused on the salvific goal of fundamentally changing the ways the government levies taxes. In the coming months, debates over the merits of perennial favorites such as the flat tax, the national sales tax and the value-added tax (VAT) will enliven the public discourse.

Each of these plans would affect the tax burdens borne by those in upper-income brackets. In most cases, affluent Americans would be the primary beneficiaries.

According to Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.: “A key purpose of tax reform is to reduce taxes on savings. And who does most of the saving? Rich people. Thus, to some extent, tax reform means substantial cuts for wealthy people.”