When a temporary cap on the A.M.T. expires this year, the group projects that those percentages will rise to 93.7 percent for taxpayers reporting income of $200,000 to $500,000 and just over 50 percent for those reporting more than $1 million. And barring Congressional action, 45.3 percent of taxpayers earning $75,000 to $100,000 will be snared. People with large families who live in high tax states tend to be especially hard hit.

The alternative minimum tax remains in effect even though there seems to be bipartisan agreement that it is an abomination, and despite repeated recommendations that it be abolished or substantially reformed. Mr. Burman was a deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy in the Clinton administration. “The one policy triumph I had while I was at Treasury was a proposal to cut the A.M.T. on a permanent basis,” he said. “But nothing happened,” largely because it’s expected to generate over $1 trillion in revenue over the next decade, revenue that would have to be offset by budget cuts or new taxes or some combination of the two.

Equally rankling to many is New York City’s unincorporated business tax, which is “charged to every individual or unincorporated entity carrying on a trade, business or profession — in whole or part — in New York City,” according to the New York City Department of Finance. “I despise it,” Mr. Willens said. (As head of his own firm, Robert Willens L.L.C. in New York City, he pays the tax.) “You’ve already paid federal, state and local income tax on the same income. It’s double taxation. It’s odious. I hate it. The self-employed are supposed to be the backbone of the economy. They’re treated very harshly. I guess there’s no organized lobby for the self-employed.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed cutting or eliminating the tax (and city residents paying the tax now get a small credit). But, like the alternative minimum tax, it has proved impervious to serious change, presumably because it generates too much revenue.

The experts I consulted were unanimous that the only hope for a more equitable tax burden was sweeping tax reform. Given the myriad inequities and perverse consequences embedded in the current tax code, it would seem an alluring opportunity for presidential candidates, and some of the Republicans have made tax policy a centerpiece of their campaigns. But so far no one, including President Obama, has come forward with a credible plan that addresses the inequities while confronting the realities of the federal deficit.

“The State of the Union address was horrible on tax policy,” Mr. Burman said. “The so-called Buffett rule, to make sure millionaires pay a 30 percent rate, is just another version of the A.M.T. And the idea of taxing at a higher rate corporations who build plants outside the U.S.? That’s going to be a mess. I wouldn’t want to be doing tax planning when that kicks in. Maybe we don’t care about inequity or inefficiency, but we should. What we need is substantial tax reform.”

And the Republican candidates, Mr. Burman said, are “basically advocating tax cuts for rich people. Their proposals are even more regressive than the Bush tax cuts and current law. And they’re all in complete denial about the budget situation.” According to the Center for Tax Policy, Mr. Romney’s tax proposals would lower federal tax revenue by $600 billion in 2015, and would increase after-tax income for those earning more than $1 million by 14.5 percent, the largest gain for any income level. According to the Urban Institute’s resident fellow Howard Gleckman, Mr. Gingrich’s even more generous tax proposals would lower federal tax revenue by nearly $1.3 trillion in 2015.