We’re Not Broke, a new award-winning documentary, may convince viewers that the American tax-collection system is even more compromised than they thought. The title may elicit objections from deficit hawks, but the film shows that Uncle Sam has enormous assets in addition to its towering debts; the U.S. Treasury just isn’t taking in nearly as much money as it’s shoveling out. The filmmakers suggest that balance would be restored if only giant corporations did not take advantage of loopholes to lower or eliminate their tax liability. Unfortunately, however, they give the viewers nothing to put into perspective the size of the budget deficits and the amount of revenue the IRS might haul in absent such loopholes (assuming that corporate earnings stayed the same).

The expert talking heads in the film seem intelligent enough to know that a business (whether incorporated or not) cannot “pay” a tax, but only remits such on behalf of the actual payers. That is, only people pay taxes. So the amount a business remits is actually a tax borne by its workers in the form of lower wages; by the consumers of its products in the form of higher prices; or by its bondholders and stockholders in the form of lower after-tax rates of return. This is awkward for the filmmakers, because all those teachers, firemen and policemen rely on pension funds that are invested in the stocks and bonds issued by the tax-avoiding corporations.

Yet the film’s important message stands: The U.S. tax code is enormously complex and highly inequitable. Very wealthy corporations and individuals pay huge sums to lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to find ways to lower their tax liabilities. And politicians like that kind of tax code. The political game is that high marginal tax rates lead to big campaign contributions for politicians who carve out loopholes, credits, deductions and exclusions. The rest of us merely grumble about excessive taxation and mail it in.

Advocates of a simple, uniform tax system argue that tax policy should aim to raise the maximum revenue with the fewest distortions. In response, Congressmen will often object that the status quo allows them to encourage or discourage certain kinds of consumption or investment, by way of sin taxes or charitable deductions, for example. They believe tax policy should be used to alter individual behavior in order to achieve some desired social outcome. So is the tax system’s purpose to efficiently and equitably raise revenue to pay for services provided by government? Or is it to alter social behavior as well? The film criticizes corporate tax avoidance, but given the scope of the system’s problems, viewers will not be convinced that all would be well if General Electric paid taxes to the Treasury instead of fees to lobbyists.

The best and lasting point made in We’re Not Broke is that politicians, lobbyists, and corporate political action committees have a big stake in the current tax system. Expensive as they are, it’s still a lot cheaper to pay lawyers and accountants to find loopholes than to pay the taxes mandated by very high marginal rates. If the rates were lower, it would be cheaper to pay the tax than to pay the lobbyists and accountants. But then, politicians wouldn’t get their cut.

Unfortunately, We’re Not Broke doesn’t go anywhere near the subject of “unfunded entitlements.” We hear lots of big names saying the government needs more revenue, but the film avoids the real issue behind such assertions: Politicians make promises today that no amount of taxes imposed on future workers, or the businesses that employ them, can pay for. They won’t be around to confront the numbers when the bill comes due.

The filmmakers are correct, however, that the Federal government’s budget is always balanced, in a purely actuarial sense. All government spending is accounted for by current tax revenue, future tax revenue (budget surpluses) or by the implicit tax of debasing the currency—inflation. Our government can never be “broke” because the central bank printing press can always churn out enough greenbacks to keep from defaulting. It can promise to pay off debt with lots of American money in the future, but can’t guarantee how much bread its currency will buy.

Nevertheless, the film shines a bright light on how crass political interests have played a role in the creation of a nightmarishly complex tax policy. Viewers may not understand all the talk about transfer pricing with Irish subsidiaries or the use of P.O. boxes in setting up shell companies in the Cayman Islands, but they will find reinforcement for their belief that the system is badly broken. They may also gain a better understanding of why their elected representatives will only talk about the need for reform, but never vote to give us a uniform, simple, fair system for raising the revenue necessary to pay for government services.