What should be taxed? How would you change the tax system?  

I agree with taxing inheritance more, let people leave just over the average house price then the rest goes to the state.
That would also increase public spending as pensioners would have no reason to sit on the wealth.
I don't think this violates anyones rights because if you can leave more than enough for a house you won't have to worry about your kids.
I'm not sure about taxing income rather than consuptsion, the latter gives you more control but it hits the poor harder and both reduce public spending.
I think income maybe reduces spending less because the super wealthy wouldn't have spent as much as they are taxed anyway?

But if people on min wage don't get taxed then we are not sharing equaly, for us to share equaly the less you earn the higher the rate of tax you would have to pay.
I think tax is a useful tool for controling peoples choices and therfore I would not set out to tax people equaly but rather according to their decisions.

Cuba is a communist country with a top income tax rate of 50%

That would certainly simplify things but what would be the effect of no cgt? would people become more short termist?
Would this raise enough money? No VAT, no stamp duty, no import duties etc? Plus more opportunities to play the system, profit is opinion.

i was not talking about Capital Gains Tax that is based on your investment that could also be taxed at a flat rate. right now our income tax is something that could be simplified to the point where we could shrink the IRS and make it easy for any one to file. for lets say we made income 10% taxed. if you make 100,000 you pay 10,000. if you make 10,000 a year you pay 1,000. its that simple but right now if you make this much you have to deduct this much cause you qualify for this and you are this and this can help you deduct here. we as Americans get so fed up with Corporations cheating on taxes but we have a tax code so convoluted that it allows it. but if a small business makes a mistake they get nailed to the wall and destroyed.

If you end up paying the same rate whatever you do then why would people change ther behaviours?
If all oil companies have to pay more tax to cover spills dosen't that discourage any company from improving safty because they would bare all the cost and only a proportion of the benefit?

I find the "needs to be a progressive system" bit interesting, in the west it seems to be assumed without question that the rich should pay proportunatly more, remember the outrage about private equity paying less than their cleaner?
I wonder what the attitude is in places with regressive systems, do they see it as unfair?
Here there is a big problem with people being paid more to stay on benifits than to work, if a regressive system took the same amount of money out of the economy it would still have less impact because it wouldn't keep people out of jobs.

I don't know what people think in countries with regressive tax systems, but i do think that a system like that is not fair since the value of money decreases with the earnings. I mean that paying 2000€ of taxes on a 8000€ yearly wage is surely more impacting on the financial situation tha paying 40000€ on an 80000€ wage.
Of course a regressive system is a great way to deal with tax evasion of the upper middle class in countries with scarce fiscal control, but anyway i don't find it fair. As i stated before if strict fiscal control to avoid fiscal evasion can't be implemented it is best to tax indirectly the consumption of goods (even in a differentiated way to encourage certain behaviours and discourage others).
The second point you addressed is an important one, but i think that welfare benefits for unemployment should be a certain percent less than the minmum wage, and i am quite sure that in order to be able to receive them you have to be in a list of people who are seeking a job and if a job is found you have to either accept it or lose the subside.
In my country anyway there is no such think as unemployment subside there is just a temporary measure that gives workers who have just being fired a certain percent of their last salary, but this system is not universal and is applied on a case by case evaluation (usually when massive firings are performed by industrial plants or something like that to avoid social problems in a certain region)

your views on the progressive tax seem unfair from the get go. four weeks ago i started a new job my old job i made 8.50 an hour i paid about $20 a pay check in taxes. my new job i get 12 an hour and have already paid about 100 dollars a check taxes. it seems the more i work and strive to better myself the more i have to pay to be better or make better money. now if we export this same example to a small business owner who files his income at 100,000 he may pay sin some places in the US up to 40% of his income as taxes thats some one who on paper makes 100 grand but really only has 60 to live off of and thats before he reinvests that into his business. a progressive tax in my view punishes the hard working.

Of course i am talking about personal income tax when i suggest a progressive system, since it would be nonsense for business.
I believe anyway that is more fair to tax more those who earn more. The reason for this is that taking away a certain sum to a lower income will make this people reduce consumption of more vital things than taking money from someone who already earns a lot.
I intend if someone has to save on food in order to pay taxes is a lot worse than making someone else buy a smaller car or a less sofisticated phone.
It could seem unfair to the person who earns more but overall this system makes the society as a whole better. Obviously some will have to pay more and will be unhappy for this since they will no more be able to buy certain non essential goods, but those money will be used to reduce taxes to lower incomes giving them the possibility to buy more basic stuff like food and shelter.