5. A Fair Tax Code

From http://www.the99declaration.org/a_fair_tax_code?page=1

A complete reformation and simplification of the United States Tax Code to require ALL individuals and corporations to pay a fair share of a progressive, graduated income tax by eliminating loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and unfair deductions, subsidies and ending all other methods of evading income taxes. 

The current system of taxation unjustly favors the wealthiest Americans and corporations, many of who pay fewer taxes to the United States Treasury than citizens who earn much less and pay a much higher percentage of their incomes in taxes. Any corporation or entity that does business in the United States and generates income from that business in the United States shall be fully taxed on that income regardless of corporate domicile or they will be barred from earning their profits in the United States.

This will allow honest companies and individuals who pay their fair share in income taxes to take over those markets in the United States economy formerly held by income tax cheats.

Businesses and individuals that pay taxes in other countries will no longer be permitted to use that excuse to justify their failure to pay federal income tax in the United States if they obtain benefits from doing business in the United States.

Corporations that create jobs in the United States will be rewarded by the tax code and corporations that remove jobs from the United States will be penalized by the tax code. The substitution of lower capital gains tax rates for graduated income tax rates shall be eliminated. This $4 billion a year “hedge fund loophole” which permits certain individuals engaged in financial transactions to evade graduated income tax rates by treating their income as long-term capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate (approximately 15%) than income tax.

Wow, I almost don't even want to tackle this one. There is a ridiculous number of conflicting ideas out there. They all have their pros and cons, on paper, but who knows what's actually going to work? And what does "fair" mean?

First things first, let's look at what's proposed here. We're looking at a progressive income tax (which is what we have now). It says, "eliminating unfair tax breaks, exemptions and unfair deductions [and] subsidies," so I'm not sure if we're talking about pruning the exemptions, etc, or eliminating them altogether. This also seeks to have corporations pay income tax the same as individuals do, and to have all income treated the same.
So, I think that what this proposes is essentially the system that we have now, but with no way to reduce the amount of tax that you owe, and everyone has to pay the same graduated rate on each tier of income, regardless of its source. In simpler terms: if you get money, you owe tax on it.
Generally, I'm OK with that.

When we talk about a "fair" tax, that can mean lots of things. To me, I think that we're talking about a system in which everyone shoulders the burden of having a government, but no one is overburdened by it. If any of your citizens cannot afford basic living expenses because of taxation, there's a problem with the tax.
Many people favor a flat tax -- one percentage that everyone pays regardless of income level. That sounds fair. My unease comes from the natural fact that in order to collect the same amount of revenue that we do now, the lowest earners would necessarily have their tax rate raised. In some cases (and I probably fall into this category), that tax rate increase would be the difference between affording basic living expenses and not. That should be unacceptable regardless of where you fall in the spectrum.

There are people who propose getting all revenue from other taxes and doing away with income tax altogether. I could find myself in this camp. For instance, if income tax was eliminated, and sales tax was raised, a person would be taxed more on their lifestyle than their income. The sales tax would have to become much more complicated, however, which could lead to exactly the same problems that we have now.
You would need food to be untaxed (as it is now), essentials (such as clothing and toiletries) either untaxed or mildly taxed, housing mildly taxed, and luxuries highly taxed (which could vary depending on the type of luxury -- electronics might be a mid-range tax, but a blimp would be very highly taxed). With all of these categories, who determines what product falls into which category? How do you ensure that the proper tax is paid when an item is bought? What happens when people stop buying blimps because they're taxed at 300%? Where does that leave the blimp industry?

So, here's my biggest problem with this whole thing: I'm not an economist. I can read about different plans all day long -- I still have no idea what's going to work. I'm really leaning toward thinking that instead of demanding sweeping reform and outlining a plan, we instead demand reform, period. Get the ball rolling.
We need incremental changes. Implement parts of one plan, and see how they work. Adjust as necessary. Implement some other bits and pieces. Adjust. Implement, adjust. I'm fine with starting with eliminating loopholes. That seems like it's just common sense.
Anything beyond that needs to be taken slow and measured against results.