Shock. Anger. Outrage.

That was the response to the New York Times’ weekend story that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump may have paid no federal income taxes for 18 years because of a $916 million net operating loss he claimed on his 1995 tax return, pages of which were obtained by the Times.

There was no implication of anything illegal on Trump’s part. To the contrary, the U.S. tax code enabled Trump to carry over a loss — two years back and 18 forward — to offset more than $50 million of income a year during that period, according to tax experts consulted by the Times.

The story provided fodder for cable TV into the beginning of the week. A welcome relief from Miss Universe, to be sure, but the agitation over Trump’s entirely legal tax deductions struck me as misplaced.

“ One can accuse Donald Trump of a lot of things, but minimizing or erasing his tax liability isn’t one of them. ”

Public outrage would be better directed at the U.S. tax code, not Trump: at a system that provides huge tax breaks and write-offs for real estate developers and other businesses; at the growing army of lobbyists camped out on Capitol Hill to do their clients’ bidding; and at our democratically elected representatives, who submit to pressure from special interest groups, crafting carve-outs and exemptions for every imaginable constituency.

For decades, the entire discussion in Washington has been focused on tax rates and the tax code’s degree of progressivity, or who pays how much. President Barack Obama has spent eight years arguing that the rich need to pay their fair share. (In 2013, the top 1% earned 19% of the adjusted gross income in the U.S. and paid 38% of the federal income tax. The reader can determine the fairness of that share.) Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has pledged to raise taxes on the rich and cut taxes for the middle class, with a targeted tax break for every conceivable category of voter.

The 75,000-page tax code is complicated enough without targeting tax hikes or tax cuts for specific quintiles of taxpayers. What we need in this country is honest-to-goodness tax reform.

During the 2008 presidential primary campaign, businessman Herman Cain advocated his “9-9-9” plan, which called for a 9% tax on personal income, corporate income and retail purchases. I countered with my plan for a tax system that adhered to the “three F’s”: flatten it (the rates), fix it and forget it.

In the interim, I have pretty much given up on the idea of meaningful tax reform. There are too many well-funded interest groups and too many members of Congress willing to participate in pay-to-play to put national interest over self-interest, although a flat tax would satisfy both needs. But one can always dream.

In an ideal world, the tax code would be simple enough to put accountants and tax-preparation firms out of business. (Most of us would be happy to subsidize the re-training necessary for an alternate line of work.) “Simple” means no deductions, no exemptions, no loopholes. None. Zero.

Tax rates should be constant, allowing households and businesses to plan accordingly, instead of being subject to the vagaries of the business and election cycle. They should be designed to promote economic growth, not punish success. They should be low enough to reduce the incentive to shift or shelter income to avoid taxes, all of which constitutes inefficient economic activity.

Clinton says Trump not paying fair share of taxes

The aim of the tax code should to raise enough money to meet the appropriate needs of government. (The Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn what qualifies as “appropriate” today.) Instead the tax code has become increasingly complex, constituting a drain on our time and finances.

Americans now spend an estimated 6.1 billion hours a year in tax preparation. Because time is money, the cost of tax preparation — including out-of-pocket expenses for accountants and software — comes to an estimated $234 billion, according to the National Taxpayers Union. Imagine the boost to productivity if that time were in constructive activity.

Trump did himself no favors at last week’s debate with his response to Clinton’s suggestion that he may have paid no income taxes, saying “that makes me smart.” Another candidate — someone who is more versed in policy or who really is out to help the Little Guy — would have taken advantage of the huge TV audience to illustrate the inequities of the loophole-ridden tax code, describe the benefits that accrue to the rich, and argue for something better.

Instead, Trump and his minions resorted to their standard fall back: Because Trump has exploited the tax laws to their fullest, he is the only one suited to fix them.

One can accuse Trump of a lot of things, but minimizing or erasing his tax liability isn’t one of them. Trump is doing what most of us would do if we were wealthy real estate tycoons with a cadre of tax lawyers paid to ferret out every last loophole and deduction.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said “the rich are different from you and me.” Yes, they are. They have better tax attorneys.

Caroline Baum covers the economy and the Federal Reserve for MarketWatch.