This nation’s tax code beanstalk is all about money.

Planted by government, nourished by greed and plundered by the moneyed as well as by the masses, the tax code has grown too massive, too complex and too crazy.

It would have been changed long ago if change did not gore so many oxen. Even the poorest of the poor among us benefit from adjustments to the tax code.

What is the function of taxes? It is to raise money to pay for expenses legislated by a governmental body. It is the responsibility of all people to pay a share of those legislated expenses, i.e. taxes.

It is generally believed that taxes should be fair. Fairness requires consideration of the wealth of the individual to be taxed. The greater the wealth, the higher the tax rate may be. The government’s expenses could be paid if every person calculated his or her income from any source and paid taxes on all of that income at a legislated rate.

The benefit to the public would be simplicity, transparency and, likely, lower taxes for all but the best tax evaders.

But wait. Here’s the rub.

The tax code has grown to its present size because of a pernicious custom. Tax reduction has been used to reward certain behaviors.

Is home ownership to be encouraged? Voila! Enter the mortgage interest deduction.

Is Corporation X facing stiff competition from abroad? Hey. Give them a tax break.

If Corporation Y wants a competitive edge, why not hire some very smart accountants to find loopholes in the tax law?

Examples of tax breaks would fill thousands of pages — just like the tax code.

Does it make sense to use reduction of taxes to reward what at any given time is thought to be good behavior?

Once a tax break is created, it is cast in stone. Try taking away even outrageous breaks for oil companies. Legal tax avoidance may well be the most expensive entitlement program in the United States.

Each tax break is a legal gift to some special interest. Once granted, it becomes another entitlement.

There are causes of national interest that may be in need of public support. Subsidies may be required.

The subsidies should be provided through openly enacted legislation. They should be time limited and subject to evaluation before the legislation is renewed.

Every tax break or loophole robs the government of needed revenue. The deductions apply in good times and bad.

In recessions, tax collections based upon income are significantly reduced. Demands for austerity escalate to a level of hysteria, but the tax deductions are not touched.

Budgeting would be easier with a clear, simple and predictable tax system. A transparent and simple tax system would be a psychological boon for almost everyone because there would be no tax-favored groups.

The existing system is patently unfair. For example, why do homeowners get a tax deduction but renters do not? Why do hospitals and religious groups avoid taxes on the profitable businesses they run?

Charities can make a case that they should not pay taxes on donations but what about profits earned?

Change to a simple tax system without deductions, however beneficial that would be, is a nonstarter in today’s political environment. A gradual change over a period of years might work but it is not likely.

Here is a challenge for the 99 percent. Tax code change is a demand that could grow legs if it were presented as part of a negotiated agreement.

Occupiers rail against the excesses of the 1 percent. Would the people in the 99 percent be willing to countenance making gradual reduction of mortgage interest deductions a matter for negotiation?

There is intransigence on all sides. Massive street demonstrations and violence have become the chief mechanisms for promoting change. They are inherently polarizing.

There is a better way. There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. A specific agenda for change supported by a receptive public would be a peaceful, productive way to implement change. Change of this magnitude requires a high level of trust among individuals and groups.

Confrontation dissolves trust. Negotiation from a position of equality enhances trust. Trust is an inherent ingredient in any effort at change.

Hubert Kauffman lives in Oxford.

letters@timesrecord.com