Given that the government needs more revenue than it's currently taking in, which will be hard to achieve, and that tax reform is also hard to achieve, I'm not sure what the point of proposing a revenue-neutral tax reform plan is. That said, Charlie Rangel's plan (PDF) seems pretty good within that constraint. Republicans are deriding it as the "Mother of All Tax Hikes" but many more people would see reductions, either due to AMT repeal or to modifications to several tax credits, than increases. The big revenue enhancements come from a "limitation of benefits of individual AMT repeal" provision that only applied to people making over $200,000 (and possibly even only people richer than that) and from elimination of the "carried interest" loophole for hedge fund and private equity fund managers.
Matthew Yglesias is a former writer and editor at The Atlantic.