On Such as tax "laws" that really aren't red lines, as you noted, but are more a starting point for negotiations.

You sum this up quite succinctly here what I was trying to say on that past thread. I can't emphasize enough how much I believe this is the reality of that world, from learning much more about it the last couple years. It is what corporate tax attorneys do for a living. There are no red lines. It is mostly kept out of criminal law for very practical reasons of income all around, including income for the Treasury. It is civil law, and yes, exactly it's "a starting point for negotiations."

It's because of the complexity of our tax law. I actually see very old past arguments by Steve Forbes types about simplifying tax law in a whole different light now. Those types were not arguing trickle down as much as they were arguing anti-bureaucracy for freeing up capital and labor and energy into different pursuits than figuring accounting and taxes, on both sides of the game.  Fewer tax lawyers making big bucks, fewer IRS agents torturing over years trying to get people to write as big checks as possible without crossing a line where they go to court. Sometimes the latter could even be called extortion, they don't follow exact rules either, they are just trying to maximize income for the Treasury.

All of it quite cynical. Which encourages lack of respect for the gummint.

Very like the health insurance problem, actually, much of the complexity would go vamoose with single payer, lots of bureaucratic jobs gone too..